Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I wonder why interviewers never ask President Obama what caused him to change his stance on gay marriage? He is on the record as being in favor of gay marriage rights when whe was in the Illinois legislature. It seems his position changed in preparation for being on the national stage.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I thought that he always been in favor of equality in terms of rights under the law, but without the word "marriage" attached.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Maybe we should just get rid of marriage in general. What business does the government have in sanctioning personal relationships anyway?
Originally Posted By Mr X That puts you in the company of Ron Paul, and I would certainly join you guys on that... What business DOES the government have to do with marriage? In a limited, strictly Constitutional government, the answer is "none".
Originally Posted By Donny Mr. X said "What business DOES the government have to do with marriage? In a limited, strictly Constitutional government, the answer is "none"." Mr. X I agree with you completely.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Mr X, Ron Pual, and Donny all agree with me on the same subject? I can hear the twilight music playing.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "What business DOES the government have to do with marriage?" Taxes come to mind, among other things.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If you die, should your spouse get to stay in your house without paying huge taxes on the value of your house, because the government sees it as a "gift?" If you're married, no problem. They understand that spouses live together and when one dies, the other is not liable for taxes. The same is not true for officially unmarried gay couples. The law sees them as officially "strangers," the house (or half a house) as a "gift" and the survivor, after having just lost his or her spouse, is suddenly liable for that huge tax bill on top of it, and may well lose that house. Happens all the time. This is just one example of literally hundreds that straight people tend to take for granted and don't even think about where the unequal status has serious real-world consequences.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Thanks Dabob for elaborating on what I was hinting at in post 27.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance If there was no marriage and everyone, gay or straight, plays by the same rules and can benefit equally from whatever benefits you can gain from having an officially named "partner" then I'd say that is the best way to go. Although, the romantic girl side of me screams "no!" inside my body at the thought of taking away marriage.
Originally Posted By Mr X Sure, but that's unfair too isn't it? I mean, even IF gay marriage were allowed, you've still got a situation whereby huge benefits are given to some, but not all, depending on their contractual circumstances. How is it fair that some spouse who got married shortly before a tragic accident gets the house and all the assets tax free, while a devoted couple living together for many years gets nothing? If there were NO benefits to marriage whatsoever, then everyone could set up their legal situations accordingly (and the gov't, if the people wish it, could set up "longevity clauses" or something to give tax breaks to people who lived together for a long time or whatever).
Originally Posted By Mr X DavewasBaloo has mentioned situations like elderly sisters or brothers living together who get screwed when one dies, that's yet another circumstance that deserves consideration is it not? Why is only "married" some sort of federally subsidized thing, while other situations get nothing?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "fair that some spouse who got married shortly before a tragic accident gets the house and all the assets tax free, while a devoted couple living together for many years gets nothing?" How would the devoted couple get nothing? All they'd have to do is name each other as their surviving person, hell, brothers, sisters, anyone could do that.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "How is it fair that some spouse who got married shortly before a tragic accident gets the house and all the assets tax free, while a devoted couple living together for many years gets nothing?" It's fair because the opportunity to marry is equal for all. If the couple chooses not to marry and remain together they do so knowing the liability risks should something happen.
Originally Posted By Mr X ^---except when it's not, of course. There are always going to be inequalities here Hans. Some states allow cousins to marry, others do not. There are also other legal issues (a husband has a wife in a coma for years, falls in love with another but can't get divorced due to legal complications or a desire to protect the dignity of the incapacitated spouse etc. etc...). Why should anyone HAVE to get married in order to enjoy equal benefits and rights? That's the crux of it. The state should have nothing to do with marriage, that's my opinion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Why is only "married" some sort of federally subsidized thing, while other situations get nothing?> The justification is that the government wants to encourage marriage, because studies do show that married people tend to be steadier, happier, more productive, etc. etc., and it supposedly makes for a more stable society in general. If they're going to continue to make marriage a favored status, it just should be equal for all citizens regardless of the gender of the spouse, that's all.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "(a husband has a wife in a coma for years, falls in love with another but can't get divorced due to legal complications or a desire to protect the dignity of the incapacitated spouse etc. etc...)." I didn't know the Lifetime movie channel was broadcast in Tokyo!
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "If they're going to continue to make marriage a favored status, it just should be equal for all citizens regardless of the gender of the spouse, that's all." I don't think anyone here would argue this point with you, Dabob. I want nothing more than equality for everyone.
