RP Listener Forum

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 12:20pm

brandog wrote:

IMO it would be easier (and smarter) to force the government to strike the word marriage, and all it's implications from it's documents and usage - the government should have no right to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry in any church or private ceremony. I spent enough years reading Heinlein to have no qualms against "SuperGroup" and "Line" marriages - where there are multiple husbands / wives - and the group configurations is dynamic. I don't know how LGBT would function in those complex kinds of marriages, but people are smart and adaptive - I'm sure it would all work out.

It's our government, you know, the one that supposed to be "of, by, and for the people" that needs a serious ass-reaming (they say it helps with consitpation), and there's a lot of constipation pressing down on The Seat of Power in country, that's for sure.

Maybe that's what Dave was getting at.

But what about all those people getting registary office marriages? They would be pretty upset about losing the word 'marriage'. But I think that leaving it as it is might be storing up troubles for the future. Im not sure which way would be easiest to go - to recognise the de facto change of the word marriage to include a non-religous context, or to change the laws to allow for the religious context of marriage (or that word Ankh and LaPea liked so much).

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 9:08am

Lazy8 wrote:

Well, that piece of paper is really only required to avoid a bunch of other pieces of paper......I think we can demand, though, that big brother just step out of the way.

good post. from my pov, it would seem that if one pays taxes(funds the system)that he should not be discriminated against benefits of that system regardless. if one has financial(or moral)obligations with a same sex partner/wife/hubby etc., he or she should be afforded equal rights and recognition.

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 8:53am

oldslabsides wrote:

There you have it - all that legal garbage, created by lawyers. If you are a couple, you are a unit - you have made it so; act as if it is so. Why is a piece of paper approved by some clerk required? We have forgotten what freedom is, and are thinking as slaves - we need big brother's approval for everything.

Well, that piece of paper is really only required to avoid a bunch of other pieces of paper (with one set of exceptions--see below). You can write a will to dispose of your real assets after death; you can grant durable power of attourney to deal with life-support and medical care issues; you can contractually handle property issues (like joint registration of a vehicle, for instance). A legally-recognized marriage just sets a bunch of defaults and makes these contractual arrangments assumed rather than explicit.

The big exception is with pensions and entitlements like Social Security. These expire on the death of the recipient unless the deceased is married (or in some cases, has a minor child) and there is no private-contract mechanism to allow inheritence of these things (there are some exceptions with private pensions) by anyone other than a spouse or child. Privatizing Social Security could go a long way in that direction, but we can save that knock-down-drag-out fight for another discussion.

If you've ever been to an emergency room and tried to deal with these issues in a crisis you'll recognize that that default comes in damned handy. The admitting nurse will not have time to read a sheaf of papers (assuming your emergency allowed you time to bring them) or the ability to understand them. She will understand the term "spouse"; there's a place right there on the form for that.

I won't go into the societal issues surrounding marriage as these are separate: society is not the same thing as government. We will have to work these out without the benevolent guiding hand of big brother. I think we can demand, though, that big brother just step out of the way.

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 8:11am

oldslabsides wrote:

There you have it - all that legal garbage, created by lawyers. If you are a couple, you are a unit - you have made it so; act as if it is so. Why is a piece of paper approved by some clerk required? We have forgotten what freedom is, and are thinking as slaves - we need big brother's approval for everything.

Agreed and well said.

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 8:01am

I'm totally against gay marriage. Have you ever seen a dude in a wedding dress?

...oh wait, I just saw the last part of the forum title "...an Intelligent Discussion"...

...nevermind.

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 7:51am

pdhski wrote:

People don't need protection from government, people need protection from other idiots that infringe on their rights.

Say I was a partner in a relationship, and my SO passes away. Because of my decisions in that relationship, I am rightfully entitled to act and do with my partner's property whatever we had decided. Without a law to preserve that right, it would be extremely difficult for most folks to defend that right.

Your idealism is great - if only everyone played along. Unfortunately there are idiots out there who have no sense .

Very well said.

I'm w/ Slabby on the smaller government idea. But one of the functions of that smaller government should be the protection of my rights, and when necessary assistance in the defense of those rights from the infractions of others.

Health and property are the two areas where that matters the most. And those happen to be the two areas that are most difficult to defend w/o a recognized *legal* marriage (the civil bit) in place.

One of the few items that people tend to forget is that a big part of why we structured our system this way is to protect from the tyrany of the majority. Recently it has been corrupted to try and enforce a simple tyrany of any whim. We are not slaves, and we are free to be in the minority and speak out about it if we choose, and to not be punished for it.

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 7:24am

oldslabsides wrote:

There you have it - all that legal garbage, created by lawyers. If you are a couple, you are a unit - you have made it so; act as if it is so. Why is a piece of paper approved by some clerk required? We have forgotten what freedom is, and are thinking as slaves - we need big brother's approval for everything.

People don't need protection from government, people need protection from other idiots that infringe on their rights.

Say I was a partner in a relationship, and my SO passes away. Because of my decisions in that relationship, I am rightfully entitled to act and do with my partner's property whatever we had decided. Without a law to preserve that right, it would be extremely difficult for most folks to defend that right.

Your idealism is great - if only everyone played along. Unfortunately there are idiots out there who have no sense .

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 6:56am

brandog wrote:

IMO it would be easier (and smarter) to force the government to strike the word marriage from it's documents and usage - the government should have no right to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry in any church or private ceremony. Maybe that's what Dave was getting at.

Hey, whatever it takes...

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 6:52am

laprincessa wrote:

Dave, you KNOW I adore you, but unfortunately, you just don't GET IT. No offense, but as someone who HAS all the rights to be legally married, it's obvious you don't understand what it is that we want.

Sure, being married is a union that should be private and coveted, but in the US a man and a woman who are "married" have rights that we, as same sex couples, do not have. THAT'S what the GLBT community wants.

Let me direct you to a site that will inform you of just some of the 1,138 legal rights we are not afforded as same sex couples.

Hopefully, this will help everyone understand the big picture here. It's not a matter of the use of the word "marriage" or civil union - it's nice to say "marriage" shouldn't be controlled by the governement, but let's face it - marriage laws ARE controlled by the government -- and this is what we want -- the same legal rights as a man and a woman.

I'd like to be able to claim social security benefits should something happen to my spouse (not that there will BE ss by then). I'd like for us to be on the same insurance policy - we pay out so much money just for this. I'd like for her to be able to take time off to care for me when I end up in the hospital because of my asthma. I'd like to be able to legally put her as my beneficiary on my life insurance policy. Well, hopefully you get my drift....

IMO it would be easier (and smarter) to force the government to strike the word marriage, and all it's implications from it's documents and usage - the government should have no right to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry in any church or private ceremony. I spent enough years reading Heinlein to have no qualms against "SuperGroup" and "Line" marriages - where there are multiple husbands / wives - and the group configurations is dynamic. I don't know how LGBT would function in those complex kinds of marriages, but people are smart and adaptive - I'm sure it would all work out.

It's our government, you know, the one that supposed to be "of, by, and for the people" that needs a serious ass-reaming (they say it helps with consitpation), and there's a lot of constipation pressing down on The Seat of Power in country, that's for sure.

Maybe that's what Dave was getting at.

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 5:38am

oldslabsides wrote:

There you have it - all that legal garbage, created by lawyers. If you are a couple, you are a unit - you have made it so; act as if it is so. Why is a piece of paper approved by some clerk required? We have forgotten what freedom is, and are thinking as slaves - we need big brother's approval for everything.

Dave, you KNOW I adore you, but unfortunately, you just don't GET IT. No offense, but as someone who HAS all the rights to be legally married, it's obvious you don't understand what it is that we want.

Sure, being married is a union that should be private and coveted, but in the US a man and a woman who are "married" have rights that we, as same sex couples, do not have. THAT'S what the GLBT community wants.

Let me direct you to a site that will inform you of just some of the 1,138 legal rights we are not afforded as same sex couples.

Hopefully, this will help everyone understand the big picture here. It's not a matter of the use of the word "marriage" or civil union - it's nice to say "marriage" shouldn't be controlled by the governement, but let's face it - marriage laws ARE controlled by the government -- and this is what we want -- the same legal rights as a man and a woman.

I'd like to be able to claim social security benefits should something happen to my spouse (not that there will BE ss by then). I'd like for us to be on the same insurance policy - we pay out so much money just for this. I'd like for her to be able to take time off to care for me when I end up in the hospital because of my asthma. I'd like to be able to legally put her as my beneficiary on my life insurance policy. Well, hopefully you get my drift....

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 4:20am

Lazy8 wrote:

Government's power here is in recognizing that marriage and entitling them to act as a unit--make decisions for each other in case one is incapacitated, inherit property or entitlements (like pensions) without a will, hold property jointly without a contract, etc. A marriage (as far as government cares) is sort of like filing articles of incorporation. It allows the couple, two individuals, to hold certain legal rights of a person jointly.

There you have it - all that legal garbage, created by lawyers. If you are a couple, you are a unit - you have made it so; act as if it is so. Why is a piece of paper approved by some clerk required? We have forgotten what freedom is, and are thinking as slaves - we need big brother's approval for everything.

Posted: Jan 11, 2006 - 12:02am

laprincessa wrote:

First thing we've agreed on.

I'm not all bad hun.

Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 9:43pm

RonH wrote:

What if I don't believe in God?What if I don't believe in any higher power what so ever?No religion, no God, etc..

Imagine all the people, living for today...

Oh, sorry, thought we were singing...

Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 8:53pm

oldslabsides wrote:

Why not push for government to get out of marriage entirely, and for businesses to do the same?

Again, governments power here is not to create or destroy, or even to punish--if two men hold a wedding ceremony nobody shows up at the alter to haul them to jail. They haven't broken a law.

Government's power here is in recognizing that marriage and entitling them to act as a unit--make decisions for each other in case one is incapacitated, inherit property or entitlements (like pensions) without a will, hold property jointly without a contract, etc. A marriage (as far as government cares) is sort of like filing articles of incorporation. It allows the couple, two individuals, to hold certain legal rights of a person jointly.

For instance: back when interratial marriage was banned, did anyone go to jail for marrying someone of a different race? No, the marriage was simply not recognized, and couples could be prosecuted for cohabitation or fornication (remember when those were crimes?). They didn't have the legal right to live together or have sex because they weren't legally married.

Why is the default position of virtually everyone with a gripe always more government, rather than less?

As much as I sympathize with your point of view, I don't think the criticism is valid in this case. No new agency has to spring into existence, no new crime goes on the books. A clerk just says "yes" instead of "no".

Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 4:56pm

From my perspective, most folks who think it's wrong for government not to recognize gay marriage are going about it all wrong.

What I want to know is why government is involved in marriage at all. I know their excuses - all created by lawyers bent on insuring a customer base. Lawyers are, perhaps, the greatest personification of evil on the planet; but that's another discussion.

Why not push for government to get out of marriage entirely, and for businesses to do the same?

A marriage is (to me) between two people and God. I realize that third party is not a consideration for many, and that's okay. In that case, it's a matter of two people who love each other, and a representative of whatever belief system they hold dear to perform the ceremony.

Why is the default position of virtually everyone with a gripe always more government, rather than less?

Just my 2 cents.

Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 3:10pm

Mugro wrote:

I began this forum because I was not sure what all the controversy was about in Massachusetts. If we say that we would establish "civil unions" with all the rights of "marriage", what is wrong with that?

There are a lot of people in this Commonwealth who think that there is definitely something wrong with it, but I have yet so see or hear someone articulate this.

A couple of you have referenced the fact that the word "marriage" was introduced to the law in this Commonwealth by religion. "Marriage" was a religious term long before it was a legal one. I think that is what religious people are upset about is that the court here in MA seemed to change the definition of the word "marriage" into something that was not intended by the churches who introduced the word to the law. Many people are fine with creating a civil union status for same sex couples that grant full benefits. They just don't want the word "marriage" to be used for it.

Any thoughts on this?

Here in QC, marriage is a civil thing. Even if you performed a religious marriage, the officer still need to be approved and the Declaration of Marriage is draw by the registrar of Civil Status (which is sent after the religious ceremony).

Since 2002, they introduced a new legislation for civil union. The 2002 legislation introduce the same rights to same sex couples.

It is interesting to see though that, the religious people of our province also oppose gay marriage - even as a civil union. They did as a civil marriage, they remove the "marriage" and put Union in 2002, yet they still oppose it. So I think it is not just a matter or words ..

If you want to read about how it is done here : Marriage
Civil Union

So we have marriages - religious or civil, defacto union or civil union - all have the same obligations and the same benefits. Civil union a new form of union introduce in 2002 when the gay marriages were given equal rights. However, we had civil marriages since the 70 with the same rights as religious marriages, there never was any difference between the two, except one was in front of a priest and the other in front of a court.

Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 2:59pm

laprincessa wrote:

Oh, I'm not knocking what you two are doing AT ALL. We just sort of see it as we've been together for 11 years - our friends KNOW we're committed to each other and we'd rather put the money into the house and other such stuff. We DID however, get our wills and powers of attorneys done several years ago. We're AS married as we can be considering the circumstances.

Oh btw, Joni - we're extra lucky, the hospital in our neighborhood (where we both go, when necessary) is pretty much run by the gay community so there's absolutely no flack when one of us needs to stay overnight. I was hospitalized with my asthma, about 6 years ago, for a week and they let the wife sleep in a cot (which they so gracefully provided) every single night. And just last month, the wife had an appendectomy - they let me stay with her in ER and her room -- I was with her every where but in actual surgery. Now THAT is a hospital that cares.

We've got most of the paperwork done. I'm hitting up my newly lawyered friend from college to finish the rest. Puppy has me listed as next of kin on everything...

And that is a great hospital! Wish we had one here.

Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 2:51pm

ankhara99 wrote:

I loves me some "pull your wig off fun"!

What about "nelly as a purse" fun?

Posted: Jan 10, 2006 - 2:50pm

ditty wrote:

congrats! There is no "reason" to get married in Texas since it won't mean a darned thing, but this is where our family and friends are and we want to share our committment to each other with everyone we know (you two are invited of course!) In a coupla years maybe we'll move somewhere and get "legally" hitched

Oh, I'm not knocking what you two are doing AT ALL. We just sort of see it as we've been together for 11 years - our friends KNOW we're committed to each other and we'd rather put the money into the house and other such stuff. We DID however, get our wills and powers of attorneys done several years ago. We're AS married as we can be considering the circumstances.

Oh btw, Joni - we're extra lucky, the hospital in our neighborhood (where we both go, when necessary) is pretty much run by the gay community so there's absolutely no flack when one of us needs to stay overnight. I was hospitalized with my asthma, about 6 years ago, for a week and they let the wife sleep in a cot (which they so gracefully provided) every single night. And just last month, the wife had an appendectomy - they let me stay with her in ER and her room -- I was with her every where but in actual surgery. Now THAT is a hospital that cares.