Originally Posted By Elderp Why should the people decide what marriage should look like? If anything this issue has shown us is that we don't all agree on what marriage is nor whom should or shouldn't be married. We are a country where we claim (although I don't believe it is so) there is a seperation of church and state. Besides the tax breaks I think marriage is just a religious thing. I don't believe in polygamy but if that is what they believe why can't they have it? You mentioned age and I will counter by saying the issue of age and marriage don't have anything to do with each other. In Texas the issue wasn't about marriage it was about underage sex.
Originally Posted By mele It's not just about tax benefits but a whole slew of legal rights are allowed to people who are married. I think the biggest worry is about medical rights. Countless gay partners are turned away from hospitals when their loved ones are ill. Drs and nurses can't give medical information to just anyone, they must be legal spouses or family members. Things are slowly changing but legally, many hospitals are afraid to break the rules. Add a homophobic, angry family, maybe a nurse or doctor or two and a gay person can be left completely in the dark as to the health of their loved one. It happens every single day. Imagine if your wife (no offense Mrs. Elderp!) was in a car accident and was in a coma. You rush to the hospital to see her but you aren't allowed in her room. No doctors or nurses will give you an update. They call her family instead but they hate you and refuse to tell you anything. In fact, they tell the hospital that you have no right to be there and someone decides that you need to leave. Imagine how devastated you would be. Then, say, your wife dies (really sorry!) and her family decends upon the home you shared together and started to take all of the belongings that you co-owned with her. And, because you aren't legally married, her family chooses all of her funeral arrangements and doesn't want you at the funeral, so you have no choice but to go along with their wishes. And finally, since they dislike you so much and don't believe in your "lifestyle", they decide to take you to court to get custody of the children you have (adopted, artifically enseminated, surrogate or from previous relationships). They might not win but they'd likely get visitation and bleed your bank account dry and try to ruin your reputation while they try. (Of course, this could still happen to straight couples.) You've lost the love of your life, your partner, and it seems like you have no power over anything. These are only some of the very issues that face gay couples in this country. I get so tired of hearing "love the sinner, hate the sin" and then hear laws banning gay marriage. It IS about hating the SINNER, not just the sin. It's about making them pay for their disgusting sexual choices. Is it so hard to let God give people their consequences, let God give people their punishments? Isn't God smart enough and capable enough to do it on his own w/o anyone else's help? Isn't eternity in Hell a good enough punishment? Does the punishment have to start immediately, right here, right now? It's also upsetting to hear anti-gay marriage people equate the desire for homosexuals to get married only to tax benefits or other financial benefits. I'm sure some people get married to save money, etc, but truly, do you think the billion dollar wedding industry is based on tax benefits? Arguable, people have weird, unrealistic ideas about marriage and what marriage means, but I think LOVE is still the main motivation. Making it legal in front of friends, family and society MEANS something. It means it's REAL and that it matters. When people say they're against gay marriage, it truly makes me wonder what their own motivation for getting married was. Again, you can't say that you love the gay sinner and then judge their relationships as less important or "real" than yours. It's so condescending and, ultimately, a big, huge lie.
Originally Posted By Elderp ^ The same scenario that you described above can happen to me now and I am married. There is nothing stopping Mrs.P's relatives from preventing all that now. There is a way to help my case now and it doesn't involve marriage. It's called a living will and I would encourage anyone who wants to ensure their wishes are kept intact get one.
Originally Posted By mele That's not what I'm talking about, Elderp. I said nothing about choosing her medical treatments. If she has a living will, sure, that's what the hospital follows. If she doesn't have one, you are who they go to first. Her family cannot stop you from getting her medical information or having access to her hospital room. Legally, as her husband, the Drs. come to you first to make decisions. That's the whole point! Her family would have to take you to court to have you removed. Legally, you make the choices, not her. If you were in the car with her and also in a coma, THEN her family would make choices for her (w/o the living will). Your parents would make choices for you. I didn't say anything about making any medical choices. If her living will said that you were to be removed from the premises and kept in the dark about her medical procedures, and if her will left everything to someone else, then I'd say your "marriage" was already in danger of becoming a divorce. People who are unhappily married isn't the issue. This is about people who are IN LOVE and want each other in their lives (and in their hospital room!) and the fact that they should legally be allowed to be together in times of trial.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF From the Campaign for Children and Families: >>"ACTION: If your county approved Prop. 22, please call your county clerk immediately. Urge him or her not to issue marriage licenses to anyone but a man and a woman. Urge your county clerk to: "Do what's right, maintain public order, uphold the marriage statutes, and respect the democratic process by NOT issuing any 'same-sex marriage' licenses until the people decide this issue in November. Please enforce the marriage statutes and Proposition 22, which both say marriage is only for a man and a woman. Decline to go along with the court's nonsense. The separation of powers provision of the California Constitution prohibits the court from legislating from the bench. That's why even Chief Justice Ron George told the L.A. Times he didn't know whether his ruling would be accepted." Remember, even if county clerks say they MUST follow the Supreme Court decision, that's not true and you should tell them so. The California Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to impose new laws -- especially laws that go against marriage and family, the foundation of society (see California Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 1). Only the Legislature and the voters can make new laws with statewide application. Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order. And should have states obeyed the 1857 Dred Scott decision designating black slaves as "property," not "persons"? Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Several state legislatures essentially nullified the decision and declared that they would never permit slavery within their borders, no matter who ordered them to do so. Likewise, the ruling to destroy the man-woman definition of marriage should not be obeyed."<< Words fail me.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Forgot the linkage: <a href="http://www.savecalifornia.com/getactive/alertmain.php?alid=201" target="_blank">http://www.savecalifornia.com/...alid=201</a>
Originally Posted By mele Ah, imagine the poor clerks who are going to have to deal with these stupid phone calls.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm waiting for someone to say how allowing gays to marry actually hurts marriage, other than "that's the way it's always been done". A reasonable argument can be made, as someone here alluded to a while back, that heteros haven't exactly done such a great job respecting the sanctity of marriage, what with a 50% divorce rate, and all the children born out of wedlock in this country. Wouldn't it be nice if the gay divorce rate ends up being lower than straights? But more to the point, I fail to see how allowing Joey and Larry to marry hurts my marriage one iota.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order." Wow...just, wow. Who knew that allowing two gay people to marry would be the same as following orders to murder innocent people in gas chambers. Seriously, what the hell is the matter with these people? Why so much hatred?
Originally Posted By mele I like this part: "Remember, even if county clerks say they MUST follow the Supreme Court decision, that's not true and you should tell them so." Sure! I'm sure you telling that is enough to go on. Don't give them any facts to back it up. Just assure them that it's not true. We all know our job requirements are just suggestions. Employers don't care if you actually fulfill them! More time to hang around the breakroom and gossip.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Sure! I'm sure you telling that is enough to go on.<< Also known as "The Wesley Snipes Tax Free Plan."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm waiting for someone to say how allowing gays to marry actually hurts marriage, other than "that's the way it's always been done".> It's been explained many times. <I fail to see how allowing Joey and Larry to marry hurts my marriage one iota.> It doesn't. What it hurts is marriage as an institution.
Originally Posted By X-san ***It's been explained many times.*** I haven't heard the explanation. Why not repeat is for us? ***What it hurts is marriage as an institution.*** With a 50% divorce rate, the institution is hardly on good ground at this point anyway. Maybe allowing gays in would actually improve it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Something about sweden and out-of-wedlock birth rates. Douglas's whole anti-gay marriage diatribe is empty rhetoric based on discredited sources. Save yourself the trouble and watch a musical instead.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster So what strengthens marriage as an institution? I mean if it can be weakened then surely it can be strengthened. So how does that happen for those of you who beleive in such nebulous concepts?
Originally Posted By X-san ***So what strengthens marriage as an institution?*** I can't be sure, but I can only imagine forcing young people who are interested in sex into ridiculous lifelong commitments which they hardly even comprehend just so they can "get some" likely enters into it. Just think how much stronger the institution of marriage would be, if all those sinful pre-marital kids would just wait til they got attached forever and ever and ever! Just so long as they're not gay, of course.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I haven't heard the explanation.> I believe you have, and rejected it, but very well. Marriage was created by society because it's in societies best interests to encourage stable relationships between men and women, so that children are born and raised in a stable environment. This is necessary for the continuance of society. Gay marriage is not necessary for the continuance of society, since gay couples cannot produce children. Therefore, encouraging gay marriages leads to a devaluing of marriage as a step toward procreation - people stop seeing it as promoting a family, and start seeing it as only promoting a romantic couple. The evidence is that places that have allowed gay marriage are seeing marriage rates falling at an increased rate since gay marriage was introduced. There's fewer marriages, more divorces, and fewer births, and more of them are out-of-wedlock. This is not good for society.
