Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back., page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times


reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 03:17 PM by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by skeptic1



What's less clear is the impact on as many as 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since June.

The answer could come from the same court that overturned California's previous law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Or it could come from a higher-ranking tribunal in Washington, D.C.

Click for full article

From what I can gather so far there is a chance it will invalidate previous gay marriages as well.

So even when gay couples finally manage to get married, they have to continue to live in the very real fear that it will be taken back.

Everyone remember the thread about the Lesbian school teacher that recently married? Most of her students and their parents attended the wedding. I wonder how all those parents are going to explain this to their children??....

Sigh

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 03:41 PM by Kailassa
Originally posted by dbates
Originally posted by Kailassa
"Well son, your teacher and his partner must have loved each other very much, and decided to make a permanent commitment to each other, just like Mommy and I did."

I love my parents and brothers, but I don't need a contract with them to prove it. What exact purpose is the contract for? What good does it accomplish?



There are several
legal benefits to marriage. There are both federal and state laws available only to married people. Other benefits include Social Security benefits, inheritance rights, property rights, the ability to sue third parties for the wrongful death of a spouse or loss of consortium, and the right to make medical decisions on a spouse's behalf.
. . .
Getting married is one of the most important things people do. Hopefully, it reflects a deep emotional commitment because it also truly changes the participants' legal statuses. By understanding your rights and obligations as a married person you may more fully appreciate the step you are taking.




On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
- joint parenting; bullet joint adoption;
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- crime victims' recovery benefits;
- loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders;
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;


There have been cases where a man could not visit his partner who was in hospital dying, because he was not related to him or married to him.

Denying these rights to a group of people because they have a need to be with their own sex rather than with the opposite sex is unconstitutional.
Trying to get around it by changing the wording in the law so it only allows for marriage to be between a man and a woman is no less discriminatory that saying you are free to drink from a water fountain if you are white.

Dark-skinned people could bleach all the colour out, but a homosexual man cannot change.

Some still spout the hatred-justifying lie that being gay is a choice. I've seen situations in which gay men have married women and tried to make that choice, and instead they've ruined two peoples' lives in the process.


reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 03:46 PM by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by TheRooster



Sex with minors, sex with animals, sex with trees. Christ man, are you even aware of how absurd this logic is??...

Homosexual Marriage is consensual between two adults.

The Gay Community SUPPORTS that marriage should be consensual and between two adults.

Your leap in logic isn't a leap in logic at all. It's a leap to bigoted ignorance.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]


reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 04:08 PM by TheRooster
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to
post by TheRooster



Sex with minors, sex with animals, sex with trees. Christ man, are you even aware of how absurd this logic is??...

Homosexual Marriage is consensual between two adults.

The Gay Community SUPPORTS that marriage should be consensual and between two adults.

Your leap in logic isn't a leap in logic at all. It's a leap to bigoted ignorance.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]


It's not ignorance at all, the question I am begging to be answered is WHERE DOES IT STOP? Will the homosexual community be satisfied with marriage?

OR

Will each time something becomes "acceptable", will society be forced to conform to your lifestyle and preferences? If that sounds ignorant, then I suggest you get outside your own world for a minute and think in terms of a document that is to serve mankind until mankind ceases' to exist. We are not talking about your or my future, we are talking about our children and their children's future. When the founding fathers drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they did their best to set it up for hundreds of years, not 20, 30, or 40!


[edit on 11/5/2008 by TheRooster]


reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 04:12 PM by Kailassa
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Sex with minors, sex with animals, sex with trees. Christ man, are you even aware of how absurd this logic is??...


It goes a lot further than this though.
If this movement is not nipped in the bud, people will start having sex with cars, bicycles and park benches.
Uh oh, it's
too late; they already are!
All these helpless straight males are being forced to partake in conjugal intimacy with inanimate objects by the fact that homosexuals want to live as legally joined loving couples.



- That oak outside my window keeps flirting with me. Makes it so hard to concentrate on posting when it waves its branches, now sprouting tender chartreuse leaves, at me like that.


reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 04:13 PM by W3RLIED2
reply to post by TheRooster



The constitution is the document that also states the simple fact that we are all EQUAL. Hence the simple reasoning that suggests: If strait poeople can celebrate their love through marriage, gays should be allowed the same and EQUAL right to do so.


reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 04:38 PM by skeptic1
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy



That is just wrong. They married with full protection and legality of the law; their marriages should not be invalidated.

And, for everyone saying that gays want "special" rights to get married....this is not about special rights for gay men and women. This is about equal rights for men and women.....gay, bi, or straight.


reply posted on 5-11-2008 @ 04:42 PM by scientist
Originally posted by tombangelta
Although the need for human progression and evolution is no more evident than in today's society , i have always seen Gay marriage as a perversion of our fastly dissolving traditions.

its just wrong to be blunt.



out of curiosity, what do you consider to be these dissolving traditions? Please be specific. Also keep in mind my prior reference to anti-miscegenation laws, which were also "tradition" at one point in time:

en.wikipedia.org...


Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes interracial sex between whites and members of other races. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have since 1863 been termed "miscegenation." Contemporary usage of the term "miscegenation" is less frequent. In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany, from 1935 until 1945, and in South Africa during the Apartheid era, from 1949 until 1985.


If that "tradition" were still upheld, our next president would be a walking, talking example of the result of a criminal act.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by scientist]
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Republicans in Arizona plan to nearly wipe out public unions
  Posted 12 days ago with 4 member flags
Tennessee threatens suit against man building boat with his son.
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags
The CULT of Ron Paul
  Posted 16 days ago with 1 member flags
A Protest Technique From Russia (Lighten up OWS)
  Posted 12 days ago with 0 member flags