2-to-1 against gay marriage

Just because people do things that we may find gross (i.e. ''take it in the pooper'') doesn''t mean that they should not enjoy the equal protection from taxes granted by the state to hetero couples.

If gays want to marry and enjoy the benefits, they are welcome to, today and under the current laws.

They are? I had thought that it was illegal everywhere except Vermont, so I turned to the all-knowing, all-seeing Google.

It''s certainly not legal in Iowa:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...

Ugh. Google gave me Fox News. *washes hands*

I didn''t expect Utah would be happy with it either:

http://www.easyboyfriend.com/news-83...

Hehe. I bet www.easyboyfriend.com hasn''t been linked here before.

I''m pretty sure that most of the ''red'' states have legislation pending to ban it as well.

Gays can marry - they just have to marry someone of age, not a close relative, and of the opposite sex.

Hehehe. I think the whole point is that they should be able to have the same type of tax protection regardless of the sex of their partner.

Hehehe. I think the whole point is that they should be able to have the same type of tax protection regardless of the sex of their partner

And I would like the same tax benefits as a dog owner. But the state doesn''t seem to agree.

Dog owners get a tax break? Time to visit the animal shelter!

And I would like the same tax benefits as a dog owner.

Ruh? Rhut rid you ray? Rog owners ret rax renerits?!

No, I think Ral was saying that he would like to have the same tax benefits as married couples because he owns a dog.

The Constitution has no bearing here. Equal Protections means that everyone has the same access and protections. An example of how it would apply to marriage is if we said that Iranian people couldn''t get married at all. Then Equal Protections would come into play, because Iranian immigrants would be denied the same treatment under the law as other citizens.

A gay man can marry a woman and gain the benefits of marriage. You can argue that it is not their sexual preference, but there is nothing stopping them from doing it, so there is no violation of Equal Protections.

So, which would bother you more?

A 55 year old man marrying a 16 year old girl (totally legal in some states and capable of receiving government marraige incentives) or two late twenties/early thirties men marrying or having a civil union and receiving the same marraige benefits?

As a married man, I quite honestly have no problem with gay marriage as long as a) gay couples get penalized tax-wise as much as I do and b) they are subject to the same divorce laws as heterosexual couples.

So, which would bother you more?

A 55 year old man marrying a 16 year old girl (totally legal in some states and capable of receiving government marraige incentives) or two late twenties/early thirties men marrying or having a civil union and receiving the same marraige benefits?

To be perfectly honest, neither bothers me much - although out of the small amount of outrage I have, the dirty old man sparks more (until I get to be 55 and have this option myself, that is ). But my position on this issue has nothing to do with any distaste for homosexuality. Society gives out conditional benefits all the time. I received nothing from the Farm Bill, for example. Does this mean I have had my rights violated? Of course not. It just means that I have to be a farmer to get a subsidy or protection. Marriage is no different. We define marriage as a recognized union between a man and a woman which carries benefits from the state (which are pretty minor, to be honest). But these benefits are not ""rights"". I don''t get them if I am single. I don''t get them with my girlfriend. I cannot marry my cousin, my horse, or an infant - no matter how much I love any of them. If I want the benefits of marriage, I have to be willing to meet the conditions.

I received nothing from the Farm Bill, for example. Does this mean I have had my rights violated?

It would be different if the Government marraige incentives were for pre natal care. And in that case lesbians should be allowed to qualify. Otherwise I see no reason why gay men cant fullfill all other obligations and responsibilities of marraige.

Otherwise I see no reason why gay men cant fullfill all other obligations and responsibilities of marraige.

One gay man once said to his partner, ""Bob, I think we should have children."" His partner responded, ""Neil, I think we''re going about it the wrong way.""

I''ll ask again. What are these government incentives? Unless they actually exist the pro-gay union/marriage arguments presented here don''t have any validity.

benefits of marriage:

visit a partner or a partner''s child in a hospital;
inherit from your partner if she or he doesn''t have a valid will;
obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
enter joint rental agreements;
make medical decisions on a partner''s behalf in event of illness;
take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner''s child;
choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
determine child custody and support in a divorce;
have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
file joint tax returns;
obtain veterans'' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries; and
obtain domestic violence protective orders.

as Ral has pointed out elsewhere, some of these can be covered via contracts.

obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;

This isn''t the government. Neither are joint rental agreements. Those are totally up to the company you do business with (for now). That is my big problem with this. This isn''t about marriage or civil unions; it''s about forcing other people to accept and condone your behavior.

I''m surprised how quickly the activists have jumped on this. The marriage penalty was just recently revoked by the evil Bush tax cut. HIPPA just took effect in the last few months which is where the hospital visitation and medical choice benefits listed here stem from.

I will also raise a question on some of these involving ""partner''s children"". Is this a result of marriage or parentage? Do I gain all sorts of parenting priveleges because I marry someone with children? I don''t believe this is the case. I think formal adoption is required to gain these priveleges. I will have to look into it to be sure.

You picked one example from a long and relevant list that is itself only representative of the sum total of legal protections of marriage. And, you picked a fairly poor example at that, considering how much easier it is to get joint insurance policies because of the recognized legal status of marriage. I know you''d really like it if the point you were trying to make about no benefits to marriage were accurate, because it is the foundation of what you want to say, but take it from a married person there are plenty of benefits. it is much easier for me to take an active part in my wife''s life, and the legally recognized status of our relationship is crucial in plenty of situations I''ve experienced first hand.

This isn''t about marriage or civil unions; it''s about forcing other people to accept and condone your behavior.

Wrong.

Do I gain all sorts of parenting priveleges because I marry someone with children?

Yes. You have a much easier time adopting, assuming you haven''t adopted during the marriage which is also much easier, particularly when the other parent is either dead or has given up their rights.

You picked one example from a long and relevant list that is itself only representative of the sum total of legal protections of marriage. And, you picked a fairly poor example at that

I did so in the interest of brevity.

considering how much easier it is to get joint insurance policies because of the recognized legal status of marriage.

Proving to me that this is indeed a cultural question rather than a legal one. Is it the government''s job to force insurance companies to change their criteria for who is to be insured and how? If that is the case I demand to pay the same amount as a married male driver with the same driving record.

Heh, all this gay marriage debate and I missed it.

When last we visited the topic, I pointed out that polls that ask about ''marriage'' are going to produce about 60-65% against. When asked about individual benefits, such as the great list up there by Strekos, you''ll find that people in the U.S. will support many of those benefits for gay couples in the opposite ratio, that is 60-65% supporting those benefits.

However, screw polls. Were the majority of people for interacial marriage before it became legal in the 1960s. Isn''t it scary it took that long to become legal?

Civil unions within 10 years in at least half the states in the union would be my guess, followed by lengthy path to the supreme court, followed by more delay, finally followed by legal civil unions in the U.S. Give it 15-20 years, unless something whacky happens.