Outstanding News-Mass. High Ct. Rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Goophers, you, your wife, and her other husbands are free to do what you all want behind your closed doors!

 

Hell

Marriage is unconstitutional to me
Violation of Church and State

Marriages should stay and remain where they belong
IN THE RELIGIOUS FAITH OF YOUR CHOICE

No tax breaks, no special situations nothing

Rocket River

 

You mean me, my wife, and her other wives are free to do what we all want behind our closed doors and with our own private video cameras.

 

This is a valid thought, though I do not ascribe to it because I think there is value to society promoting stable families (in whatever form they may be). Plus it could lead to drops in insurance for wives that have historically been covered, which could be very bad for stay-at-home mothers/fathers.

 

I understand that.

I think the biggest opposition against same sex marriages
ARE companies

Insurance and all those benefits would increase somewhat

I think the religious argument is a smoke screen

If you allow homosexual marriages
WHY NOT Polygamy? What is you argument against?

Also . . not to group homosexuality with this but . . . .what about incestrial marriages? [brother/sister/etc]

The point is . .. if we in the change the definition thing
I think alot of groups want their input too . . .
who do we say can and cannot input on this new
definition of marriage? [Why gays and not . .say incest folx. . .or multiple marriage folx]

Rocket River

 

Well, As a Christian I am very disappointed by this news. The Bible says in the first few pages that a man shall leave his father and his mother and be united with his wife and they shall become one flesh. that is the definition I accept. I do not hate homosexuals, neither do not wish to be forced to acknowledge their status. There is no proof that people are born "gay" and are forced to be in that lifestyle, if you already have rights as an American Citizen, you should have equal rights based on your race, not equal based on your sexual orientation, which should not be something out in the open anyway.

Isn't it true that if gay marriage was legal that any two friends could decide to get "married" just to receive tax breaks and benefits? The legalization of this institution could lead to many people cheating the system.

 

Not to pick on you, but this is an awful way to interpret the constitution. The founding fathers didn't envision Jay-Z, air travel, the internet, etc either, but that doesn't mean that none of those things is entitled to constitutional protection.

 

This is true, and it would probably result in slightly higher insurance and taxes in the long run to make up for it. While this would be a negative I do not think that this is a valid reason to stop homosexual marriages. It occurs now to some extent with friends of the opposite sex and you can't legislate based on the small amount of people that are willfully cheating the system.

 

Why are gays more likely to be tax cheats than anybody else?

What's to stop two straight people from doing the same?

 

Dam Rocet River, I think you have the answer to this one. If you can't decide where to draw the line just don't draw one. For Federal purposes it gets a little sticky for people who are expecting spousal entitlements. But as far as insurance etc. let the comapanies agree on their contracts and the workers can choose to work for them or not (it seems we are all settling for less benefits anyway)

 

m19, I wish you'd reread my earlier post about my friend at work. Do you really, in your heart of heart, think Jesus would want to bar him from being able to offer the benefits of commitment to his ailing life partner? *That's* what Jesus would do? I doubt it. The Bible also contradicts itself in many areas, but I love the good book. Gotta look for the bottom line spirit of it, especially in the new testament, if you ask me. Did Jesus have a strong take on gays? Maybe I missed it.

And by the way, I don't know if you're married, but there is actually a tax penalty. The benefits that roomies would rush out to get in your scenario? Sharing health insurance coverage, inheriting property if one person should die, et cetera. Not exactly what a bunch of slacker roomies are drooling to obtain. These benefits are simply things that committed life partners crave, and IMHO, deserve.

 

Yes, I'm going to go around now telling people I'm gay to save a few bucks on my taxes. I think I will ask my best friend to get married now even though he's engaged to a woman.

 

Hold on a minute, I never said that gay people were more likely to cheat the system, I said two "friends"

Don't try and label me as a hater, and don't think that heterosexual people won't try and claim they are gay just to acquire certain benefits.

B-Bob - I saw your post, Keep in mind that Jesus hung out with tax collecters, prostitutes, and homeless people, he had compassion for the people who were outcast and scorned, and distaste for the religious zealots who tried to discredit him. Also keep in mind the Bible was written by many different people with different opinions.

All of you who quoted my message should note that I was asking a question. I want to be informed of the facts.

 

He also NEVER said, "oh, and it's cool to be a prostitute and a cheating tax collector." he told the prostitute to acknowledge her sin and go and sin no more. he did not put a stamp of approval on things he saw as separation from the Father. he said he didn't come to abolish the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfill it.

 

But two friends can already do this.

 

Cool. That means we're very much on the same page, in some respects at least. In my case, this leads me to think that the Good Guy would want my friend's partner to receive medical benefits as if the two guys were married.

My other point is more important here though. I really don't think all these straight people would line up to declare themselves gay just so they could share medical insurance and incur (again) greater tax rates!

 

I'm pretty sure that there are men and women now who try and abuse the system by getting "married." Wasn't there a show about this called Ned and Stacey? Even if there probably are some losers who would abuse the system if same sex marriage were allowed, why should that be a reason for not allowing them? Some people who buy guns use them for crime, should we outlaw them? Because some people practice insider trading, should we overhaul our economy? I just don't see how the "potential" for abuse can be considered a valid argument. There is potential for abuse in everything we do.

 

Trader Jorge-

Will you marry me?

 

I am sorry, but let me repeat my question, since it was ignored the first time.

If your ailing friend had two partners, regardless of which sex, and they all lived in some kind of happy polygamic relationship - do you really, in your heart of heart, think Jesus would want to bar the TWO partners from being able to get offered the benefits of commitment their ailing life partner?

I am not even saying that I am against homosexual marriage, even though I will admit that perhaps something conservative in me makes it sound "weird".

My question is rather directed at where you would draw a line. What about TJ's argument saying that gay people should be allowed to have some kind of partnership that would allow them to have the same or similar insurance/whatever benefits that "traditional" married couples get?

 

And you expect us to believe that "friend" story?