I wrote this in relation to the UK, but seeing as it's an issue in the US too you can all still comment and give your opinions.
Give your opinions on the issue and on the document itself. Please make all criticism constructive. Regardless of your stance in this debate, be respectful to others. Feel free to challenge their viewpoints but in a gentlemanly way AND BE KIND.
I know there'll be a few mistakes here and there so I'll do my best to fix 'em.
It's a myth that we in a 'domestic partner' relationship have the same benefits as a straight "Marriage" set-up, over a 1,000 less benefits, so I don't know where you get that we get all the same marriage benefits, but just not the name "Marriage." FEDERAL TAXES & BENEFITS? Where? Why do you think DOMA is being challanged in the courts? Edith Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance from her lesbian lover of 40 years. If she were married to a man, she would of had to pay nothing.
That brings me to Prop 22 (the precurser to Prop 8).
Several years ago the state of California, my state, was given a proposition to vote on called 22. It said the sanctity of marriage should be kept from homosexuals because they were not heterosexuals. A basic human right given to only a man and woman who desired others with opposite sex organs from themselves, should not be extended to anyone else. The voice of the people of California spoke and it agreed that I was not as deserving of that right as those who desired the opposite sex. I was a "less than" in the eyes of the people and they had no problem in telling me to go "fuck myself" in so many words.
Now how John Doe down the street from me, who's banging the baby sitter, neglecting his kids, and beating his wife because she didn't turn the T.V. channel fast enough, was given the moral power to decide, became the arbiter, on if I should have marriage or not, perplexed me. Last I heard, we did not have tiers of citizenship in this country. You have no right to vote on if I can have rights. I was BORN with inalienable rights just like you. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution said so by the simple fact I am an American. Whether you personally agree or not, you just have no say. That's how it's SUPPOSE to work, but my "Pursuit of Happiness and Freedom," guaranteed me, was instead put to an illegal vote to a majority. Somehow along the way the government's existing to protect the freedom of ALL of it's citizens turned, and now it's about voting on whom to give rights too. That's un-Constitutional, cut and dry and my homosexuality is a non-factor with marriage, a basic right of pursuit for my happiness. NO majority has the right to vote on the Constitutional rights of others. That simply should not be put to a vote. The founding fathers did everything they were suppose to do in writting down that a majority cannot dictate Constitutional freedoms for other Americans in a minority. We are cutting to the very heart of what this country stands, for what our founding fathers fought and died for. I'm sure they thought they made that clear in the Bill of Rights, they were wrong.
By the way, I don't need to be insulted by your; "I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage" civil unions. See how well that goes over with the African-American population if you think the idea is so great.
Damp down the outrage a touch.
I thought it was clear that I spoke of the multiplicity of arguments involved around the core issue.
I also spoke explicitly on STATE tax and benefit treatment of civil unions.
I note that in California, the state estate tax treatment of the heirs in a civil union is the same as for a married couple.
The FEDERAL government is naturally, different. Because of the DOMA, the Federal estate tax deduction only appliess to couples who are married by the law's definition. A legally unmarried heterosexual couple would face the same federal taxation consequences and lack of survivor benefits cited above.
A minor note on your two ad hominem shots. Neither is exactly going to influence folks to listen to your serious arguments.
IMHO, there were several options available that may well have defused much of the argument, including one that I favor, which would have essentially split marriage into completely separate civil and religious components, with the civil marriage mandatory to accrue tax, retirement and social services benefits, and the religious marriage being a rite of whatever faith. I understand that is the way it's done in some countries that "dumped" a state religion in the 19th century.
It's easy for you to tell me to damp the outrage, it doesn't affect you on a personal level like it does me. I can't marry my partner, a luxury you have just because you were born liking women that you had no say in. I'm being punished because of being born not liking women that I had no say in.
You seem to miss the point that a unmarried heterosexual couple have the OPTION to be married while I do not.
We do have a civil marriage apart from religious marriage, but just not for gay people. People of non-faith get married everyday, as long as they are a man and a woman.
Here's my question - why is the government involved in marriage in the first place?
Maybe it's my Libertarian side, but I personally see no need to regulate marriage. I personally say change all entitlements and taxes from "married people" to simply "people with children in their household", and do away with regulation. If two people want to have some ceremony and be with each other for however long they desire, let them.
That is a pretty naive perspective. Government and politics has always been about social engineering. The real question is how homosexuality fits into society and into the majority's ideal notion of what that society should be. Until that question gets answered all appendage issues, of which homosexual marriage is but one, will remain in disarray.
That's not the libertarian side. Gay 'marriage' is the result of government meddling in the institution, not the other way around. The default, absent government involvement, would be for marriage to be left as the government found it.
Your 'libertarian side' is demanding government redefinition of an institution that pre-existed it. That isn't libertarian at all.
Lick his ass a little deeper.
Lick his ass a little deeper.
Crying "This homosexual is being mean."
Man up fucker.
I will be glad to take away what ever I said AoM because I don't want to be kicked out of here. But let's face it,your member Jon is kinda a bitch who loves stirring arguments just for it's own sake, look at the record...
Oh the horrors of inclusion when it comes to marriage, how can you sleep at night with the possability of the spectre of me getting married? You should calm down, stop pacing the floors and realize it's going to happen no matter how much you fret and cry.