Comments on: why is gay marriage an issue?

By: Robguy

Robguy — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:48:47 +0000

The secular legal arrangement is called a marriage and is independent of any church. Services in church carry no legal weight. Only when you have filed the paperwork with the county clerk are you married. Yes, even atheists can get married and it has nothing to do with churches.

By: deb

deb — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:37:19 +0000

I hear ya. I am about to pay for an extra insurance policy because my employer (the federal government, which is this countries largest employer) does not offer domestic partnership benefits, which means my soon to be unemployed partner cannot join me on my health insurance plan. This is basically equal work for unequal compensation, since this is not an issue for my married counterparts who enjoy full benefits for their spouses. And this is just one of the 1200 or so rights we would have if we had legal recognition of our 10 year relationship. Not to mention how our non-legal status impacts our 3 children. Really. Call it whatever you like, just give us equality.

By: duane

duane — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:44:03 +0000

Stephen, that is the point I am making; if you take “marriage” out of the equation, everyone wins. We will never get the thumbs up for marriage because it is a religious institution. It is tied to these legal rights because the government recognizes it; but it doesn’t have to, as I suggested.

By: Amber

Amber — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:19:38 +0000

The article about the first known AIDS case is fascinating. I’ve always wondered about stuff like that… you know, where and how do diseases “start,” that kind of thing. And like you said, the big question is, if AIDS was already present in North America, what made it suddenly spread to so many people in the early 80’s, and not before?? Weird stuff…

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:16:30 +0000

The argument that this is “just semantics” falls down when you realize that all laws, federal and state, that pertain here use the word “marriage” in their text. Hence, companies can deny domestic partners of their employees benefits because the law says they must extend these rights only when the partners are “married (i.e., the laws do don’t apply to civil-unioned partners, literally). So, one could argue that what we need to do is rewrite all laws that contain the word “marriage,” substituting “civil union” or “domestic partner” (or whatever) every place that “marriage” occurs in the text of those laws … but the easier solution is just to allow same-sex marriage, and have all of those laws automatically apply.

By: duane

duane — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:23:51 +0000

dave, that is a moot point; they already have them. The point is, we are being denied them, and they should be given to us. There is no way they are going to remove those rights from married couples in an effort to level the playing field. I totally get why you feel that way, but history shows that we usually grant rights, in an effort to level the playing field, not take them away.

By: joey

joey — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:22:40 +0000

mitch : a partial list http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

Without a marriage or civil union, you’d have to draw up legal documents that encompassed all of those things and hope you didn’t miss something. And even if you did, the ones pertaining to company or government benefits still don’t apply.

dpb : These rights only pertain to the couple. These aren’t things that a single person would need. They couldn’t actually be applied to single people.

By: dpb

dpb — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:11:32 +0000

mitch, these “right” should be stripped from married couples. There is no reason a married person should have any additional rights over a single person.

By: mitch

mitch — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:08:43 +0000

Just a little more info to include as I totally agree with you on this one too Duane: According to Obama (on Ellen’s show) there are 1,200 rights given to “married couples”. I am not sure what all of those are, but I think everyone should be given the exact same rights. They are afterall “human rights”. Obama also stated that he thought “civil unions” should include all of those rights as well. I agree totally.

By: duane

duane — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:54:52 +0000

atlmalcontent, I would venture to guess that we actually agree on more than we can agree to. Kudos for the kind comment. I would NEVER change my opinion on something because someone else believed the same thing. Here’s to more Common Ground days…

dave…. WORD.