ATS temperature on same sex marriage

Juest read this article here:
Baltimore Sun

They have a bill on tha table that will legalize same sex marriage in the state of Maryland and now has 21 Sens in support with a total of 24 needed to pass.

Brochin, a Democrat, said his position changed after listened to a seven hour hearing in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. He said he felt "appalled and disgusted" by the "hate and venom" offered by opponents of the same-sex marriage bill.

"I'm not going to be a part of the vilification of gays on the senate floor," Brochin said. The switch gives supporters 21 votes; the bill needs 24 to pass on the floor. Six senators are either undecided or have not publicly announced their intentions.

He never stated why he was not in favor to begin with, but that is not the issue here.
I used to be on the side of the sanctity of marriga ebetween one man and one woman. I had nothing against civil unions or gay partnerships in the least, I just wanted the sanctity to be safe. I have since realized how selfish I was and ignorant, and have ammended my stance. I am for open marriage for all. Opposite sex, same sex, plural marriage...who am I to say that you cant get married because of your orientation or beliefs?

So I ask you this, membership of ATS, what are your thoughts on the issue. What is the overall tenperature of my fellow ATS-ers on the issue of same sex marriage?

reply to post by youdidntseeme


I'm also a Maryland resident and I hope this bill passes and is signed into law. I have several friends in commited relationships who are gay or lesbian and I am looking forward to dancing at their weddings! However, while it's great that states are going ahead and making same-sex marriages legal, legislation is still needed at the federal level for their recognition, especially with respect to the tax code, and, sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon.

The real question is why government licenses are necessary in the first place. Marriage licenses, in the US, were originally intended to prevent interracial marriage. It had nothing to do with "sanctity". Once the government realized they could use it as a method of social control, they also saw they could make a lot of money charging fees for the licenses.

It's not really about who can get married and who can't--marriage is an abstract interpersonal commitment--it's about who can get a license to benefit from the legal jungle they've set up to regulate the transfer of property and the custody of children.

Simply put, the government has no legitimate business in defining or regulating interpersonal relationships whatsoever. Its motivation is nefarious at best, and downright evil at worst.

It's a non issue.
In reality this is just a divisionary tactic used by TPTB to divide the population.
This way they can divert attention away from real issues.

And it's working just fine.

Originally posted by NthOther
It's not really about who can get married and who can't--marriage is an abstract interpersonal commitment--it's about who can get a license to benefit from the legal jungle they've set up to regulate the transfer of property and the custody of children.

Simply put, the government has no legitimate business in defining or regulating interpersonal relationships whatsoever. Its motivation is nefarious at best, and downright evil at worst.

Exactly correct.

Live and let live, that's what I say.

Same sex marriages dont hurt or affect anyone, so I dont see the problem.

Nothing much to add to that really

of course it should be legal. our gay and lesbian friends should be allowed to suffer the same marital ills as us straight folk

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
I am for open marriage for all. Opposite sex, same sex, plural marriage...

I share your position. It's one of my hot issues that I enjoy debating. The freedom to marry the adult (or adults) of one's choice.

Good luck to Maryland!

I also think the state should get out of marriage altogether, but since they offer benefits to married people, that's not going to happen for a while, but I would totally support independent marriage

reply to post by Crakeur


And the same joys, benefits, privileges...
.

There are 2 types of ATS'rs.

• There are those who support same sex marriage.
  
  
  
• And there are those who do not:
  

I do not believe the state has any right to determine whether or not someone is allowed to marry another person. If two persons decide to have marriage administered by a public official such as judge then it should only be a civil union, as the state should recognize between all people regardless of sexual orientation.

Marriage however should be strictly a religious institution and marriage ceremonies performed only by religious officials and only recognized by the religious officials and not by the state. This way it does not become a legal issue and the religion itself decides whether or not homosexual marriage is permitted.

Thus the state performs and recognizes civil unions only and the religious institutions perform and recognize marriage only. Thus if two people are married whether they are man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man, the state is permitted to only recognize them as in a civil union and not a marriage.

Personally I am opposed to gay marriage, however like I said marriage should be left up to religious institutions to decide.

1. Same sex marriage has absolutely no negative effect on the lives of other people.

2. There evidently are no arguments against same sex marriage that are secular - all opposition can be traced to religious objections. Bigotry is not a valid argument.

3. The government has absolutely no business preventing two consenting individuals from entering into a contract together.

Originally posted by Misoir
Thus the state performs and recognizes civil unions only and the religious institutions perform and recognize marriage only. Thus if two people are married whether they are man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man, the state is permitted to only recognize them as in a civil union and not a marriage.

What would be the legal difference between a marriage and a civil union?

I feel sorry for any surrogate or adopted kids who grow up with either two dads or two mums and no biological opposite to either of their parents in the home. Recipe for trouble if you ask me.

Other than that, I just wish these gay couples would be satisfied with just enjoying themselves and keeping it to themselves. I'm not homophobic but what annoys me are those who need a piece of paper and make an issue out of their sexuality to feel secure.

In a nutshell, I just think it's silly. Marriage is about partnership, not a piece of paper.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


On a federal level, there is one major reason why I doubt we'll ever see same sex marriages allowed/recognized.

estate and gift taxes.

When a husband gives his wife money or assets, moving them from his name to hers, there is no gift tax. When one spouse dies, the other spouse can be the sole beneficiary of the estate, resulting in no estate tax. So, if I die and leave my wife a billion dollars, the feds get nothing.

For a gay couple, this is not the case. Gay man gives his spouse, another gay man, ten million dollars, and a gift tax return must be filed and gift taxes might be due. When a gay man dies and leaves his estate to his life partner or state approved spouse, the estate is still taxed on the federal level.

the gov't will be hard pressed to give up this source of revenue.

The temperature of same sex marriage? It's either hot, or cold, as Hell.
G_D created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve (cue the flaming *snip*s in 4..3..2..)

Reply to post by NthOther

I'm glad this point of view seems to be gaining popularity. A few years ago you were a psychotic nut for questioning the validity of some requirement forcing you to ask your master for permission to enter into a private relationship.

Well, you're still a nut. There are just more nuts the bag now.

If there was ever proof of oppression this is it. We can hide our relationship and keep it a secret but to get married you have to ask the master for permission. It was wrong when Kunta Kinte had to do it and it's wrong now.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It is more about the title than anything else. Marriage, I feel, is a religious institution and the decision of who to include within it is up to the religion to decide. But all people should be given their natural rights.

So to answer your question, there would be no legal differences other than the title.

reply to post by Violater1

If you really don't want my opinion, then don't set up or bait, the opposition, with threads like these.
Perhaps a Gay section should be created to keep straight people like me, knowingly out of your discussions. This would prevent people like me from spoiling your contorted ideations.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

It is more about the title than anything else. Marriage, I feel, is a religious institution and the decision of who to include within it is up to the religion to decide. But all people should be given their natural rights.

So to answer your question, there would be no legal differences other than the title.

But what about someone, like myself, who is of no organized religion? Or atheists or agnostics?
Should they be denied the right to a 'marriage' because they have no church in which to marry?
Are they destined only for a civil union?

reply to post by youdidntseeme


Marriage is a religious institution from its original Western founding. To want to be married is to want to be recognized by a religious institution. Why would an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist want to be acknowledged by a religious institution? Civil Union would be the 100% exact same as any other marriage except it would not be recognized by a religious institution but rather by the state.