Poll: Proposition 8: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry in a fashion legally recognized by the state?

[cuddly_tomato]

I can see no problem with any form of gay marriage or adoption.

The problem is the legal system isn't really set up to deal with it quite yet. Pretty much the same as when black people were emancipated.

What happens in the case of one of the partner dying in a same sex marriage? Is the next of kin a parent or the partner? Who gets to take the kids in the event of divorce? For a few years the US courts are going to get messy while this kind of stuff is tested and sorted out.

The legal system really needs to move quicker, this kind of stuff should have been resolved years ago.

 

[Iron Mal]

One has got to ask why it is so important to be legally recognised as married?

If you are religious and part of your culture has wedding ceremonies etc. then fair enough, it is a part of your way of life and I cannot comment.

If it is two people who are sitting around and think that a piece of paper with their names on would be nice/handy then I don't quite see the significance.

So you can visit them in the hospital.

Would you need an official document to motivate you to see a friend in hospital? (never mind a loved one)

 

[Amnestic]

One has got to ask why it is so important to be legally recognised as married?

If you are religious and part of your culture has wedding ceremonies etc. then fair enough, it is a part of your way of life and I cannot comment.

If it is two people who are sitting around and think that a piece of paper with their names on would be nice/handy then I don't quite see the significance.

Familial bonds, 'next of kin' documents, sometimes tax averaging for married couples can give you a better deal than if you were taxed separately, 'green card' marriages...

And that's just the legal side of things.

 

[vamp rocks]

wheres the option that sayes people should be able to do whatever makes them happy??

 

[jimtheviking]

The government should stay the hell out of this and leave it up to the individual religious institution as to whether or not gays should be married. They shouldn't be able to force anyone to do anything that's against their beliefs, nor should they be able to tell anyone that they can't get married because they're gay.

The thing is, there are already government benefits for people married in both secular and religious weddings - and yes, you can be married in a secular ceremony. My wife and I were. A couple of our friends were married in a Civil ceremony and, as far as I can remember, the last religious wedding ceremony we went to was for one of my cousins.

As the Government already marries couples, why not let them marry gay couples? They're not going to force anyone to do something they don't want viz. marriage ceremonies. They'll just be able to get hitched wherever they want to. Besides, churches already prevent certain marriages from happening in their walls because they disagree with them - my parents got married at my Da's church because my Mom's Catholic priest refused to marry her to 'a heathen Anglican.' That was in the early '80s.

I can see no problem with any form of gay marriage or adoption.

The problem is the legal system isn't really set up to deal with it quite yet. Pretty much the same as when black people were emancipated.

What happens in the case of one of the partner dying in a same sex marriage? Is the next of kin a parent or the partner? Who gets to take the kids in the event of divorce? For a few years the US courts are going to get messy while this kind of stuff is tested and sorted out.

The legal system really needs to move quicker, this kind of stuff should have been resolved years ago.

Wait, what? How is...

OK, first, it's not like there's a super-secret handshake that makes a gay marriage different from a straight marriage. If one partner dies, and next of kin is notified, then it should go in whatever manner is specified - partner, parent, sibling, etc. - by the deceased. If no manner is specified, then it will go the way it's always gone - to the partner first.

It's still, for all intents and purposes, a marriage under the Law and all the procedures that follow the marriage order - spousal benefits, tax benefits, immigration benefits, etc. - would apply in the same way. It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women or a man and a woman getting married. Marriage is marriage.

 

[Lord George]

One has got to ask why it is so important to be legally recognised as married?

If you are religious and part of your culture has wedding ceremonies etc. then fair enough, it is a part of your way of life and I cannot comment.

If it is two people who are sitting around and think that a piece of paper with their names on would be nice/handy then I don't quite see the significance.

So you can visit them in the hospital.

Would you need an official document to motivate you to see a friend in hospital? (never mind a loved one)

He means you couldn't see them in some cases because legally you wouldn't be considered a family member, theres also a whole host of other benefits you get from being legally married. This is why gay marriages should be entitled to all the benefits of straight marriages.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Wait, what? How is...

OK, first, it's not like there's a super-secret handshake that makes a gay marriage different from a straight marriage. If one partner dies, and next of kin is notified, then it should go in whatever manner is specified - partner, parent, sibling, etc. - by the deceased. If no manner is specified, then it will go the way it's always gone - to the partner first.

It's still, for all intents and purposes, a marriage under the Law and all the procedures that follow the marriage order - spousal benefits, tax benefits, immigration benefits, etc. - would apply in the same way. It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women or a man and a woman getting married. Marriage is marriage.

Yes you are correct ethically and morally, I agree with completely there. But legally there is such a handshake. Right now, in law, there is a difference between a same sex marriage and a straight marriage. With a reasonable judge this wouldn't make much of a difference. With a conservative judge? He could use the law as it stands to (for instance) take the kids from the custody of the remaining parent (if that kid was adopted).

Gay unions, marriages, whatever you want to call them need to be properly legally protected and recognized, not be just a token "here you are have this then" to the gay communities.

 

[DemonicVixen]

I don't think it should matter about what sex they are... as long as they are happy who gives a damn. Its not fair to say that they can't marry like a man and woman can if they love eachother... Screw if they are two women or two guys... LET THEM!
government suck when it comes to these issues yet i bet some government official is gay... i can guarentee it...

I hate watching gays being shut off from society as if they are some diseased creatures... i don't mind about them one bit... i wish everyone could just leave them alone and let them live and be treat the way we all want to be...

 

[Skeleon]

Legal: Allows any number of adults to marry, without state support via taxes, subsidies, etc

This one right here. Marriage should be allowed for everybody.
Of course one cannot force churches to marry homosexuals if they are opposed to it, but marriage in the legal sense (i.e. state marriage) should be open to everybody.
As for the polygamy issue, well. I don't really care how many people marry as long as all parties are treated well.

As for the tax-benefits, subsidies and whatnot: Bullshit.
The state doesn't profit from marriages. What the state profits from are children and with more and more childless marriages (as well as single parents or extramarital children), there is simply no reason to subsidize marriage anymore.
The state must subsidize children directly.

 

[EchetusXe]

Yes, we should.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I find your poll dishonest as you'd added polygamy into the choices, which is an unrelated issue. I will not vote in a dishonest poll.

 

[Triple G]

No gay marriage please. What comes next? Furry marriages recognized by the state?

 

[Kollega]

Sure,why the hell not? Any number of people should be legaly marry,if they feel so inclined.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Options 1 and 6 seem pretty close to identical.

 

[Macgyvercas]

First of all I mean no disrespect to anyone with this statement, it's just my personal opinion.

I'm personally against gay marriage (in the church, I mean), but I don't have a problem with civil unions so that they can get tax benefits, hospital visiting rights, etc.

Might as well raise the shield for that one.

Spoiler: FLAME SHIELD ACTIVATE!

 

[Assassin Xaero]

"Legal: But only between 1 adult and another adult, with state support via taxes, subsidies, etc"

Went with that... I see no problems with two adults getting married, but more than that is a little much... And, I don't see how you could marry inanimate objects, like that women who wanted to marry that roller coaster...

 

[high_castle]

I see no problem at all with gay marriage. And it's definitely not the government's place to define marriage in any way. It's interesting that the Republican party in America is supposed to be one of small government, yet it's mostly the Republicans who are pushing for a definition of marriage act. I guess big government's alright if it's in line with their line of thinking, but it's just very hypocritical to me.

Firstly, who else will define marriage if not the government? The churchs aren't going to allow gay marriage of their own free will, and financial issues are tied to marriage (especially if it ends in divorce). Further, in the event of death, legally reckonized marriage allows the spouse to try and keep the material and money of the dead partner, without the state or family members trying to cheat them out of it.

As for the Republicans, it is very true - they seem to think they have the right to force other people to live the way they choose. And yet, economically, they believe one person should be allowed to fuck up a national or international economy as much as they like without consequence. Crazy, really.

Contrary to popular belief, there are religions and churches out there that don't have a problem with gay marriage. Look at the churches which have sanctioned gay priests, for one. And how many gay couples (in states recognizing their unions) have been married in churches? Plenty. So churches absolutely would allow gay marriage. And if one priest doesn't want to perform a ceremony, that's his choice. But if another does, then that's his as well.

 

[Nemu]

I'm noticing a trend in your choice of topics, JohnJacob...

OT: I'm a lesbian, why am I considered a lesser-person for wanting to be married?

It's not like there's any "sanctity" in marriage anymore, anyway. Straight people have been screwing it up for aaaaaaaaaaaages. Just let me get married so that when I'm in a coma, I have someone who will look out for my interests.

And I pay my taxes! rabblerabblerabble...

 

[Toaster Hunter]

I don's see what the issue is with gay marriage. A poll in Iowa (where it was recently legalized) showed that over 90% felt that their lives were unaffected by gay marriage. Really. It had no effect, imagine that. The world isn't going to collapse. Just legalize it and be on our way already. We have more pressing matters to deal with.

That is my opinion on the matter