Hot Topic --- Gay Marriage

[Sombeech]

This is the foremost political topic right now, neck and neck with immigration laws.

What are your opinions of Gay marriage? Are you for it, against it, or do you not care either way because it won't affect you?

[DirkHammergate]

What are your opinions of Gay marriage? Are you for it, against it, or do you not care either way because it won't affect you?

How about adding "It shouldn't be an issue"?

The less a Government legislates the better, I say kick it back to the State level.

[Sombeech]

The less a Government legislates the better, I say kick it back to the State level.

Agreed.

[rockgremlin]

Recognized by who? Legislators? Congress? General Public? All of the above?

[TreeHugger]

Recognized by governing offices in order to be allowed insurance, a voice in hospital care, etc?
Yes, they should be recognized.

Honestly, I'm really tired of legislators and paranoid ignoramouses telling me how gays getting married is going to destroy my marriage and that we need "protection" from the gays. Please. My marriage is secure, my faith is secure and granting some basic rights to those that love each other and want to legally represent that love does not harm me in any way whatsoever and I will not accept the bigotry involved with this ridiculous amendment.

[Sombeech]

Recognized by governing offices in order to be allowed insurance, a voice in hospital care, etc?

Not to be argumentative, but do unmarried homosexuals NOT have a vote, or a voice? Is marriage going to change the importance of their votes or opinions? I didn't think that would make a difference.

[Udink]

Not to be argumentative, but do unmarried homosexuals NOT have a vote, or a voice? Is marriage going to change the importance of their votes or opinions? I didn't think that would make a difference.
When did voting come into this topic? :ne_nau:

It would make a difference in many things. For instance, my wife could make medical decisions for me if I was incapacitated and in the hospital, but some Joe Schmoe off the street could not. Hospitals treat gay partners the same as Joe Schmoes, in that one has no legal say over medical treatment and such for the other.

[TreeHugger]

No, they dont. If a gay person's partner is in the hospital and needs decisions made as to the direction of their care, their partner, legally, cannot make that decsion, it has to come from a spouse or family member. I think that is crazy, who knows the person better than their partner? That's like saying that my husband doesnt know me well enough to make a medical decision for me so my mom has to, even though I havent lived with my mom for 20 years.
I believe that was one of the rights that got dumped when Amendment 3 was passed in Utah. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[DickHead]

How about this:
Marriage shouldn't be recognized nor should it be regulated by the state (IE, government). Its between two persons of legal age and thier chosen god or religion. The government needs to stop legislating morality!
:nono:

[James_B_Wads2000]

I put it best when I was talking about an article that was trying to deny rights for hetrosexual unmarried couples.


First of all this article sounds too far-fetched to be true. But if it is, that law or ordinance will never hold. Every state constitution has a clause dubbed, "equal protection under the law". It is only a matter of time until someone will sue and the ordinance will be overturned. It is the same thing when towns or states tried to pass law enforcing segregation or laws banning interracial marriage.

This is this same clause that every state is rushing to amend their constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. The state's amendments would give them the power to effectively ban gay marriage in their state. But the US Constitution also has an 'equal protection under the law' clause. And the Federal Constitution supersedes all state Constitutions. To amend the US Constitution is very hard to do and is doubtful that a marriage between man and woman would pass.

Whatever your feelings on gay marriage are, it seems likely that at some point in the future it will be backed by the government.

James

[Iceaxe]

The government needs to stop legislating morality!


:2thumbs:

Now.... can someone please explain how all these hookers got on my VISA card :haha:

[Sombeech]

If a gay person's partner is in the hospital and needs decisions made as to the direction of their care, their partner, legally, cannot make that decsion, it has to come from a spouse or family member.

If this is the main issue, could they change this to include partners? I thought there was already somewhere that you could state the "decision maker" on insurance forms, or on hospital waivers.

It seems it would be easier to tackle this insurance/liability issue, than to have each state legalize gay marriage. (by the way, I voted "let the states decide" in the poll, so I'm not against you) I'm just trying to find out all of the aspects.

[TreeHugger]

How about this:
Marriage shouldn't be recognized nor should it be regulated by the state (IE, government). Its between two persons of legal age and thier chosen god or religion. The government needs to stop legislating morality!
:nono:

Hear! Hear!!

Well said.

[Sombeech]

The government needs to stop legislating morality!
:nono:

Hear! Hear!!

Well said.

And I agree with gov't staying out of our business as well. It just appears that the hospitals & insurance policies are the establishments that need to be modified.

What if Gay marriage is legal... Then, two partners STILL HAVE to be married, or these insurance/liability issues won't be solved. It's kind of like forcing hetrosexual couples to be married for insurance, even though they've been living together for 10 years.

I'm not anti-gay-marriage, because it won't affect me either way. I'm just afraid a big celebration will happen if it passes, but when unmarried partners go through the "hospital" ordeal, they've made no progress. I think most people are trying to pass the wrong type of legislation.

[stefan]

How about this:
Marriage shouldn't be recognized nor should it be regulated by the state (IE, government). Its between two persons of legal age and thier chosen god or religion. The government needs to stop legislating morality!
:nono:

Well, i agree about the morality aspect of your statement. But any sort of "union" cannot be completely ignored by government.

I think the government should shed it's understanding and interpretation of marriage alltogether. A "civil union" should be permissible by most any two people, save unions that are just wrong [e.g., 13 year old girl and crazy freak-fundamentalist old man who just wants a young virign and worshiper.]

Such "civil unions" should provide all the *legal* rights offered by marriage. It should be up to a church or other organization/establishment to sanction the "marriage," CLEARLY not the government. Of course the issue subsequently becomes which "unions" should be recognized by the government? It definitely shouldn't be a state issue, otherwise, a theocratic state such as utah willingly will ban all unions it doesn't see fit within its vision of "family values." well, aside from polygamy of course, arbitrarily old men marrying 13 year old girls isn't as much of a problem as two mature grown men, apparently! :roll: [Relax, I know i am being a little cavalier with this analogy.]

Many can't get it out of their minds that it's not enough that their religion doesn't condon gay marriage, the government must uphold this too. This will clearly take some time to change by repetitively suggesting and clarifying that a 'civil union' doesn't threaten a religious notion of marriage, it simply provides RIGHTS to all the people, a basic facet upon which the united states were founded.