Prop 8/DOMA Supre, me Court cases

So in other words, everything can't necessarily be done by contract.

Or they could go the route of using the democratic process and change the laws of the country. Odd that you're opposed to using the Constitution and the democratic process to create change.

Same reason greedy insurance companies wouldn't necessarily provide coverage to different-sex spouses now unless they were required to by law.

 

Actually . . . single people should sue these companies
for discrimination.
By allowing the so called married person to carry a second person
that was not born to them by blood . .. but not allowing a single
person to do the same. . . that is descrimination

Any person who wants to carry someone on their insurance who is not related to them by blood/birth . .. should be able too
the fact that the person is regularly having sex or procreating with the other person or has a 'marriage license' . . should be irrelevent

Rocket River

 

interesting view point...i do wonder how the courts would rule in regards to that??

 

Do you think I should be able to sue my insurance company if they won't let put my neighbor on my insurance plan?

 

in regards to Prop 8, i do find that the people defend the prop isnt the state...any reason to why???

 

Yes.
What the difference between your 'neighbor' and your 'spouse'?

I would guess
1. Location
2. regular sex [but not necessarily true]
3. Governmental approval of your relationship

Rocket River

 

This is the root of our disagreement: worldview. I believe that God established marriage between one man and one woman (here comes the hate). So it is my opinion that society does not define marriage - only God defines it. Secondly, my problem with homosexuality is that it results in a decline of traditional marriage. Homosexuality is sexual immorality; if you can have sex with a member of the same gender, then why can't you have sex with your child, or your brother, or your mother? Finally, it reflects a decline in society which is corrupt to begin with - society has slowly become more and more morally relativistic. Homosexuals often use personal freedom as an excuse for their deeds. With freedom comes the need for self-control, and homosexuals have none. Homosexuality is not a hereditary trait containing a certain phenotype; it is a destructive influence similar to p*rnography. Homosexuals feel the need to impose their beliefs on everyone; anyone who disagrees is homophobic and hateful. Homosexuality is not marriage and never will be.


mar·riage
[mar-ij]
noun
1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

 

A contractual sharing of liability, responsibility, etc.

This position is silly. You think I should be able to put anyone on my insurance? What about children? Should I be able to put your children on my insurance plan?

 

mlaiktep, I'm separating your two chunks. I don't think anyone will hate you (or they shouldn't) based on your beliefs on marriage. I think everyone supports your right to have that opinion and to worship in a church that would never marry people of the same sex. I certainly celebrate and support that right, and I don't even want to change your mind.

The hate comes in when you post that second part, which is really based more on fear and ignorance (e.g. "homosexuals feel the need to impose their beliefs on everyone" -- well, that one's even more ironic than it is fearful -- or "homosexuals have no self control." -- LOLWUT?)

I know a lot of homosexuals and they (1) have "control," whatever that means, and (2) just want to be treated as equal under the law of the land. They don't want to mess with someone like you, no matter what a fear-mongering FOX News outlet, et alia, may do to manipulate the fears and paranoia of its audience.

Your second bit is passing a huge ton of judgment on a lot of people you simply have not met and don't really offer you any threat.

I hear you when you talk about the harm to traditional marriage, but I just fundamentally disagree. Straight people have already screwed up marriage six ways to Sunday and beyond.

Cheers.

 

If you're against gay marriage, in favor of laws that keep it from happening, then there's no point in discussion really.

Just admit that you don't like ****. That's all this is. There is no rational reason for opposition. You may think you have reasons, but you don't ... you have preferences, habits, traditions, etc., but those aren't reasons.

 

The level of ignorance in this post is quite frankly, shocking. Had no idea there were people around that still thought like this.

 

I don't want to go too far off-topic, but is it true that insurance companies are actually required to offer coverage that extends to spouses? I had no idea.

 

No, things can't be imposed by contract. Contracts are voluntary. But they can certainly be done. ("How much for a policy for myself and my partner?")

I don't deny democracy can be used as a coercive tool against individuals. I just think it's wrong. Tyranny of the majority sucks (I love the social engineering euphemism "create change", who could oppose that right?)

What's the reason?

 

My understanding is that prior to Obamacare, it depended on state law with some states requiring it and others not. Post-Obamacare, I think its universally required. The employee has to pay for the coverage of the family members, of course.

 

Company response: Our employee plan doesn't cover unmarried partners. Employees and employers don't have equal leverage here, so the employee's choice is to find a different job or not get their partner insured. In lala-land, your "everything can be done by voluntary contract!" is great. In the real world, it doesn't work as well.

Certainly true. Interesting that you think people fighting for rights to be treated equally is a tyranny of the majority. Society has determined differently - some things, like not allowing employers to discriminate by race or gender, have been determined to be more important than contractual freedom. I understand you think that's wrong and that companies should have freedom to do whatever they want, but that's not remotely the country you live in.

You'd have to ask the companies, but I'd guess that it's not always profitable, especially if the spouse has significant health problems. Group insurance pricing and eligibility is complicated by the fact that cost is not always determined by the individual's health.

 

Except I don't like Marriage Laws PERIOD

It is granting the government the power to say who you can and cannot marry.
It's like them saying . . WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL ANY AND EVERY CITIZEN . . we'll never use it but . . WE HAVE THAT RIGHT. <-- I would not be comfortable with that either.

The fact they debating ALLOWING gay marriage is an affront because they shouldn't even have the power or right to ALLOW anything in that arena.

This would be like me saying I WILL ALLOW YOU TO PUNISH YOUR KIDS and your response being .. . well, as long as I can take away playstation. Quibbling over points and limitations of a power I should not have in the first place. CRAZY!

Rocket River

 

Should the government help protect property rights? Spousal rights? Alimony? Inheritance? Taxes?

The government isn't allowing marriage in the sense that is allowing you to live with someone and call them your spouse, it recognizes marriage because it has things it needs to be a player in that revolve around marriage.

 

First off one it is poor form to spam the forum by posting the exact same thing in two threads. Secondly.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/marriage

[rquoter] (in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.

2a combination or mixture of two or more elements:[/rquoter]