Gay marriage legal in NY

[ufojoe]

did you leave out some words joe, or am I having a comprehension issue -

1.  Get the government out of marriage

This should be in bold and all caps. I'm saying scream it from the roof tops.

I doubt it happens in our lifetimes. I'm fine with it but there are so many more important issues. This is low on the list.

If the "arraignments" are different, then they should have different names to avoid confusion. Any two people entering into a domestic agreement in which they will have joint ownership, power of atty, shared custodial arrangements, shared benefits, etc. should have one name, if the agreement has different stipulations, then a different name. But the gender of the 2 parties should be irrelevant, just as it is in a LLC, or a partnership agreement, or a corporation, or an LLP, or any agreement involving the sharing of assets and power of atty.

The bold part is what some people have a problem with. They think that the union/partnership of two men or two women shouldn't be called the same thing as a man and a woman. Why they care so much is beyond me.

[dbucfan]

Probably that stupid definition used for centuries and the tie to religion - they should all change so you are comfortable

[ufojoe]

Probably that stupid definition used for centuries and the tie to religion - they should all change so you are comfortable

Maybe we should have separate everything for same sex couples so folks like yourself can be comfortable.

We'll call their unions something different and have separate hotels, restaurants and entire communities for them to hang out in and live. But they'll still be equal, right?

[ufojoe]

Once same sex couples get all of the benefits of a male/female marriage and are referred to as a married couple and nothing more, (or less) then they'll be equal.

In states where same sex marriage is legal, those couple still don't get the federal benefits (related to taxes, social security benefits and pensions) that folks like myself get.

[ufojoe]

Maybe this will clear it up for you...

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Note-to-N-Y-Legal-doesn-t-mean-equal-say-1450381.php#ixzz1R3n275NO

Even though they're married, McGovern and Eckert don't enjoy many of the rights afforded to heterosexual couples. Most of these are financial and stem from the fact that same-sex marriage isn't recognized federally. For instance, they can file a joint state income tax return, but have to file separately on the federal return. McGovern and Eckert pointed out that they aren't entitled to each other's pension or Social Security benefits -- both rights granted to heterosexual couples.

Also, because only a handful of states recognize same-sex marriage, traveling can present a problem. In a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, they're considered legal strangers, which could present serious problems if one of them becomes ill or dies.

"Marriage, for heterosexual couples is portable, meaning it's recognized everywhere," said Irene C. Olszewski, an East Hartford attorney whose practice focuses on gay and lesbian rights. "That is not the case for gay and lesbian couples."

One of the trickier aspects of piecemeal legalization is divorce, she said. The lack of federal recognition means that same-sex couples can only get divorced in a state that recognizes their marriage -- meaning that, if you get married in Connecticut but live in, say, Montana, obtaining a divorce will be nearly impossible.

Finding the words

Aside from the larger legal issues there's also still the basic issue of how the world views gay and lesbian couples. McGovern and Eckert both said they've seen cultural shifts between their parents' generation, their generation and the generation of their nieces and nephews. Younger people, whether gay or not, tend to be matter of fact about their relationship, seeing it the way that McGovern and Eckert do -- as no big deal.

But, they said, they still encounter people who have a hard time processing their marriage, particularly in finding a vocabulary to describe it. Both McGovern and Eckert said they've had people refer to the other as their "wife," a term they don't like (they prefer "spouse" or "partner"). McGovern said she actually hates the term "same-sex marriage," because it seems like another attempt to put her relationship in a different category from others. "My marriage has no more or less merit than yours," she said. "What we're really fighting for is the right not to be different."

Olszewski said a lot of people have a similar problem with civil unions. Though the unions, in most cases, carry the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as marriage, she said many couples took exception to the concept, saying that it put committed gay couples in a different category from committed straight couples. "It creates this separate status," Olszewski said.

[dbucfan]

Probably that stupid definition used for centuries and the tie to religion - they should all change so you are comfortable

Maybe we should have separate everything for same sex couples so folks like yourself can be comfortable.

That would be nice since most outside of the gay community would prefer it that way - thanks

And the article - aimed at not getting the "benefits" of marriage was the original point.  It is not about terms - it is about "benefits" or money.  And having the "same issue" with civil unions is what could be fixed - possibly made easier without the seemingly inflammatory change to the term marriage.  While I realize you would prefer to have every element of the discussion about "benefits" go within your preferred terms - well it might be better going without amending the definition of marriage.

[spartan]

Olszewski said a lot of people have a similar problem with civil unions. Though the unions, in most cases, carry the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as marriage, she said many couples took exception to the concept, saying that it put committed gay couples in a different category from committed straight couples. "It creates this separate status," Olszewski said.

Sounds to me like someone has an inferiority complex.

[ufojoe]

It's already called marriage in six states and there's not much you can do about it.

**CENSORED** Hughes, a deacon at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Salem, Oregon, gets it...

Or maybe he has an inferiority complex, too?

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110702/OPINION16/107020319/Church-deacon-How-changed-my-mind-about-gay-marriage?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp

Excerpts...

Four years ago, Oregon made progress by establishing domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. I figured that was good enough, as it gave gays and lesbians the contractual rights they deserved as a couple -- the right to visit their partners in the hospital, etc.

As I studied the Scriptures more and further expanded my circle of gay friends, getting to know more parents and siblings of gays, my thinking changed.

Domestic partnerships are better than the OCA's vile agenda, but only one step better. Having marriage for heterosexuals and domestic partnerships for homosexuals is like having "separate but equal" schools for white and black Americans during segregation. "Equal" in that situation never is truly equal.

Marriage is a unique arrangement, a blessed commitment of love.

The gay people I know don't share a common "agenda," but they do share a hungering for equal treatment and equal opportunity.

Don't all parents hope for their kids to marry the person of the children's dreams? Why should that joyous opportunity be denied certain Americans because of their biological makeup? And why would homosexual marriages be any threat to my wife's and my 34-year marriage -- or any marriage?

[dbucfan]

It just continues to evolve - and now another comes forward to note equal treatment and equal opportunity.  Hungering for what - the "relationship" is ratified - so much for the 'it's all about love' chant.  Remains about benefits - so make the benefits the same by law - this hang up on it must be the same word is, well a hang-up.

[ufojoe]

It just continues to evolve - and now another comes forward to note equal treatment and equal opportunity.  Hungering for what - the "relationship" is ratified - so much for the 'it's all about love' chant.  Remains about benefits - so make the benefits the same by law - this hang up on it must be the same word is, well a hang-up.

They want to get married for the same various reasons that everybody else does.

Don't know why the religious folks are so hung up on a word but they'll have to get over it since the government isn't getting out of the marriage biz any time soon.

[John Galt?]

Olszewski said a lot of people have a similar problem with civil unions. Though the unions, in most cases, carry the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as marriage, she said many couples took exception to the concept, saying that it put committed gay couples in a different category from committed straight couples. "It creates this separate status," Olszewski said.

Uh, maybe that's because if you don't consider "rights, responsibilities and obligations" then they ARE IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. 

That is like saying "they are exactly the same except for the differences and we don't want anyone to think about the differences". Sorry but we can't go redefining the English language because some group has an inferiority complex about how others are "thinking" about them. NO THOUGHT POLICE NEEDED.

It creates a "perceived" separate status, a status that only exists in people's thoughts and perceptions. You can't change thoughts and perceptions, and you sure as heck can't legislate them, so get over it and grow a thicker skin. If they want to be called "married" then go to a Church that does "gay marriages" or go to Vegas, and get "Married" or just tell everyone you are married.

Now any document issued by a govt. entity should be uniform and not gender biased, so don't have govt. entities issue anything with the word "marriage" on it. Leave "marriage certificates" to Churches, Ship Captains, and Vegas Parlors.

[dbucfan]

It just continues to evolve - and now another comes forward to note equal treatment and equal opportunity.  Hungering for what - the "relationship" is ratified - so much for the 'it's all about love' chant.  Remains about benefits - so make the benefits the same by law - this hang up on it must be the same word is, well a hang-up.

They want to get married for the same various reasons that everybody else does.

Don't know why the religious folks are so hung up on a word but they'll have to get over it since the government isn't getting out of the marriage biz any time soon.

Not going to debate the first statement - I suspect you and I both know the reason Gays want the Governments to acknowledge their status as married.

Now - let's talk about the religious folks who have been in the marriage business since the beginning of marriage.  You feel they are hung up because someone wants to come in and take their sacrament - and twist it so that their basic premise of A MAN to A WOMAN becoming a wedded couple in their religious ceremony is expanded to include A MAN to A MAN or A Woman to A Woman - while such unions are considered let's say less than ideal to the religious organizations.

And you are really saying "Don't know why?"    If you don't get it then who helped you log on to the internet let alone find this site?  It is fine that you don't agree with it, but being unable to understand the position of the Churches, and Religious folks as you call them is pretty hard to accept.

[ufojoe]

I suspect you and I both know the reason Gays want the Governments to acknowledge their status as married.

Yep, the reasons are the same reasons that male/female couples want their marriages acknowledged by the government.

Now - let's talk about the religious folks who have been in the marriage business since the beginning of marriage.  You feel they are hung up because someone wants to come in and take their sacrament - and twist it so that their basic premise of A MAN to A WOMAN becoming a wedded couple in their religious ceremony is expanded to include A MAN to A MAN or A Woman to A Woman - while such unions are considered let's say less than ideal to the religious organizations.

And you are really saying "Don't know why?"    If you don't get it then who helped you log on to the internet let alone find this site?  It is fine that you don't agree with it, but being unable to understand the position of the Churches, and Religious folks as you call them is pretty hard to accept.

OK, I get it now. They want to impose their beliefs on everybody else. And their own marriages are so weak that calling it gay marriage will put the nail in the coffin for those weak marriages.

* * * * *

Let's say the government gets out of the marriage business and EVERYBODY who who gets hitched outside of a church has their union called a "Civil Union." The churches will be the only ones who can give out the (legally irrelevant) marriage certificates.

Now, there are churches out there who will marry gay couples. They already exist. So, if every gay couple goes to one of those churches and gets the marriage certificate, what will the Christians do then? Government is out of the marriage business and all the gays have their marriage certificates. LOL.

[dbucfan]

LMAO - from the Department of Twist, the manager speaking...

Yep, some want the same thing - some want benefits of marital status.

No one is imposing beliefs.  Your feeling toward religious is immaterial to the matter

Frankly, the term is of no importance unless one is seeking to make argument - the benefit equality is the issue.  Would think it prudent to avoid Marriage.  But then I don't always have to be right, and I frequently attempt to avoid conflict over the mundane.

The churches can do what they want to.  It is that kind of country.

[Chief Joseph]

No one is imposing beliefs.

One would have to be delusional to believe that.