you're right about that, if you're talking merely about health insurance. but do you see that as discriminatory against single people??? particularly if they're not responsible for the care of another?
I see it as discriminatory against homosexuals since they can never legally be the spouse of their loved ones in most states. I haven't really thought about it in regards to single people. If I wanted to stretch I would say if they love someone and live together, they can't put that person down on the health insurance unless they are married. I don't even really buy the argument I made myself, but like I said I am just trying to stretch.
i don't disagree on the homosexual issue regarding this stuff. but outside of a civil union/marriage, you can't expect to cover someone else on your own health insurance, other than your child.
There are companies that now have insurance policies in which you can cover a "significant other" or "domestic partner". As I understand it, a significant other is usually an opposite sex person with whom you live and share a relationship while a domestic partner is same sex. There are companies and insurance plans which allow you to cover your partner regardless of marital status.
There are times when it can be done. But it certainly isn't on equal footing with hetero-sexual loved ones that are married. The fact that in some cases it can be done, does not make it equal.
glad to see this crappy proposal go down the toilet... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2051278
I agree. And the problem with 'leaders' pandering is that they can never become true leaders. There are complaints about judges legislating from the bench, but when you have no politcal Leaders (in the true sense of the word), someone must fill the void. Legislating from the bench is prob not so much an indictment of judges but an indication of the failure of legislators. Many are drawing parallels to the overturning of the anti-interracial marriage laws. It took the Supreme Court to right those wrongs. If the legislators would just do their job...
This quote from today's Senate debate caught my attention ""We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan." I've never really understood this point. How is marriage between a man and a woman threatened by also letting a man and a man or a woman and a woman a threat to marriage between a man and a woman? None of the rulings allowing gay marriage say that a man cannot marry a woman and gays getting married in no way prevents men and women from getting married too. I know this has been brought up before but frankly I just can't understand how letting gays get married will lessen the ability of heterosexuals from getting married.
it cheapens marriage is the ideal Marriage is religious and the government stepping into a religious thing will always have issue My question is. . . why is bigamy wrong Why not make it legel? Three Consenting Adults want to do it who does it hurt? how does it lessen marriage? Why not allow Bigamy? I have not gotten a Good answer to this one If you wanna throw out all religiousness from the concept of Marriage then why not go all out? why not Bigamy? Rocket River
^ How does "cheapen" prevent men and woman to still get married? If there are other types of marriage allowed that doesn't mean that a man and a woman can't get married. By saying that gays can't get married you're not protecting heterosexual marriage. You're just denying gay marriage. In response to your bigamy question I will answer why. Because a marriage relationship of more than one individual to another creates an incredibly complex legal arrangement in regard to what the legal rights are disposition of properties. It also opens up a huge avenue of potential fraud in regard to insurance and immigration. Its true that marriage between two same sex individuals creates a potential avenue for fraud but that avenue is there in regards to heterosexual marriage. The legal and insurance system is already set up to deal with a situation of two individuals marrying but it would be very difficult to set up a plural marriage situation. Speaking personally if a man wanted to marry two women and the women freely entered into that arrangement or if a woman wanted to marry two men I would let them. They should have to get some good lawyers to draw up contracts though spelling out what their obligations and benefits were though.
Hard to believe we're going down this path.... Many of us know gay couples who have faced hardships because their relationships were not recognized: not being allowed in hospitals, difficulty with custody of kids, decisions about care, inheritance issues, etc, etc. Many of us also know gay couples with kids who may not have access to their partners health plans, and face all sorts of other barriers to what we would normally consider the workings of a family. Perhaps I'm not up on the plight of those in polygamous relationships, but I haven't heard the same issues there. I've heard much bigger concerns about child abuse, spousal abuse, indentured relationships etc in the few polygamous communities I've read about. But I haven't heard any great outcry about legitimising those relationships from those involved in them. Or been made aware that these are common relationships for people from all walks of life and around the world. Maybe those who bring up this comparison can enlighten me. Who exactly is fighting to legalize bigamy? And why? What challenges have they faced? River, is this something personal to you, or to someone you know? Because if it is, you, or your friend, would be the first person I've ever heard of involved in such a relationship with a desire to make it 'legal.' So if no one is pushing to legalize bigamy, and there doesn't seem to be many people practicing it, nor complaining about the challenges they face....why bring it up? Why attempt to make a connection between a relatively common type of relationship for which people have been struggling to gain legal recognition and have been openly living in for years, to one which had none of those traits? Whether bigamy is right, wrong, or otherwise, should bear no relation to whether gay marriage should be recognized. If your son asks if he can have a dog, do you respond 'no' because you don't want him bringing home an elephant?
One more thing... What I find particularly bizarre about the debate in the US is that the legislation being considered would recognize civil unions. However, rather than celebrating this as a step forward, it's wrapped in hate. It's cloaked in constitutional amendments to ban "gay marriage" -- while at the same time effectively bringing in civil unions. It's like they want the fight. They are willing to move on the issue -- but don't want anyone to know. In fact, they'll BAN it....while really bringing it in. The separation between civil unions and marriage is not one I agree with. But it's not that uncommon. The UK, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, and most other nations that recognize gay relationships, do it through civil unions rather than 'marriage.' Yet they are perceived as progressive on the issue, while Bush and Co want to appear to be against it. It's crazy, really. Amending the constitution for a word -- yet allowing the concept that you're 'banning' to go through. If you are with Bush on this...recognize that you are fighting for a word. You are not fighting against the 'immorality' or 'legitimisation' of the 'gay lifestyle.' You are fighting for a word. Marriage. A word that Britney Spears could embrace for an evening, that Elizabeth Taylor could use with several different men, that Anna Nicole Smith could use when digging for gold, that any hetero couple can choose to use -- whether they're religious, agnostic, atheists, responsible, irresponsible, Jazzholes, Barry Bonds defenders, YOF's or SOFS. A word that long ago left the exclusive domain of religion. And is it really worth amending the constitution for that? Just so that George can goad the libpigs, rattle off some sound bites, and spin himself as the great defender the family, mom and apple pie?
i can assure you that NONE of this cheapens my view on my relationship and my marriage with my wife. if this thing shakes a marriage, then that marriage is on pretty feeble ground to begin with.
brilliant idea!!!! a new practice area for my firm: BIGAMY LAW!!! of course, it's probably malpractice to advise a man to marry not one, but two women.
Sanity...thank you Max. I think you have said it Max as others have in the thread--the biggest problem facing marriage is divorce. From a purely religious standpoint, Jesus RAILED against divorce and adultery. Next to love and salvation, divorce/adultery were the sins he hammered on the most.
Isn't that what gays are fighting for also, a word. Besides the tax breaks I don't really see the point to getting married. If gays need a word to show their commitment for each other why don't they just make up one of their own? I'm not agreeing with Bush on this, I just don't believe in marriage. The only way I'm getting married is if a woman breaks my spirit and I succumb to her.
There are many legalities that go along with being married such as estate, visitation, and death benefits. It's more than a word.
