North Carolina gay marriage foes have a slight lead ahead of Tuesday vote

[jimnyc]

Well, unless my math is wrong, I think that makes 31-0 where states have amended their constitutions to forbid gay marriage.


Supporters of gay marriage in North Carolina have out-raised and out-advertised their opponents ahead of a vote on May 8 over whether the state constitution should be amended to specifically bar same-sex couples from marrying or entering into domestic partnerships. Despite this effort, 55 percent of North Carolinians say they plan to vote for the amendment in the latest Public Policy Polling figures.

The campaign against the amendment, led by a group called Protect All NC Families, has chipped away at support for the amendment by emphasizing that the change could roll back rights for unmarried heterosexual couples in addition to same-sex couples. They have outspent the pro-amendment side, running TV ads that feature legal experts saying the amendment could make it tougher to prosecute domestic violence cases among unmarried straight couples.

Read the rest here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/north-carolina-gay-marriage-foes-slight-lead-ahead-171259924.html

[Wind Song]

I hope that makes you happy Jim.

[jimnyc]

I hope that makes you happy Jim.

With all due respect, WS, it does. I wish everyone in the homosexual community happiness, and I'm sure things will eventually work out as far as benefits and such go, at least I hope so - but "marriage" should be for one man and one woman. People might becoming more accepting of homosexuality, but not gay marriage. So many will say - "Is that what it's all about, you're against it solely because of the term?" - and my answer is yes.

[Wind Song]

With all due respect, WS, it does. I wish everyone in the homosexual community happiness, and I'm sure things will eventually work out as far as benefits and such go, at least I hope so - but "marriage" should be for one man and one woman. People might becoming more accepting of homosexuality, but not gay marriage. So many will say - "Is that what it's all about, you're against it solely because of the term?" - and my answer is yes.


We are political opponents--some would say--enemies. I know I've been married longer than you have Jim, and yet, you think you're entitled to more rights and priveleges for your family than I am for mine.

That is so fucked up.

Your family matters, my doesn't. Fuck you.

[Kathianne]

Your wish for gay people to be happy is damn shallow. Marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time. Gays are the new niggers.


We are political opponents--some would say--enemies.

How totally racist of you. No comparison, are you referring to post-Reconstruction. Worse yet, if you're attempting to co-op slavery.

[Wind Song]

How totally racist of you. No comparison, is you are referring to post-Reconstruction. Worse yet, if you're attempting to co-op slavery.


Delete your post. I edited mine. Coretta Scott King supports gays and lesbians. It is SHE who stated marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time.

When I was denied sick pay to care for my wife when she had cancer, I was told that I couldn't get the time off, because we weren't married. I showed the boss that she had let an unmarried straight couple used the sick leave benefit, and my boss took the issue to the board and they changed the policy.

We have to fight for everything.

[Kat]

How totally racist of you. No comparison, is you are referring to post-Reconstruction. Worse yet, if you're attempting to co-op slavery.



WOW. Not much can be said for that. It speaks for itself.

[Kathianne]

Delete your post. I edited that out. Coretta Scott King supports gays and lesbians. It is SHE who stated marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time.

Do you have some powers of command the rest of us have been not been made aware of? No, I will not delete my post.

[Wind Song]

Do you have some powers of command the rest of us have been not been made aware of? No, I will not delete my post.


Fine. It's common policy in other forums. I made a request. Of course, you'd say no.

[jimnyc]

We are political opponents--some would say--enemies. I know I've been married longer than you have Jim, and yet, you think you're entitled to more rights and priveleges for your family than I am for mine.

That is so fucked up.

Your family matters, my doesn't. Fuck you.

If that's how you want to twist my words, so be it. I think you and your family deserve anything you want, just not the term of marriage. If you think you saw me write somewhere that your family doesn't matter, then I wish you would quote it...

As for your wording - it's odd that you go nuts when I'm less than respectful with you, and how you can point out others speaking with wording you don't like, but then things tend to come full circle and you consistently do the things you complain about yourself.

[jimnyc]

Fine. It's common policy in other forums. I made a request. Of course, you'd say no.

It is not common policy. You simply got busted saying something idiotic, and Kath happened to reply to it before you made your edit.

[Kathianne]

Delete your post. I edited mine. Coretta Scott King supports gays and lesbians. It is SHE who stated marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time.

When I was denied sick pay to care for my wife when she had cancer, I was told that I couldn't get the time off, because we weren't married. I showed the boss that she had let an unmarried straight couple used the sick leave benefit, and my boss took the issue to the board and they changed the policy.

We have to fight for everything.

I bet she didn't see your original post. Luckily it's here for her to see, thanks to me.

[fj1200]

When I was denied sick pay to care for my wife when she had cancer, I was told that I couldn't get the time off, because we weren't married. I showed the boss that she had let an unmarried straight couple used the sick leave benefit, and my boss took the issue to the board and they changed the policy.

We have to fight for everything.

Excellent, a non-governmental, I assume, entity made a private decision.

[Wind Song]

If that's how you want to twist my words, so be it. I think you and your family deserve anything you want, just not the term of marriage. If you think you saw me write somewhere that your family doesn't matter, then I wish you would quote it...

As for your wording - it's odd that you go nuts when I'm less than respectful with you, and how you can point out others speaking with wording you don't like, but then things tend to come full circle and you consistently do the things you complain about yourself.

We need the legal marriage document in order to take care of each properly. You lose, because we have it. You don't want gay people to be happy, you want us to have less rights than you do.

I'm very disappointed by your position. It seriously limits how close we can ever be as friends.

[jimnyc]

We need the legal marriage document in order to take care of each properly.

You lose, because we have it. You don't want gay people to be happy, you want us to have less rights than you do.

I'm very disappointed by your position. It seriously limits how close we can ever be as friends.

That's your decision. I haven't said what you claim - but the overall position against gay marriage will make you say the same regardless. I'm all for you being happy and gaining needed benefits and the same rights - just do it in any other manner than declaring the bond a "marriage".

[Wind Song]

That's your decision. I haven't said what you claim - but the overall position against gay marriage will make you say the same regardless. I'm all for you being happy and gaining needed benefits and the same rights - just do it in any other manner than declaring the bond a "marriage".


We're at an impasse. Lesbians and gays want equal rights. We want the same 1,048 rights and priveleges you get by being married. If you sincerely wanted us to be happy you would support marriage equality.

[jimnyc]

We're at an impasse. Lesbians and gays want equal rights. We want the same 1,048 rights and priveleges you get by being married. If you sincerely wanted us to be happy you would support marriage equality.

Fine, have the state grant you 1,048 rights, just call it something other than a MARRIAGE. Do you not comprehend the position I'm stating? I'll support your equality to get the same rights/benefits, just not to call it a marriage.

[Wind Song]

Fine, have the state grant you 1,048 rights, just call it something other than a MARRIAGE. Do you not comprehend the position I'm stating? I'll support your equality to get the same rights/benefits, just not to call it a marriage.
It is a marriage. It's exactly the same that you have except we're both female. We love each other the same, we care for each other as family, in sickness and in health until we die.

You don't get it, and you never will.

Definition of marriage:

A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

[jimnyc]

It is a marriage. It's exactly the same that you have except we're both female. We love each other the same, we care for each other as family, in sickness and in health until we die.

You don't get it, and you never will.

Definition of marriage:

A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

No, that's you trying to redefine a term that's been a bond between one man and one woman, and has been that way basically since the beginning of time. Demand to be labeled the same and you'll get zero support from me.

[Wind Song]

No, that's you trying to redefine a term that's been a bond between one man and one woman, and has been that way basically since the beginning of time. Demand to be labeled the same and you'll get zero support from me.

Zero support is what you offer. Deny civil rights to people. That's fucked.

[jimnyc]

Zero support is what you offer. Deny civil rights to people. That's fucked.

Oh well, sue me.

[MtnBiker]

Well, unless my math is wrong, I think that makes 31-0 where states have amended their constitutions to forbid gay marriage.


Read the rest here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/north-carolina-gay-marriage-foes-slight-lead-ahead-171259924.html


Actaully it is a more than a slight lead. 55% support the amendment, while only 41% oppose, that is a 14% lead, a pretty big number to overcome for the opposition.

[jimnyc]

Actaully it is a more than a slight lead. 55% support the amendment, while only 41% oppose, that is a 14% lead, a pretty big number to overcome for the opposition.

So I'm guessing the tally of states that have voted against gay marriage WILL be about 31-0?

[Kathianne]

Actaully it is a more than a slight lead. 55% support the amendment, while only 41% oppose, that is a 14% lead, a pretty big number to overcome for the opposition.

Yep. It's not homophobia, but a belief that tradition for families is important. Civil unions will protect the issues that bother Sky, but that's 'not good enough' for her.

[Wind Song]

Oh well, sue me.

No. We'll be too busy suing states.

I will be fighting for my civil rights to marry and care for my family until the day I die.

Did you happen to see the couples that waited fifty and sixty years to marry? They belong in the history books.

[jimnyc]

No. We'll be too busy suing states.

I will be fighting for my civil rights to marry and care for my family until the day I die.

Did you happen to see the couples that waited fifty and sixty years to marry? They belong in the history books.

Being labeled "married" won't change ones ability to care for their family. If one had all the same benefits, just a different label, then they have all the same abilities.

[Wind Song]

Being labeled "married" won't change ones ability to care for their family. If one had all the same benefits, just a different label, then they have all the same abilities.
It changes everything. Every gay or lesbian couple who has ever married has said the same thing.


I'm treated quite differently in hospitals, when my wife is ill, for one thing.

[Wind Song]

Being labeled "married" won't change ones ability to care for their family. If one had all the same benefits, just a different label, then they have all the same abilities.

Domestic partnerships have very few rights. Marriage has 1048.

I'm sorry that you're so narrow minded and elitist that you think you have to OWN the word "marriage".

[logroller]

I wonder how many straight happy people have been misconstrued as being homosexual merely because they identify as being gay.

[Kathianne]

I wonder how many straight happy people have been misconstrued as being homosexual merely because they identify as being gay.

Huh?

[logroller]

Huh?
Gay=happy; but the vernacular of the day suggests homosexuality. Just kinda tired of the whole gay marriage thing; so I'm trying to have some fun with it...it makes me feel gay!:coffee:

[jimnyc]

Domestic partnerships have very few rights. Marriage has 1048.

I'm sorry that you're so narrow minded and elitist that you think you have to OWN the word "marriage".

I don't own the word. But I also don't want the definition changed. I won't even bother with the rest of your repetitive crap that I already addressed and you ignore.

[DragonStryk72]

Well, unless my math is wrong, I think that makes 31-0 where states have amended their constitutions to forbid gay marriage.


Read the rest here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/north-carolina-gay-marriage-foes-slight-lead-ahead-171259924.html

Actually, it is still legal in VT, where it shows no signs of going away, and of course, NY voted it in.

[jimnyc]

Actually, it is still legal in VT, where it shows no signs of going away, and of course, NY voted it in.

NY was passed in the senate and signed by Cuomo. This was a bill legalizing gay marriage, not a vote to the people. I'm pretty confident that in VT it hasn't went before the people either. I think there's was handled by courts and assemblies.

[jimnyc]

I just double checked a few sites, and yes, in EVERY state where it has been put to a vote by the people, they have rejected gay marriage. The only states in which it is legal, the people didn't get a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state

[SassyLady]

I just double checked a few sites, and yes, in EVERY state where it has been put to a vote by the people, they have rejected gay marriage. The only states in which it is legal, the people didn't get a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state

Unfortunately, even those that did get to vote are being over-ruled by the courts.

[Kathianne]

Unfortunately, even those that did get to vote are being over-ruled by the courts.

by courts or legislatures?

[SassyLady]

by courts or legislatures?

In CA I believe it is the court.

Still being argued I guess:


On August 4, 2010, a federal court declared the ban unconstitutional inPerry v. Schwarzenegger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger), a decision which was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circu it) on February 7, 2012. A series of stays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_of_execution) have kept the legal availability of same-sex marriage on hold pending further appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

[Kathianne]

In CA I believe it is the court.

Yeah, think you're right on that.

[Trigg]

Gays simply want to pretend that this is a civil rights issue.

Most people I know, including myself have no problem with gay couples getting every right granted a married couple.

But gay couples don't want the rights, they want the word.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

If gays simply wanted a civil union, or a legal partnership with all the rights and privileges of a marriage, I firmly believe, they wouldn't have any opposition.

[MtnBiker]

Your family matters, my doesn't.


Does this family matter?

3421

[gabosaurus]

Please tell me who intended for marriage to be "one man and one woman." And why.

[Wind Song]

I don't own the word. But I also don't want the definition changed. I won't even bother with the rest of your repetitive crap that I already addressed and you ignore.

Fine. Carry that intention to deny civil marriage rights to others.

[Wind Song]

Gays simply want to pretend that this is a civil rights issue.

Most people I know, including myself have no problem with gay couples getting every right granted a married couple.

But gay couples don't want the rights, they want the word.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

If gays simply wanted a civil union, or a legal partnership with all the rights and privileges of a marriage, I firmly believe, they wouldn't have any opposition.

We want the same rights as heterosexuals. That only comes with a marriage license. I could give a shit if a church won't marry gays. I just want the legal document that protects my family.

[Wind Song]

In CA I believe it is the court.

Still being argued I guess:

[/I]


I'm legally married in California. Does that bother you?

[SassyLady]

I'm legally married in California. Does that bother you?

No. Did I say that? Or did you just assume I am bothered simply because I stated what the facts are here in CA?


PS...if you are legally married then why are you constantly complaining about not having the right to protect your family. Apparently you've got all the "legal rights" of a married couple.

[Wind Song]

No. Did I say that? Or did you just assume I am bothered simply because I stated what the facts are here in CA?


PS...if you are legally married then why are you constantly complaining about not having the right to protect your family. Apparently you've got all the "legal rights" of a married couple.

We don't have the right to have our marital status honored in every state in the union, like yours is.

[logroller]

We want the same rights as heterosexuals. That only comes with a marriage license. I could give a shit if a church won't marry gays. I just want the legal document that protects my family.
Actually, the ninth circuit court found that civil unions possessed all the same legal privileges as a marriage; the difference being, predominantly, a derogatory bias which established civil unions as socially inferior-- that's why they overturned prop 8, because it demonstrated a clear attempt by a majority to relegate a minority faction as second-class citizens.

[Wind Song]

Actually, the ninth circuit court found that civil unions possessed all the same legal privileges as a marriage; the difference being, predominantly, a derogatory bias which established civil unions as socially inferior-- that's why they overturned prop 8, because it demonstrated a clear attempt by a majority to relegate a minority faction as second-class citizens.

We are still second class citizens, even those of us who are legally married.

[SassyLady]

We don't have the right to have our marital status honored in every state in the union, like yours is.

So, if you go to Arizona, for example, you won't have the same rights you now have? But you still have all your federal rights, correct? It's just the various states that won't recognize it.

Of all those 1,000 plus rights how many of them are not recognized by other states?

[logroller]

We are still second class citizens, even those of us who are legally married.
So it really isn't about legal rights then, is it? This is what concerns many who oppose gay marriage; that what you really want is legitimized force to make others accept your lifestyle. It started with these rights to property, directive care, health bennies etc; then it's "marriage"; what next?
Please don't misunderstand me, I've got no beef with the way you choose to live your life; God knows I'm no saint, but I don't go about claiming my way is anything more than what it is--mine! If others think I'm a big perv, (they're probably right), Than so be it. I don't expect anyone to accept every aspect of who I am. What I focus on is that despite what others may object to, the sum of who I am is acceptable. It is by grace alone that this will happen, not some piece of paper, bylaw or court opinion.

[Wind Song]

So it really isn't about legal rights then, is it? This is what concerns many who oppose gay marriage; that what you really want is legitimized force to make others accept your lifestyle. It started with these rights to property, directive care, health bennies etc; then it's "marriage"; what next?
Please don't misunderstand me, I've got no beef with the way you choose to live your life; God knows I'm no saint, but I don't go about claiming my way is anything more than what it is--mine! If others think I'm a big perv, (they're probably right), Than so be it. I don't expect anyone to accept every aspect of who I am. What I focus on is that despite what others may object to, the sum of who I am is acceptable. It is by grace alone that this will happen, not some piece of paper, bylaw or court opinion.

I see. If I can summarize what you're saying, you think gays and lesbians SHOULD be second class citizens. Our lives are worth less than yours.

All I know is my heart. My father was gay, it runs in my family. He suffered terribly. Because of that, I choose to live openly and I care for my wife as much as any het cares for their spouse.

When my wife had cancer, the people in the hospital had me signing the papers and seeing her because we were married. Otherwise, forget it.

[fj1200]

The states do not need to control interpersonal relationships. Eliminate all marriage.

[Gator Monroe]

80% of Legal Lesbian Marrages on track to Fail ...

[logroller]

I see. If I can summarize what you're saying, you think gays and lesbians SHOULD be second class citizens. Our lives are worth less than yours.

All I know is my heart. My father was gay, it runs in my family. He suffered terribly. Because of that, I choose to live openly and I care for my wife as much as any het cares for their spouse.

When my wife had cancer, the people in the hospital had me signing the papers and seeing her because we were married. Otherwise, forget it.
Are you stupid or ignorant? Please show what in my post would lead you to such rubbish. What I summarized was the Courts opinion, not mine you ignoramus.
If you live in America, or any other developed country-- you're a first class citizen. That doesn't mean our lives are any more valuable though. whatever suffering you went through is unfortunate. It's hard for me understand such struggles though; seeing as how Ive went through life being fed grapes by nymphs and having other people to wash my ass. Thems the breaks I guess. Here's an idea. maybe you should try being thankful for what you do have; like access to medical care or a father in your life at all. You just sound like a spoiled whiney brat; no matter what other people do to make you feel equal, you'll always feel inferior as long as you choose to be. Own up to it.

[DragonStryk72]

I see. If I can summarize what you're saying, you think gays and lesbians SHOULD be second class citizens. Our lives are worth less than yours.

All I know is my heart. My father was gay, it runs in my family. He suffered terribly. Because of that, I choose to live openly and I care for my wife as much as any het cares for their spouse.

When my wife had cancer, the people in the hospital had me signing the papers and seeing her because we were married. Otherwise, forget it.


Are you stupid or ignorant? Please show what in my post would lead you to such rubbish. What I summarized was the Courts opinion, not mine you ignoramus.
If you live in America, or any other developed country-- you're a first class citizen. That doesn't mean our lives are any more valuable though. whatever suffering you went through is unfortunate. It's hard for me understand such struggles though; seeing as how Ive went through life being fed grapes by nymphs and having other people to wash my ass. Thems the breaks I guess. Here's an idea. maybe you should try being thankful for what you do have; like access to medical care or a father in your life at all. You just sound like a spoiled whiney brat; no matter what other people do to make you feel equal, you'll always feel inferior as long as you choose to be. Own up to it.

I'm quoting both your posts to point something out. WS, do you even realize how much you're alienating yourself from your own side?

[SassyLady]

I'm quoting both your posts to point something out. WS, do you even realize how much you're alienating yourself from your own side?

You beat me to it! :clap:

[SassyLady]

Are you stupid or ignorant? Please show what in my post would lead you to such rubbish. What I summarized was the Courts opinion, not mine you ignoramus.
If you live in America, or any other developed country-- you're a first class citizen. That doesn't mean our lives are any more valuable though. whatever suffering you went through is unfortunate. It's hard for me understand such struggles though; seeing as how Ive went through life being fed grapes by nymphs and having other people to wash my ass. Thems the breaks I guess. Here's an idea. maybe you should try being thankful for what you do have; like access to medical care or a father in your life at all. You just sound like a spoiled whiney brat; no matter what other people do to make you feel equal, you'll always feel inferior as long as you choose to be. Own up to it.

I've grapes, lots of grapes!!! :cool:

[logroller]

I've grapes, lots of grapes!!! :cool:
you're so hired. I'll bring my toga!
Naturally doodie duty goes to the second class citizens; as were I to give them grape duty, I just get whine. :lol:

[Wind Song]

I'm quoting both your posts to point something out. WS, do you even realize how much you're alienating yourself from your own side?

Who's on my side around here? No one.

[fj1200]

Who's on my side around here? No one.

You refuse to see when someone has the same view as you do.

[Wind Song]

You refuse to see when someone has the same view as you do.

Let me know when someone support marriage equality. I haven't seen it on this forum. Not one. I've seen people say you can have rights as long as you can't marry, I've seen people say there should be no state marriage at all.

I haven't seen anyone support marriage equality.

[fj1200]

Let me know when someone support marriage equality. I haven't seen it on this forum.

I do,


The states do not need to control interpersonal relationships. Eliminate all marriage.

CH does, DS does... Government does not need to be in a controlling position to decide which relationships to favor.

[fj1200]

... I've seen people say there should be no state marriage at all.

I haven't seen anyone support marriage equality.

Marriage would be equal in that case. If you want "marriage" find a "church."

[Wind Song]

I do,



CH does, DS does... Government does not need to be in a controlling position to decide which relationships to favor.

Thank you, CH, DS and fj.

Coretta Scott King says marriage equality is the civil rights issue of our time. When I see photos and videos of gay and lesbian couples who have been together fifty, sixty years finally getting to marry it brings tears to my eyes.

If marriage equality had been around in my father's life, he may have lived to a ripe old age.

[Wind Song]

Marriage would be equal in that case. If you want "marriage" find a "church."

That's a cheap way to ensure gays don't have equal rights. Kind of a "I'd rather take my marbles home and not play" thing on the part of heteros. I don't find the "take the state out of marriage" argument to be supportive of gay families.

We want marriage licenses issued by the government. That's the way to ensure we get the same 1048 rights that hetero married couples do.

[fj1200]

That's a cheap way to ensure gays don't have equal rights. Kind of a "I'd rather take my marbles home and not play" thing on the part of heteros. I don't find the "take the state out of marriage" argument to be supportive of gay families.

You have a funny definition of equal. Churches are in no way required to guarantee equality, only government which should eliminate any marriage preference from the law(s).

[fj1200]

We want marriage licenses issued by the government. That's the way to ensure we get the same 1048 rights that hetero married couples do.

Criminy, will you stop editing posts 10 seconds after submitting? Eliminate them.

[Wind Song]

You have a funny definition of equal. Churches are in no way required to guarantee equality, only government which should eliminate any marriage preference from the law(s).

You don't get it. I don't want Church anything. I want a legal civil marriage license. Churches are free to discriminate against gays. I could care less.

[fj1200]

You don't get it. I don't want Church anything. I want a legal civil marriage license. Churches are free to discriminate against gays. I could care less.

I know what you want, you keep reverting back to it when you can't continue the conversation. At this point you should argue why the state should have a say in interpersonal relationships.

[Wind Song]

I know what you want, you keep reverting back to it when you can't continue the conversation. At this point you should argue why the state should have a say in interpersonal relationships.


The state should have a say because of the legal status of family relationships and children, for one. What you want to do is NOT supportive of marriage equality. You want to eliminate rights for EVERYONE on the chance that gay people would share the rights and priveleges heteros already have.

That is NOT supportive of marriage equality. You disappoint me. You are disengenuous about your position on this issue. Truth is, you're not supportive after all.

[fj1200]

The state should have a say because of the legal status of family relationships and children, for one.

WHY is the question. They don't need to be involved in matters of contract until a dispute arrives, and children too I would argue.

[Wind Song]

WHY is the question. They don't need to be involved in matters of contract until a dispute arrives, and children too I would argue.


If you would educate yourself about all the rights and priveleges state and federal that come with marriage you would know why we still need it.

What you want to do is have NO ONE have any rights and priveleges with marriage in order to make sure gays don't share them.

You think the Church should marry not the state. That denies marriage rights to atheists.

[SassyLady]

If you would educate yourself about all the rights and priveleges state and federal that come with marriage you would know why we still need it.

What rights do you get with a marriage license that you do not get with a civil union license? I really don't know what the differences are.

[Wind Song]

The motivation for eliminating civil marriage is to make sure gays don't have equal rights.

[Wind Song]

Social Security provides the sole means of support for some elderly Americans. All working Americans contribute to this program through payroll tax, and receive payments upon retirement. Surviving spouses of working Americans are eligible to receive Social Security payments. A surviving spouse caring for a deceased employee’s minor child is also eligible for an additional support payment. Surviving spouse and surviving parent benefits are denied to gay and lesbian Americans because they cannot marry. Thus, a lesbian couple who contributes an equal amount to Social Security over their lifetime as a married couple would receive drastically unequal benefits, as set forth below.

Eligibility for the earned income tax credit (EITC) is based in part upon the number of “qualifying” children in the taxpayer’s household. See 26 USC § 32. The definition of qualifying child under this provision includes only a child who is the taxpayer’s (a) biological child or descendent; (b) stepchild of the taxpayer; or (c) adopted child. Certain children of lesbian and gay couples are disadvantaged by this provision. For exampled, a taxpayer and their partner domestic are jointly raising the partner’s biological child. The taxpayer works full-time and the child’s legal parent stays home to care for the child. The state in which the taxpayer resides does not permit them to adopt through second-parent adoption or to marry the partner and become the child’s step-parent. This working family is therefore ineligible for an adjustment of the EITC, and therefore has decreased the resources to devote to the child’s care.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees family and medical leave to employees to care for parents, children or spouses. As currently interpreted, this law does not provide leave to care for a domestic partner or the domestic partner’s family member. Family and medical leave should be a benefit for all American workers.




http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples (http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples)

[jimnyc]

Gays will NEVER have the equality that you want, not in this lifetime. You want acceptance from those who don't support gay marriages. Tough shit.

[Wind Song]

Gays will NEVER have the equality that you want, not in this lifetime. You want acceptance from those who don't support gay marriages. Tough shit.

I will spend the rest of my life advocating for marriage equality. You don't like that? Tough shit. I owe this to my father.

[jimnyc]

I will spend the rest of my life advocating for marriage equality. You don't like that? Tough shit. I owe this to my father.

Have fun, but you're now behind 32-0 and counting. It's people like you shoving things down peoples throats that leave people like me saying "Hell no, I don't want to be equated..."

[Wind Song]

Have fun, but you're now behind 32-0 and counting. It's people like you shoving things down peoples throats that leave people like me saying "Hell no, I don't want to be equated..."


Jim some of us will spend the rest of our lives fighting for equality. You can sit back smugly and call us fools. You throw your moralism in our faces, we fight back. My marriage is worth as much to me as yours does to you.

The difference is you get to take better care of your family than I do because of discrimination.

[fj1200]

The state should have a say because of the legal status of family relationships and children, for one. What you want to do is NOT supportive of marriage equality. You want to eliminate rights for EVERYONE on the chance that gay people would share the rights and priveleges heteros already have.

That is NOT supportive of marriage equality. You disappoint me. You are disengenuous about your position on this issue. Truth is, you're not supportive after all.

Your silly definition again. Forced acceptance is not acceptance and I don't believe the state should preference anything, that is NOT disingenuous.


If you would educate yourself about all the rights and priveleges state and federal that come with marriage you would know why we still need it.

What you want to do is have NO ONE have any rights and priveleges with marriage in order to make sure gays don't share them.

You think the Church should marry not the state. That denies marriage rights to atheists.

THERE ARE NO MARRIAGE RIGHTS. Atheists can "marry" dancing naked under a tree for all I care, that would bring them the same state status as someone who walked down an aisle in a church.

[fj1200]

The motivation for eliminating civil marriage is to make sure gays don't have equal rights.

Geez you're dense. That places people on the same status. What is so hard to understand?

[Wind Song]

Your silly definition again. Forced acceptance is not acceptance and I don't believe the state should preference anything, that is NOT disingenuous.



THERE ARE NO MARRIAGE RIGHTS. Atheists can "marry" dancing naked under a tree for all I care, that would bring them the same state status as someone who walked down an aisle in a church.


I see. First you say, it's ok if gay couples marry and no you don't. Which is it?

[jimnyc]

Jim some of us will spend the rest of our lives fighting for equality. You can sit back smugly and call us fools. You throw your moralism in our faces, we fight back. My marriage is worth as much to me as yours does to you.

The difference is you get to take better care of your family than I do because of discrimination.

Oh well, sucks to be you! Maybe if you weren't a whining ninny, people would actually listen to what you have to say.

I hope someone does give you all the rights and benefits.
I hope you can properly take care of your family.
I hope you find true happiness.

I hope gays NEVER get to say they are "married". Anything but.

You don't want the benefits and rights - you want the word, which is to be labeled the same as others that are simply different.

[Wind Song]

Oh well, sucks to be you! Maybe if you weren't a whining ninny, people would actually listen to what you have to say.

I hope someone does give you all the rights and benefits.
I hope you can properly take care of your family.
I hope you find true happiness.

I hope gays NEVER get to say they are "married". Anything but.

You don't want the benefits and rights - you want the word, which is to be labeled the same as others that are simply different.


I'm married and I have a wife already. I will perservere until the day I die to see that gay and lesbian people share the same equal rights as heteros.

[DragonStryk72]

Who's on my side around here? No one.

You do realize that Gabs, Noir, and Log are all on the left, yes? Noir is in favor of women's rights, and you treated him like he wanted women barefoot and in the kitchen. Until you, Gabs was our poster who was farthest to the left, and you've even left her in the dust, and log is actually pro gay rights, meaning he's actually on the same side as you and me in this argument. But your "Worst First" thinking and posting style means that you alienate literally everyone who might otherwise at least have respect for you.

Did you notice that me and Jim are actually on opposite sides in this debate? Notice we're not flaming each other, or even getting really heated about it with one another. That's respect, and trust, it makes things SO much better in debates, but that requirements not attacking everyone, and posting flamebait.

[jimnyc]

I'm married and I have a wife already. I will perservere until the day I die to see that gay and lesbian people share the same equal rights as heteros.

You see, I can deal with the few states that used the bench to overthrow the will of the people. And a "married" gay couple could stand right next to me, and I wont' consider them as married as me and my wife are. You're angry because you demand to be accepted and not everyone wants that.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm married and I have a wife already. I will perservere until the day I die to see that gay and lesbian people share the same equal rights as heteros.

You really need the government to tell you it's your right? Guess what, you don't. Not one right is granted in the Constitution, not a single one. All of the amendments deal with restricting what the government can do, and marriage is no exception. You have an inherent right to love whoever you wish, because it is not up to government to grant you that right, you've had it since you were born.

However, I do not think the government should have say on marriage, one way or the other. This is one of those fields that they should have stayed out of, but it's become 'necessary' due to the progressive income tax system we use. Otherwise, the government wouldn't have gotten into the game in the first place. Here's how I think it should go: The marriage term needs to be dropped, since that has a specifically religious connotation, and I mean across the board. Instead, we need a term, such as Civil Unions, to encompass the fact that the government is not trying to legitimize any morality, but instead, trying to make certain taxes and census information are accurate.

[Wind Song]

You do realize that Gabs, Noir, and Log are all on the left, yes? Noir is in favor of women's rights, and you treated him like he wanted women barefoot and in the kitchen. Until you, Gabs was our poster who was farthest to the left, and you've even left her in the dust, and log is actually pro gay rights, meaning he's actually on the same side as you and me in this argument. But your "Worst First" thinking and posting style means that you alienate literally everyone who might otherwise at least have respect for you.

Did you notice that me and Jim are actually on opposite sides in this debate? Notice we're not flaming each other, or even getting really heated about it with one another. That's respect, and trust, it makes things SO much better in debates, but that requirements not attacking everyone, and posting flamebait.


True. It must be time for me to take more time off.

[jimnyc]

True. It must be time for me to take more time off.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


:deadhorse:

[Wind Song]

You really need the government to tell you it's your right? Guess what, you don't. Not one right is granted in the Constitution, not a single one. All of the amendments deal with restricting what the government can do, and marriage is no exception. You have an inherent right to love whoever you wish, because it is not up to government to grant you that right, you've had it since you were born.

However, I do not think the government should have say on marriage, one way or the other. This is one of those fields that they should have stayed out of, but it's become 'necessary' due to the progressive income tax system we use. Otherwise, the government wouldn't have gotten into the game in the first place. Here's how I think it should go: The marriage term needs to be dropped, since that has a specifically religious connotation, and I mean across the board. Instead, we need a term, such as Civil Unions, to encompass the fact that the government is not trying to legitimize any morality, but instead, trying to make certain taxes and census information are accurate.

Marriage is a legal status. With it come rights and priveleges, over a thousand federal and state.

I loved my wife long before we were permitted to marry. Our marriage is as much a marriage as Jim's. He just thinks he's superior. He thinks God only loves straight people.

[Wind Song]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


:deadhorse:


I take it you like that idea.:laugh:

[jimnyc]

Marriage is a legal status. With it come rights and priveleges, over a thousand federal and state.

I loved my wife long before we were permitted to marry. Our marriage is as much a marriage as Jim's. He just thinks he's superior. He thinks God only loves straight people.

I can get a divorce granted in ANY state in the US. Can you do the same?

[Wind Song]

I can get a divorce granted in ANY state in the US. Can you do the same?


You just proved my point. It's all about being superior to you. I will never divorce. Can you say the same?

[DragonStryk72]

True. It must be time for me to take more time off.

No, it is time for you to grow up, and learn how to talk with people. Stop running away from your problems, and learn how to deal with them in a civil manner.

[DragonStryk72]

You just proved my point. It's all about being superior to you. I will never divorce. Can you say the same?

Really? So even if your wife became abusive, raped you anally, and cheated on you repeatedly, you're going to stay with her? You think heterosexual couples go in to marriage thinking that they'll be getting divorced?

[Wind Song]

No, it is time for you to grow up, and learn how to talk with people. Stop running away from your problems, and learn how to deal with them in a civil manner.

If I wanted your advice I would ask for it. Believe it or not, the last time I took a day off I really thought about what you and a number of people said. A lot of good it did me. I got pummeled the second I logged on.

So I went back into fight or flight mode.

[jimnyc]

You just proved my point. It's all about being superior to you. I will never divorce. Can you say the same?

Sure as hell can, don't believe in it. Been through MANY bad times, even a separation - but I won't divorce. BUT, that ability does exist for me.

[Wind Song]

Really? So even if your wife became abusive, raped you anally, and cheated on you repeatedly, you're going to stay with her? You think heterosexual couples go in to marriage thinking that they'll be getting divorced?

My wife would never do any of those things. We are completely devoted to each other and still very much in love.

[jimnyc]

If I wanted your advice I would ask for it. Believe it or not, the last time I took a day off I really thought about what you and a number of people said. A lot of good it did me. I got pummeled the second I logged on.

So I went back into fight or flight mode.

Did DS72 make your list now too? And I got some info for you - read his posts again - there is no one here at DP that will be more closely aligned with your stance on gay marriage than him. Difference is, he doesn't make demands of people, he speaks politely and he is rational. You're so irrational that you don't even realize you are arguing with someone who almost completely agrees with you.

[DragonStryk72]

Marriage is a legal status. With it come rights and priveleges, over a thousand federal and state.

I loved my wife long before we were permitted to marry. Our marriage is as much a marriage as Jim's. He just thinks he's superior. He thinks God only loves straight people.

As are Civil Unions, which you already have access to, and they grant the same rights as marriage. It's only been a legal status since we instituted the progressive tax system.

Next, there you go again with the flame bait. He doesn't think he's "superior" as you put it, he sees marriage as a religious institution, but is fine with Civil Unions. See, to him, the word marriage actually means something.

He has never said God doesn't love anyone at all, you're just trolling with that one.

[Wind Song]

Sure as hell can, don't believe in it. Been through MANY bad times, even a separation - but I won't divorce. BUT, that ability does exist for me.
.

You still think you're superior, don't you?

[Wind Song]

As are Civil Unions, which you already have access to, and they grant the same rights as marriage. It's only been a legal status since we instituted the progressive tax system.

Next, there you go again with the flame bait. He doesn't think he's "superior" as you put it, he sees marriage as a religious institution, but is fine with Civil Unions. See, to him, the word marriage actually means something.

He has never said God doesn't love anyone at all, you're just trolling with that one.

Domestic partnerships aka "civil unions" do not have the same rights as marriage.

I'm throwing his God back in his face, since he threw it in mine.

[jimnyc]

.

You still think you're superior, don't you?

To you? Absofuckinglutely!

To gays in general? Nope. They're just as good as me and are human beings.

[Wind Song]

Did DS72 make your list now too? And I got some info for you - read his posts again - there is no one here at DP that will be more closely aligned with your stance on gay marriage than him. Difference is, he doesn't make demands of people, he speaks politely and he is rational. You're so irrational that you don't even realize you are arguing with someone who almost completely agrees with you.


Jim,

You fucking liar. Two days ago you were telling me you didn't care HOW I posted. Now you're telling I should "be more polite" and "don't make demands of people".

All I want to do is express my view. I don't demand that anyone agree with me. I assert my position and I hold it steady. What you want is for me to cave and collapse and yes all of you to death.

That's not going to happen.

I thought you folks were sincere about your feedback and I took a day off, I thought about it. I thought alot of what people were saying made sense. I wanted to come back and try something else, and you folks pummeled me the second I logged on.

Make up your mind.

I was hurt that all I got was shit after taking the time off to really reflect on what people said. You just jumped all over me. So, I went back to default position. It's a habit. It takes time to break a habit.

Instead, I think you all want me to be the forum enemy.

[jimnyc]

Jim,

You fucking liar. Two days ago you were telling me you didn't care HOW I posted. Now you're telling I should "be more polite" and "don't make demands of people".

All I want to do is express my view. I don't demand that anyone agree with me. I assert my position and I hold it steady. What you want is for me to cave and collapse and yes all of you to death.

That's not going to happen.

I thought you folks were sincere about your feedback and I took a day off, and wanted to come back and try something else, and you folks pummeled me the second I logged on.

Make up your mind.

How am I lying? You have a severe problem with getting along with people here and I offered some advice. Starting threads about who is on your shit list and about how you're leaving isn't what I suggested. Screaming that people "hate" you and hate this and that won't endear you to others. Sure, speak your mind, stand your ground on your stances - I do it, and I don't alienate 99% of the board. But I have not lied to you about a single thing. I really don't care HOW you post. That's on you if you want to discuss things rationally with others or not. It's YOU who wants everyone to agree with you, and if not we are "violent" or we hate you.

[Wind Song]

How am I lying? You have a severe problem with getting along with people here and I offered some advice. Starting threads about who is on your shit list and about how you're leaving isn't what I suggested. Screaming that people "hate" you and hate this and that won't endear you to others. Sure, speak your mind, stand your ground on your stances - I do it, and I don't alienate 99% of the board. But I have not lied to you about a single thing. I really don't care HOW you post. That's on you if you want to discuss things rationally with others or not. It's YOU who wants everyone to agree with you, and if not we are "violent" or we hate you.

You didn't read my post very well. I'm not going to be a doormat just to make shallow "friends". You say you don't care how I post yet your entire post is filled with "shoulds".

[jimnyc]

You didn't read my post very well. I'm not going to be a doormat just to make shallow "friends". You say you don't care how I post yet your entire post is filled with "shoulds".

No one said be a doormat. In fact, I clearly stated you should hold your ground on your stances. It's HOW you engage people and the non-stop accusations you make about them. Hell, the majority of your posts to other people start with "You think..." and then you generally post something that they never said. Stop telling people what they think. Stop assuming everyone hates you, or hates gays. How about actually discussing things that ARE posted and less about things that were never said.

[Wind Song]

No one said be a doormat. In fact, I clearly stated you should hold your ground on your stances. It's HOW you engage people and the non-stop accusations you make about them. Hell, the majority of your posts to other people start with "You think..." and then you generally post something that they never said. Stop telling people what they think. Stop assuming everyone hates you, or hates gays. How about actually discussing things that ARE posted and less about things that were never said.


Jim, I started a thread about my time off, and how I had thought about what people said to me and I got nothing but crap for it. Nothing but ridicule and mocking. People are now mocking me for posting about Aung San Suu Kyi. WTF?

I can't have a Buddhist hero?

[jimnyc]

Jim, I started a thread about my time off, and how I had thought about what people said to me and I got nothing but crap for it. Nothing but ridicule and mocking. People are now mocking me for posting about Aung San Suu Kyi. WTF?

I can't have a Buddhist hero?

And I start threads at times that don't even get a single response. And people mock me all the time. I don't sweat it, and I move on. But I don't cry victim and abuse. Simply move on to the next subject.

[Wind Song]

And I start threads at times that don't even get a single response. And people mock me all the time. I don't sweat it, and I move on. But I don't cry victim and abuse. Simply move on to the next subject.


It was mean. I call it like I see it. Scorn, ridicule, derision, contempt, mean.

This is a woman that is on equal footing with Nelson Mandela.

[jimnyc]

It was mean.

The world is mean. The world is unforgiving. We here at DP are quite nice in comparison.

[jimnyc]

It was mean. I call it like I see it. Scorn, ridicule, derision, contempt, mean.

This is a woman that is on equal footing with Nelson Mandela.

And maybe people just don't care? Just like I really don't give a crap about Mandela. Not everyone wants to honor people that aren't in today's news.

[Wind Song]

The world is mean. The world is unforgiving. We here at DP are quite nice in comparison.


That thread wasn't "nice". What you folks do, that is unfortunate is you don't own your anger, you just use judgment. All the time. I own my anger. When I'm angry I say so. When I'm hurt, I say so. When I do that, you "nice folks" put me down for my honesty.

I'm not a "nice" person. I can't stand "nice". It's phony.

[DragonStryk72]

My wife would never do any of those things. We are completely devoted to each other and still very much in love.

Again, that isn't what I asked. You're just dodging the question, cause you don't have a real answer.

With rare exception, people do not get married planning to get divorced, be abused, or learn twelve years in that they cannot deny the fact that they are gay. The latter is what happened with my father, and it tore him apart for years, and he very nearly destroyed his connection with his because of the anger he felt with himself, and this inability to really talk about it. He agreed to stay with mom until we were all grown and out of the house, but denying who you are takes a toll, and it did with him as well, pushing into greater and greater follies of rage.

The breaking point came during my own Senior year. My mother was coming off a 72-hour shift as a hospice worker, when dad got pissed off about the state of the house. The dishes had piled up, and there was a mess in the house. Never mind that the mess was created by him and his AA buddies the previous day, it hadn't mystically disappeared somehow. Now, this was fairly normal bitching, and things likely would have been fine, but then he let the words "Lazy bitch" escape his lips, and that was the line for me. I storm out of the kitchen where I'd been doing dishes, and shoved him against a wall, screaming "Don't you ever call my mother a bitch!"

So I'd shoved and screamed at an ex-marine who had me on height, weight, and fighting experience. Yeah, I lost a little bit of momentum just after that, and would likely have caved, but for one thing dad did: He walked into the living room, where my brother, Michael, was standing, and it hit me: In a few months, I'd be off to Navy boot camp, and Michael would become the new target. That, I couldn't accept, and the fight got going in earnest. I don't remember all the particulars, but some standouts:

Dad: "Mind your fucking business!"
Me: "They're my family! They are my business!"

Me: "We don't want you in our lives anymore! We want you gone!"
Dad: "you win."

The scariest words I've ever heard in my life. For a while, I managed to go back to doing dishes, while dad left, but my whole body started shaking, and when he slammed the door the final time, and his car pulled away, it all fully set in. Mom was just starting to touch my shoulder, I'm guessing to hug me, when my knees gave out and I fell to the floor. I'm not sure how long I was there, curled up in a ball saying "Oh God, what have I done?", but I remember Michael holding me during it.

My dad did come back later that day, taking Michael out for a bit, and Heather came in from college to this. Everyone pretty much gave me a wide berth for the day, and Heather went out with dad after Michael. Apparently, there was talk about what had happened, but Dad made no attempt to talk to me that day, not that I wanted to. I knew I'd crossed a line I couldn't uncross, and ended staying out all night at Denny's to clear my head with Chris, who wasn't exactly sure what had happened, but knew something was wrong, and that I wasn't ready to talk about it.

It was the next day that he finally called me up from my basement, and he and mom were sitting on the couch, and I took my seat. Dad, like most talks, started off with "So, anything you want to say before we start?"

Unable to resist, I responded, "No, I think I've said quite enough in the last twenty-four hours, and I'm just gonna shut the hell up."

And then came the next set of words I'd never heard from him before, "You were right. I was out of line, and if it had been my dad calling my mom a bitch, I would've done the same. Hell, I would've done worse."

This was when he laid out that him and Mom were going to get a divorce, that things had just gone way too far. They both told me it wasn't my fault, that it was them who had pushed me to feeling like I needed to step up, all the stuff parents say to make you feel better.

My point to this story is this: No couple, regardless of who they are (with rare exception), plans for getting divorced, whether gay, straight, or bi. We all plan to be with the same person for our whole lives when we get married. You are the one acting superior, stating that there is absolutely nothing that could happen that would result in you being divorced, while somehow insinuating that Jim couldn't have that in his marriage. What if you met someone else who you fell deeply in love with? What if you wife did? These things happen sometimes, even in marriages that work, and trying to act like they couldn't is just naive.


Oh, and I'm through giving advice, have been for a bit, but I'm going to call you out on your bullshit, and continue to do so. I will not allow you to bully others, or post pure flamebait, or troll the board. You are a grown woman, and you know how to act better than this.

[Wind Song]

And maybe people just don't care? Just like I really don't give a crap about Mandela. Not everyone wants to honor people that aren't in today's news.


That wasn't even the point. They weren't just blaise about Aung San Suu Kyi they were mocking me for giving a shit about her. WTF is that about?

Nice? Not.

[Wind Song]

Again, that isn't what I asked. You're just dodging the question, cause you don't have a real answer.

With rare exception, people do not get married planning to get divorced, be abused, or learn twelve years in that they cannot deny the fact that they are gay. The latter is what happened with my father, and it tore him apart for years, and he very nearly destroyed his connection with his because of the anger he felt with himself, and this inability to really talk about it. He agreed to stay with mom until we were all grown and out of the house, but denying who you are takes a toll, and it did with him as well, pushing into greater and greater follies of rage.

The breaking point came during my own Senior year. My mother was coming off a 72-hour shift as a hospice worker, when dad got pissed off about the state of the house. The dishes had piled up, and there was a mess in the house. Never mind that the mess was created by him and his AA buddies the previous day, it hadn't mystically disappeared somehow. Now, this was fairly normal bitching, and things likely would have been fine, but then he let the words "Lazy bitch" escape his lips, and that was the line for me. I storm out of the kitchen where I'd been doing dishes, and shoved him against a wall, screaming "Don't you ever call my mother a bitch!"

So I'd shoved and screamed at an ex-marine who had me on height, weight, and fighting experience. Yeah, I lost a little bit of momentum just after that, and would likely have caved, but for one thing dad did: He walked into the living room, where my brother, Michael, was standing, and it hit me: In a few months, I'd be off to Navy boot camp, and Michael would become the new target. That, I couldn't accept, and the fight got going in earnest. I don't remember all the particulars, but some standouts:

Dad: "Mind your fucking business!"
Me: "They're my family! They are my business!"

Me: "We don't want you in our lives anymore! We want you gone!"
Dad: "you win."

The scariest words I've ever heard in my life. For a while, I managed to go back to doing dishes, while dad left, but my whole body started shaking, and when he slammed the door the final time, and his car pulled away, it all fully set in. Mom was just starting to touch my shoulder, I'm guessing to hug me, when my knees gave out and I fell to the floor. I'm not sure how long I was there, curled up in a ball saying "Oh God, what have I done?", but I remember Michael holding me during it.

My dad did come back later that day, taking Michael out for a bit, and Heather came in from college to this. Everyone pretty much gave me a wide berth for the day, and Heather went out with dad after Michael. Apparently, there was talk about what had happened, but Dad made no attempt to talk to me that day, not that I wanted to. I knew I'd crossed a line I couldn't uncross, and ended staying out all night at Denny's to clear my head with Chris, who wasn't exactly sure what had happened, but knew something was wrong, and that I wasn't ready to talk about it.

It was the next day that he finally called me up from my basement, and he and mom were sitting on the couch, and I took my seat. Dad, like most talks, started off with "So, anything you want to say before we start?"

Unable to resist, I responded, "No, I think I've said quite enough in the last twenty-four hours, and I'm just gonna shut the hell up."

And then came the next set of words I'd never heard from him before, "You were right. I was out of line, and if it had been my dad calling my mom a bitch, I would've done the same. Hell, I would've done worse."

This was when he laid out that him and Mom were going to get a divorce, that things had just gone way too far. They both told me it wasn't my fault, that it was them who had pushed me to feeling like I needed to step up, all the stuff parents say to make you feel better.

My point to this story is this: No couple, regardless of who they are (with rare exception), plans for getting divorced, whether gay, straight, or bi. We all plan to be with the same person for our whole lives when we get married. You are the one acting superior, stating that there is absolutely nothing that could happen that would result in you being divorced, while somehow insinuating that Jim couldn't have that in his marriage. What if you met someone else who you fell deeply in love with? What if you wife did? These things happen sometimes, even in marriages that work, and trying to act like they couldn't is just naive.


Oh, and I'm through giving advice, have been for a bit, but I'm going to call you out on your bullshit, and continue to do so. I will not allow you to bully others, or post pure flamebait, or troll the board. You are a grown woman, and you know how to act better than this.


Nice story.

[jimnyc]

That wasn't even the point. They weren't just blaise about Aung San Suu Kyi they were mocking me for giving a shit about her. WTF is that about?

Nice? Not.

And I think members of the Pittsburgh Steelers are Gods. Others will laugh and make fun of me for that. Some even get angry about the topic. It doesn't change my stance and I really don't give a shit what others think. If people mock you or this woman - does it change your respect for her?

[jimnyc]

Oh, and I'm through giving advice, have been for a bit, but I'm going to call you out on your bullshit, and continue to do so. I will not allow you to bully others, or post pure flamebait, or troll the board. You are a grown woman, and you know how to act better than this.

http://castleqwayr.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/clapping_hands_smilely.gif

[DragonStryk72]

Jim,

You fucking liar. Two days ago you were telling me you didn't care HOW I posted. Now you're telling I should "be more polite" and "don't make demands of people".

All I want to do is express my view. I don't demand that anyone agree with me. I assert my position and I hold it steady. What you want is for me to cave and collapse and yes all of you to death.

That's not going to happen.

I thought you folks were sincere about your feedback and I took a day off, I thought about it. I thought alot of what people were saying made sense. I wanted to come back and try something else, and you folks pummeled me the second I logged on.

Make up your mind.

I was hurt that all I got was shit after taking the time off to really reflect on what people said. You just jumped all over me. So, I went back to default position. It's a habit. It takes time to break a habit.

Instead, I think you all want me to be the forum enemy.

Yes, you took a day off, and went right back to form. You open debate topics, then dismiss the people who actually debate you, like you're just too good for responding to questions. You started a thread that was pure steel cage material.

You are flat out lying about only wanting to express your view. This is a debate site, it's in the title of the site. Read over some of the posts from before you got here, and look how many times we disagree with each other.

Just cause you took a time-out doesn't un-burn the bridges you went after, and you came back in again, dismissing legitimate debate, refusing to engage anyone but your detractors.

[Wind Song]

And I think members of the Pittsburgh Steelers are Gods. Others will laugh and make fun of me for that. Some even get angry about the topic. It doesn't change my stance and I really don't give a shit what others think. If people mock you or this woman - does it change your respect for her?

No, it doesn't change my respect for Aung San Suu Kyi, it changes my relationship to these posters. It was a fucking pile on.

[jimnyc]

No, it doesn't change my respect for Aung San Suu Kyi, it changes my relationship to these posters. It was a fucking pile on.

You'll survive, I promise you that.

Let me ask you a serious question... You have people here you claim to hate. You claim they make things difficult here for you. WHY aren't these people on your ignore list, which would make the problem "disappear"?

[Wind Song]

Yes, you took a day off, and went right back to form. You open debate topics, then dismiss the people who actually debate you, like you're just too good for responding to questions. You started a thread that was pure steel cage material.

You are flat out lying about only wanting to express your view. This is a debate site, it's in the title of the site. Read over some of the posts from before you got here, and look how many times we disagree with each other.

Just cause you took a time-out doesn't un-burn the bridges you went after, and you came back in again, dismissing legitimate debate, refusing to engage anyone but your detractors.


I started out with good intentions, which none of you gives me credit for. I got nothing but shit. I reverted back to old habits. That's on me. I'm willing to try again, but watch how much people attack me even before I say anything.

[Wind Song]

You'll survive, I promise you that.

Let me ask you a serious question... You have people here you claim to hate. You claim they make things difficult here for you. WHY aren't these people on your ignore list, which would make the problem "disappear"?

I don't really hate anyone. I say it, but it lasts all of five minutes. I have some people on my ignore list now.

I don't stay where I'm not welcome. You welcome me, Jim, DS, logroller, noir, all welcoming. The people on my ignore list? Not welcoming. They don't want me here.

[DragonStryk72]

I started out with good intentions, which none of you gives me credit for. I got nothing but shit. I reverted back to old habits. That's on me. I'm willing to try again, but watch how much people attack me even before I say anything.

Excuse me, none of us? I did, I even tried to back people up to get them back on the topic at hand, I called for them to back off of you about Daisy, and you burned me for it when you went after Sassy. Con has gotten your back since your return as well. See, that's the thing you're not getting: Stop dismissing us. It really agitates the living shit out of people, and causes about 9/10s of the problems you're seeing.

Don't just give a three word dismissal, like you just did to me. I actually set up a point of talk. Your response? "Nice Story", and that was it. You skipped everything else in it. That was Jim, Sassy, Kathianne or anyone else, that was you skipping the whole conversation so you could go back to arguing with Jim.

[Wind Song]

Excuse me, none of us? I did, I even tried to back people up to get them back on the topic at hand, I called for them to back off of you about Daisy, and you burned me for it when you went after Sassy. Con has gotten your back since your return as well. See, that's the thing you're not getting: Stop dismissing us. It really agitates the living shit out of people, and causes about 9/10s of the problems you're seeing.

Don't just give a three word dismissal, like you just did to me. I actually set up a point of talk. Your response? "Nice Story", and that was it. You skipped everything else in it. That was Jim, Sassy, Kathianne or anyone else, that was you skipping the whole conversation so you could go back to arguing with Jim.

I'll go back and read your post again.

I'm sorry that what happens when I'm being attacked is that I feel completely alone. I didn't see you try and help me over the Daisy thing. I'm sorry I missed it. I could tell you WHY that happens but you'd probably take it as an excuse and it would leave me more vulnerable than I care to be.

I am really sorry that I seem to be dismissing you and others. I want that to change.

Let me go and re-read your post.

[Wind Song]

As are Civil Unions, which you already have access to, and they grant the same rights as marriage. It's only been a legal status since we instituted the progressive tax system.

Next, there you go again with the flame bait. He doesn't think he's "superior" as you put it, he sees marriage as a religious institution, but is fine with Civil Unions. See, to him, the word marriage actually means something.

He has never said God doesn't love anyone at all, you're just trolling with that one.

At this point in time, we have "domestic partnerships" which grant very few rights relative to marriage, and we have states where gays and lesbians are free to marry.

I'm not sure what you mean by "civil unions". Are you saying that a straight person who marries by the Justice of the Peace is married in the same way that a gay person is in "Civil Union" for both.

If the rights were equal, I wouldn't care if the document called it "civil union", I would still call my wife, my wife, and view our relationship as a married one, even if Jim's church condemns us.

What Jim seems blind to, is that religions have the choice of who to marry and my Buddhist religion married my wife and me. He wants his Churches standard applied in all 50 states.

That's wrong IMO.

Jim's God is a judging one, not a loving one. I go for love all the time over judgment any day. The people who get through to me are loving, not judging.

I was raised by a religious fanatic and she was one of the most abusive people I've ever known. I don't automatically bow down to "religious" dogma.

[Wind Song]

Yes, you took a day off, and went right back to form. You open debate topics, then dismiss the people who actually debate you, like you're just too good for responding to questions. You started a thread that was pure steel cage material.

You are flat out lying about only wanting to express your view. This is a debate site, it's in the title of the site. Read over some of the posts from before you got here, and look how many times we disagree with each other.

Just cause you took a time-out doesn't un-burn the bridges you went after, and you came back in again, dismissing legitimate debate, refusing to engage anyone but your detractors.

You are absolutely right. I could explain why that happens, but I'd have to do it privately, and at this point I'm loathe to use the PM system after my run in with Sassy.

I'm flawed. I'm essentially a good hearted woman, but I have wounds, and they affect how I post.

[Wind Song]

"My point to this story is this: No couple, regardless of who they are (with rare exception), plans for getting divorced, whether gay, straight, or bi. We all plan to be with the same person for our whole lives when we get married. You are the one acting superior, stating that there is absolutely nothing that could happen that would result in you being divorced, while somehow insinuating that Jim couldn't have that in his marriage. What if you met someone else who you fell deeply in love with? What if you wife did? These things happen sometimes, even in marriages that work, and trying to act like they couldn't is just naive."

I'm not acting superior, I'm acting out of the knowledge of 27 years of marriage. My wife and I have been through a lot together and we have surrendered our lives to each other completely.

There was a time when it may have been possible for one or the other of us to give into temptation, but we weathered it and it's no longer an issue.

Instead of presuming that I am being superior or arrogant why can't you see that I have something so beautiful going on in my life that I can be that certain?

How arrogant of you to presume we would fail our marriage just because we're gay.

Lesbian marriages tend to last. Put two nesting women together and you get a very strong nest.

[fj1200]

I see. First you say, it's ok if gay couples marry and no you don't. Which is it?

Where did I say that?

[DragonStryk72]

At this point in time, we have "domestic partnerships" which grant very few rights relative to marriage, and we have states where gays and lesbians are free to marry.

Right, but these could just be expanded upon, as opposed to the militant fighting for something you don't actually need to fight for.

I'm not sure what you mean by "civil unions". Are you saying that a straight person who marries by the Justice of the Peace is married in the same way that a gay person is in "Civil Union" for both.

If the rights were equal, I wouldn't care if the document called it "civil union", I would still call my wife, my wife, and view our relationship as a married one, even if Jim's church condemns us.

Which Jim would be willing to accept as well, and has stated as such in this very thread. He's not the one continuing the fight.

What Jim seems blind to, is that religions have the choice of who to marry and my Buddhist religion married my wife and me. He wants his Churches standard applied in all 50 states.

Just as you want your belief in gay marriage recognized in all 50 states, and believe Buddhism to be good and right, Jim believes his faith is good and right.

That's wrong IMO.

Jim's God is a judging one, not a loving one. I go for love all the time over judgment any day. The people who get through to me are loving, not judging.

You've been judging Jim this entire thread, hell just above here, you judge him, and you actually ignore stuff he posted in order to do it.

I was raised by a religious fanatic and she was one of the most abusive people I've ever known. I don't automatically bow down to "religious" dogma.

The problem, however, is the difference between not bowing down and snapping at any scent of it. This is one of the reason I run into arguments with Missileman. I have no issue with Atheism, my friend Stacy is an atheist, but MM's a militant atheist, and that isn't good. You have turned into a militant buddhist somewhere along, and I get that there are reasons, but it sort of comes down to the point that you can't expect everyone to carpet the world for you, when you could just put on a pair of slippers.

[Wind Song]

Where did I say that?


State your position clearly, sir. Please.

[fj1200]

State your position clearly, sir. Please.

:facepalm99:

I did.

[Wind Song]

The problem, however, is the difference between not bowing down and snapping at any scent of it. This is one of the reason I run into arguments with Missileman. I have no issue with Atheism, my friend Stacy is an atheist, but MM's a militant atheist, and that isn't good. You have turned into a militant buddhist somewhere along, and I get that there are reasons, but it sort of comes down to the point that you can't expect everyone to carpet the world for you, when you could just put on a pair of slippers.

I don't expect anyone else to agree with my position. I put my position out there and I hold it. I have no problem putting on a pair of shoes rather than putting leather on every square inch of the earth.

[Wind Song]

:facepalm99:

I did.

Well, I don't understand your position then. You contradict yourself.

[fj1200]

I don't expect anyone else to agree with my position. I put my position out there and I hold it.

And repeat it ad nauseum sometimes in defiance of facts to the contrary.

[Wind Song]

And repeat it ad nauseum sometimes in defiance of facts to the contrary.

Because whether you like it or not I'm entitled to my opinion.

Now, you want to eliminate the state giving out marriage licenses to make sure that gays and lesbians don't have the marriage rights that YOU now enjoy.

You don't give a shit about marriage equality at all.

The Church isn't the marrying institution. The county seat is.

[fj1200]

Well, I don't understand your position then. You contradict yourself.

No I don't. I stated clearly that the government, especially Federal, should not preference any relationship and should vacate any definition thereof. Did naked dancing Atheists confuse you?

[Wind Song]

No I don't. I stated clearly that the government, especially Federal, should not preference any relationship and should vacate any definition thereof. Did naked dancing Atheists confuse you?


I completely disagree with your position. It's slick alright. Slimey. You get to act like you care about equal rights while taking ALL of them away. Making everyone rely on churches whether we believe in God or not.

Your position is disgusting. Bigotry hiding in the guise of Libertarianism.

[fj1200]

Because whether you like it or not I'm entitled to my opinion.

Now, you want to eliminate the state giving out marriage licenses to make sure that gays and lesbians don't have the marriage rights that YOU now enjoy.

You don't give a shit about marriage equality at all.

The Church isn't the marrying institution. The county seat is.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to create my opinion for me. "Churches" should "marry," the county should just try not to screw up the local school system.

[Wind Song]

You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to create my opinion for me. "Churches" should "marry," the county should just try not to screw up the local school system.

Take your opinion. We're done. There is nothing to debate. Your position is diametrically opposed. We are political enemies/opponents on this issue.

[fj1200]

I completely disagree with your position. It's slick alright. Slimey. You get to act like you care about equal rights while taking ALL of them away. Making everyone rely on churches whether we believe in God or not.

Your position is disgusting.

Do you mean the "rights" I am perfectly willing to give up? :rolleyes: I don't make ANYONE rely on a church. The church is completely superfluous to the process, don't go to a church and still call yourself married for all I care.

[Wind Song]

Do you mean the "rights" I am perfectly willing to give up? :rolleyes: I don't make ANYONE rely on a church. The church is completely superfluous to the process, don't go to a church and still call yourself married for all I care.


I want the rights that you have the liberty of rejecting. You don't get it. You are completely unsupportive of marriage equality.

[fj1200]

Bigotry hiding in the guise of Libertarianism.

Try to explain, in spite of your ignorance, how my position is bigot (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot)ed more so than yours?

[fj1200]

I want the rights that you have the liberty of rejecting. You don't get it. You are completely unsupportive of marriage equality.

I am unsupportive of YOUR view but am more concerned with removing government from where it doesn't belong; this is just one of those areas, especially Federally.

[fj1200]

We are political enemies/opponents on this issue.

Nice example of NVC.

[Wind Song]

Try to explain, in spite of your ignorance, how my position is bigot (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot)ed more so than yours?

You want to deny marriage equality so badly, that you would give up your own 1100 federal and state rights and priveleges to make sure gays don't get them.

That's a slap in the face to gay people.

[Wind Song]

Nice example of NVC.


If you really wanted to practice NVC, the first step is to identify your own needs and the needs of your opponent. I have been spelling them out for you but you're ignoring them. Frankly, I think your position is much worse for gays than Jim's is.

You don't give a shit about gay people at all. That's my opinion. What need is fulfilled by you making damn sure that gays and lesbians don't have the same right's and priveleges you have?

Giving them up. That is complete crap. We don't want you to give up your rights and priveleges we want the SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVELEGES YOU HAVE.

Why? Because we aren't settling for second class citizenship.

[jimnyc]

You want to deny marriage equality so badly, that you would give up your own 1100 federal and state rights and priveleges to make sure gays don't get them.

That's a slap in the face to gay people.

The rights will still be the same whether marriage or civil union. The rights/benefits extended to married couples or those in civil unions, would remain the same to all. The ONLY difference would be that the government won't be handing out licenses and determining who gets to be called "married".

[Wind Song]

The rights will still be the same whether marriage or civil union. The rights/benefits extended to married couples or those in civil unions, would remain the same to all. The ONLY difference would be that the government won't be handing out licenses and determining who gets to be called "married".

That's not what your "esteeemed friend and mentor fj12oo wants. He wants to eliminate all rights and priveleges that come with marriage by taking the state out of the business of marrying anyone.

That's fucked for us, frankly.


Your position is friendlier toward gays than his is. But tough on you. I am legally married. You will take that license and title away from my cold dead fingers before I give it to you.

[fj1200]

You want to deny marriage equality so badly, that you would give up your own 1100 federal and state rights and priveleges to make sure gays don't get them.

That's a slap in the face to gay people.

That is news to the multiple lesbian couples with kids that I know. You so fundamentally do NOT know understand my position that you need to project your hatred onto my posts.

[Wind Song]

That is news to the multiple lesbian couples with kids that I know. You so fundamentally do NOT know understand my position that you need to project your hatred onto my posts.


I don't understand your position at all. What any decent lesbian family would have to do with you is anyone's guess. You don't want us to have equal rights. Your position is a complete slap in the face to gay and lesbian families.

If I hadn't had a marriage license, I wouldn't have been able to care for my wife in the hospital when she had breast cancer. That license allowed me to sign paperwork and to be treated like any other spouse in an emergency.

I have health insurance because we are married. If I wasn't married, no healthcare.

[jimnyc]

That's not what your "esteeemed friend and mentor fj12oo wants. He wants to eliminate all rights and priveleges that come with marriage by taking the state out of the business of marrying anyone.

That's fucked for us, frankly.


Your position is friendlier toward gays than his is. But tough on you. I am legally married. You will take that license and title away from my cold dead fingers before I give it to you.



That's not FJ's stance. He is ALL FOR "gay marriage" - he simply thinks the State shouldn't be the ultimate decider. He has no issue whatsoever with gays, gay marriage or rights being extended to anyone.

[Wind Song]

That's not FJ's stance. He is ALL FOR "gay marriage" - he simply thinks the State shouldn't be the ultimate decider. He has no issue whatsoever with gays, gay marriage or rights being extended to anyone.

The state issues marriage licenses. That's all I want. fj's position is completely opposed to marriage equality. You folks aren't even willing to look at or admit the over one thousand rights and priveleges ONLY hetero unions have.

I can't relate to anyone whose name is fj1200. What is that? THX1138?

Where is the human being behind the ego who thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else here?

[fj1200]

I don't understand your position at all. What any decent lesbian family would have to do with you is anyone's guess. You don't want us to have equal rights. Your position is a complete slap in the face to gay and lesbian families.

If I hadn't had a marriage license, I wouldn't have been able to care for my wife in the hospital when she had breast cancer. That license allowed me to sign paperwork and to be treated like any other spouse in an emergency.

I have health insurance because we are married. If I wasn't married, no healthcare.

I'm friendly and non-judgmental. What do you not understand about everyone being treated the same?

I am glad you have those benefits but they shouldn't be tied to a state-sponsored piece of paper.

[fj1200]

The state issues marriage licenses. That's all I want. fj's position is completely opposed to marriage equality. You folks aren't even willing to look at or admit the over one thousand rights and priveleges ONLY hetero unions have.

I can't relate to anyone whose name is fj1200. What is that? THX1138?

Where is the human being behind the ego who thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else here?

I can only :laugh:.

[jimnyc]

The state issues marriage licenses. That's all I want. fj's position is completely opposed to marriage equality. You folks aren't even willing to look at or admit the over one thousand rights and priveleges ONLY hetero unions have.

I can't relate to anyone whose name is fj1200. What is that? THX1138?

Where is the human being behind the ego who thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else here?

It's not that you can't relate, it's obvious that you can't comprehend.

[Wind Song]

I'm friendly and non-judgmental. What do you not understand about everyone being treated the same?

I am glad you have those benefits but they shouldn't be tied to a state-sponsored piece of paper.
I have everything to lose by having my marriage license taken away.

I'm completely underwhelmed by your "friendliness".

[Wind Song]

It's not that you can't relate, it's obvious that you can't comprehend.


It's obvious that all you want to do is lob insults on me. Tell me I'm stupid.

[Wind Song]

I can only :laugh:.


Sure. That's what you do. Laugh. Think of yourself as above it all.

[jimnyc]

I have everything to lose by having my marriage license taken away.

I'm completely underwhelmed by your "friendliness".

Do you not understand that you would still have all of these rights without the State being the one to give you a "license"? No one, and especially, FJ, is advocating removal of rights, but removal of the state being the one to hand out "marriage licenses".

[jimnyc]

It's obvious that all you want to do is lob insults on me. Tell me I'm stupid.

If you have a civil union, and therefore have the right to be by the bedside of your "wife" as a result - whether or not the State issues the license won't change that. And the same applies for the other rights you speak of.

[Wind Song]

Do you not understand that you would still have all of these rights without the State being the one to give you a "license"? No one, and especially, FJ, is advocating removal of rights, but removal of the state being the one to hand out "marriage licenses".

No, I don't understand that. I don't buy it.

[jimnyc]

No, I don't understand that. I don't buy it.

Then don't blame those who are not advocating taking anything at all away from you. You don't understand what others are saying, or don't believe what you read, so you blame those posting here. That's the funny part, you're angry at FJ and condemn him, but what he is saying is basically in total support of what you want. The ONLY thing he is saying is that the State shouldn't be determining "marriage" - and he says this applies to ALL of us, not just gays. And he is NOT saying that heteros OR gays should relinquish rights simply because the state shouldn't be the determiner of marriage.

[Wind Song]

Then don't blame those who are not advocating taking anything at all away from you. You don't understand what others are saying, or don't believe what you read, so you blame those posting here. That's the funny part, you're angry at FJ and condemn him, but what he is saying is basically in total support of what you want. The ONLY thing he is saying is that the State shouldn't be determining "marriage" - and he says this applies to ALL of us, not just gays. And he is NOT saying that heteros OR gays should relinquish rights simply because the state shouldn't be the determiner of marriage.

No, he ("effer") is NOT in support of what I want. I want gay and lesbian marriages to be legal in every state. I want the same over one thousand rights than any married het couple has. I want DOMA eliminated.

That isn't what "effer" wants. He wants to eliminate legal marriages.

He is coming at this issue the wrong way. And who will lose? Gays and lesbians.

[jimnyc]

No, he ("effer") is NOT in support of what I want. I want gay and lesbian marriages to be legal in every state. I want the same over one thousand rights than any married het couple has. I want DOMA eliminated.

That isn't what "effer" wants. He wants to eliminate legal marriages.

He is coming at this issue the wrong way. And who will lose? Gays and lesbians.

Well, don't know what else to tell you then. You're shit out of luck.

[Wind Song]

Well, don't know what else to tell you then. You're shit out of luck.

Don't I know it. Have fun with your friends.

[jimnyc]

Don't I know it. Have fun with your friends.

So unless we agree with your stances, we all can't be friends with you?

[Wind Song]

So unless we agree with your stances, we all can't be friends with you?


No. I accept all offers of friendship from kind people regardless of political views. Meanies and judgers get lost. Someone that's gonna TELL me what they will call me regardless of my wishes isn't acting like a friend.

[jimnyc]

No. I accept all offers of friendship from kind people regardless of political views. Meanies and judgers get lost.

What if someone respectfully doesn't agree with gay marriage, but don't go out of their way daily to judge others. Or are you stating that anyone who doesn't go for gay marriage is judging you?

[Wind Song]

What if someone respectfully doesn't agree with gay marriage, but don't go out of their way daily to judge others. Or are you stating that anyone who doesn't go for gay marriage is judging you?

Damn, haven't you asked me this 50 times already? The former rather than the latter.

[jimnyc]

Damn, haven't you asked me this 50 times already? The former rather than the latter.

Yes, I have asked that many times, because you're all over the place with this and your stances change non-stop.

[Wind Song]

Yes, I have asked that many times, because you're all over the place with this and your stances change non-stop.

That's not true. You have asked me that question many times and I have answered it the same way every time.

[logroller]

The motivation for eliminating civil marriage is to make sure gays don't have equal rights.
I think the issue with. Arrive is that it's an outmoded legal construct; purely a social one now. The reasoning for state sanctioned marriage is no longer relevant in today's highly informed society. Do you know why marriage was sanctioned from a state perspective?



Where is the human being behind the ego who thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else here?
I don't know about everyone here, but it's a bit like outrunning bear-- I neednt, just you!

[Trigg]

I will spend the rest of my life advocating for marriage equality. You don't like that? Tough shit. I owe this to my father.


So if gay couples were given EVERYTHING, every little thing that married heterosexuals are granted, but instead of it being a marriage it would be a civil union or domestic partnership. Would that be ok.

Or, are you just after the word marriage??

[logroller]

So if gay couples were given EVERYTHING, every little thing that married heterosexuals are granted, but instead of it being a marriage it would be a civil union or domestic partnership. Would that be ok.

Or, are you just after the word marriage??
No. She wants her lifestyle deemed acceptable by social standards. Funny thing is, her discussions on the matter have the exact opposite effect.The rights/privileges have little to do with it. That's just what she parrots to frame it as a policy issue; when in fact its purely social. But she's mentioned many a time "she's OK with that." She speaks from the heart, I'll give her that; but I sure do hope she's discussed advanced care with her wife, cause WS is brain dead.

[Trigg]

No. She wants her lifestyle deemed acceptable by social standards. The rights/privileges have little to do with it. That's just what she parrots to frame it as a legal issue; when in fact its purely social. Funny thing is, her discussions on the matter have the exact opposite effect. But she's mentioned many a time "she's OK with that." She speaks from the heart, I'll give her that; but I sure do hope she's disused advanced care with her wife, cause WS is brain dead.


well that's what I figured. It isn't about the rights so much as the word "marriage".

[Wind Song]

So if gay couples were given EVERYTHING, every little thing that married heterosexuals are granted, but instead of it being a marriage it would be a civil union or domestic partnership. Would that be ok.

Or, are you just after the word marriage??


Yes. I would know in my heart we're married regardless.

[Wind Song]

well that's what I figured. It isn't about the rights so much as the word "marriage".

Nice of you to ASSume instead of waiting for me to answer. I want the civil rights. Period.

[Wind Song]

no. She wants her lifestyle deemed acceptable by social standards. Funny thing is, her discussions on the matter have the exact opposite effect.the rights/privileges have little to do with it. That's just what she parrots to frame it as a policy issue; when in fact its purely social. But she's mentioned many a time "she's ok with that." she speaks from the heart, i'll give her that; but i sure do hope she's discussed advanced care with her wife, cause ws is brain dead.


fuck you. It's the civil rights stupid.

[Trigg]

Yes. I would know in my heart we're married regardless.


ok, than I am confused.


Don't you have all of those rights in Cali already???


Also, from what I've read almost EVERYONE on here has said at one point that they would agree that gays in committed unions should have all the rights as married heterosexual couples.

And yet, you continue to argue with everyone.

[jimnyc]

ok, than I am confused.


Don't you have all of those rights in Cali already???


Also, from what I've read almost EVERYONE on here has said at one point that they would agree that gays in committed unions should have all the rights as married heterosexual couples.

And yet, you continue to argue with everyone.

Odd, ain't it? In this thread, I've not seen a single member state that she shouldn't have rights, but she ignores everyone and continues whining about what we didn't say.

[Wind Song]

Odd, ain't it? In this thread, I've not seen a single member state that she shouldn't have rights, but she ignores everyone and continues whining about what we didn't say.

It's the civil rights, stupid.

[Wind Song]

ok, than I am confused.


Don't you have all of those rights in Cali already???


Also, from what I've read almost EVERYONE on here has said at one point that they would agree that gays in committed unions should have all the rights as married heterosexual couples.

And yet, you continue to argue with everyone.

Yes, that's true.

[jimnyc]

It's the civil rights, stupid.

Then why earlier today did you state it had to be marriage? And even went off on me, and to others, saying I have claimed to "own the word"? Why did you state those things if it was solely about the rights/benefits - which EVERY SINGLE FUCKING MEMBER that has posted here agreed should be granted?

[Wind Song]

Then why earlier today did you state it had to be marriage? And even went off on me, and to others, saying I have claimed to "own the word"? Why did you state those things if it was solely about the rights/benefits - which EVERY SINGLE FUCKING MEMBER that has posted here agreed should be granted?


I said that I'm as married as you are. You don't define my relationship, I do. You do think you own the word, marriage. What I'm most concerned with is equal civil rights. I want what you have.

I don't have it now, because my marriage is only recognized in the state, and it's in jeopardy as it is. MY SIL does our taxes and we pay state taxes as a married couple and federal taxes the old way. It's completely screwy.

Try and picture this lesbian couple, (del and phyllis) in their eighties, one in a wheelchair, tooling up to City Hall in San Francisco. Del died shortly after they were married but they were to consumate political activist couple finally able to marry after 50 years of being together.

I'm proud of them.

[logroller]

fuck you. It's the civil rights stupid.

Maybe for some, but not you. You have the rights, but that's not enough. You want acceptance above and beyond what you, personally, are deserving IMO. You fail to understand that people are awarded acceptance and embrace commensurate to their actions. Keep cursing and calling people names, telling your sob story about cancer and oppressed gay father, and rambling on about how love is the answer--see where that lands you in the public perspective. Batshit crazy comes to mind. There are those of us who deal with our issues in a productive manner and that pisses you off; making you more of basket case than before. At first I was sympathetic, then I found it humorous, but now I'm just angered at how little you understand about how people actually come to terms with personally charged issues and work together to make a better society. The best thing you could do for the equal marriage cause (and not that you will) is STFU and seek professional help.

[jimnyc]

I said that I'm as married as you are. You don't define my relationship, I do. You do think you own the word, marriage. What I'm most concerned with is equal civil rights. I want what you have.

I don't have it now, because my marriage is only recognized in the state, and it's in jeopardy as it is.

Try and picture this lesbian couple, (del and phyllis) in their eighties, one in a wheelchair, tooling up to City Hall in San Francisco. Del died shortly after they were married but they were to consumate political activist couple.

I'm proud of them.

You can call yourself married all you like, whether it stays legal or gets yanked back. But just know, that while you may "think" that in your head, others won't consider it so.

[Wind Song]

You can call yourself married all you like, whether it stays legal or gets yanked back. But just know, that while you may "think" that in your head, others won't consider it so.

That's fine Jim. You missed a great party. The whole community was here for our wedding reception.

Don't worry. I won't be inviting you over anytime soon.

[jimnyc]

That's fine Jim. You missed a great party. The whole community was here for our wedding reception.

Don't worry. I won't be inviting you over anytime soon.

Glad you had fun. But if you didn't offer hookers and drugs, I wouldn't have attended anyway.

[logroller]

I said that I'm as married as you are. You don't define my relationship, I do. You do think you own the word, marriage. What I'm most concerned with is equal civil rights. I want what you have.

You get what you deserve in life. You waive your rights when you go about spewing blatant falsities. You can have what Jim has when you grow pair, figuratively speaking.

[jimnyc]

Hey Log....

[Wind Song]

Glad you had fun. But if you didn't offer hookers and drugs, I wouldn't have attended anyway.


I wouldn't have invited anyone who couldn't deal with sharing our happiness as a married lesbian couple. You're certainly married in a different way than I am. We didn't have hookers or drugs.

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't have invited anyone who couldn't deal with sharing our happiness as a married lesbian couple. You're certainly married in a different way than I am. We didn't have hookers or drugs.

I might be able to deal with the whole situation better if I was on drugs? :420:

[Wind Song]

I might be able to deal with the whole situation better if I was on drugs? :420:


I doubt it. You're immature and being on drugs ain't gonna help.

[jimnyc]

I doubt it. You're immature and being on drugs ain't gonna help.

Well, then I'll just hit the bong and immaturely laugh at you! :lol::coffee:

[Wind Song]

Well, then I'll just hit the bong and immaturely laugh at you! :lol::coffee:


Enjoy.

[logroller]

Hey Log....
Hey Jim....

[jimnyc]

Hey Jim....

Can you please kill me?

[Wind Song]

Can you please kill me?

You're asking the wrong person.

[jimnyc]

You're asking the wrong person.

Why, you don't think Log will help me out? I did ask him nicely.

[Wind Song]

Why, you don't think Log will help me out? I did ask him nicely.


I'd be happy to take of that for ya. You didn't ask though.

[logroller]

You're asking the wrong person.
I think he wanted a swift dispatch; had he wanted to die a death of a thousand cuts...well, he wouldn't even need to ask you, would he?

[jimnyc]

I think he wanted a swift dispatch; had he wanted to die a death of a thousand cuts...well, he wouldn't even need to ask you, would he?

That's why I'm begging you to kill me. I'm bleeding to death from those cuts right now, in my brain, IF you know what I mean. :beer:

[logroller]

Can you please kill me?
I'm mixing up a batch of kookaid; thinking I'll need to ration it out though, just so there's enough to go around.

[Wind Song]

I think he wanted a swift dispatch; had he wanted to die a death of a thousand cuts...well, he wouldn't even need to ask you, would he?


I don't know what you mean.

[logroller]

I don't know what you mean.
You should make that your signature line.

[fj1200]

I have everything to lose by having my marriage license taken away.

I'm completely underwhelmed by your "friendliness".

I was friendly last night at my son's soccer practice with one half of a gay couple with an adoptive child as he was telling me about his adoption process. I didn't judge him at all and was glad he moved to a local area where his situation would raise no eyebrows.

Most don't have anything to lose although I don't know the specifics of your situation. You should be able to make decisions for your wife by having the hospital acknowledge your decision making capacity via a legal document. Many firms provide health insurance for domestic partners with no such legal requirement and you told a story about how yours changed their position so you could benefit from that.


Sure. That's what you do. Laugh. Think of yourself as above it all.

No, I laughed because there was so much ridiculousness in that post.


The state issues marriage licenses. That's all I want. fj's position is completely opposed to marriage equality. You folks aren't even willing to look at or admit the over one thousand rights and priveleges ONLY hetero unions have.

I can't relate to anyone whose name is fj1200. What is that? THX1138?

Where is the human being behind the ego who thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else here?

My position is exactly marriage equality because equal footing would be provided to all. EVERYONE has acknowledge those 1000 "rights" and I have proposed eliminating them so institutional equality is ensured. I suspect that you want those "rights" because you are a liberal and think that is a legitimate role of government; we have a fundamental disagreement on that too I'm sure.

So you don't understand my position because of my screen name? No one has ever brought that up before so...

I'm sure that I'm not "smarter" than everyone else here because you confuse the F' out of me. :poke:


No, he ("effer") is NOT in support of what I want. I want gay and lesbian marriages to be legal in every state. I want the same over one thousand rights than any married het couple has. I want DOMA eliminated.

That isn't what "effer" wants. He wants to eliminate legal marriages.

He is coming at this issue the wrong way. And who will lose? Gays and lesbians.

If referring me to as "effer" helps you in your confusion I grant you permission to refer to me as such. But you're right, I am not in support of what you want specifically, but generally I shouldn't have any privileges granted to me more than anyone else. You could be granted "marriage" in all its glory but I would still think that all of those privileges should be removed from the Federal Register.

My plan would eliminate DOMA so I guess we're in agreement there. My acquaintance was telling me how DOMA affected the process of his adoption, didn't stop it but threw some speedbumbs into the process. Individual states should be governing adoption processes.

My guess is that you/all would gain more than lose by my plan and I don't want to eliminate "legal marriages." Your wordsmithing implies that marriages would therefore be illegal which is ridiculous.

[Wind Song]

I was friendly last night at my son's soccer practice with one half of a gay couple with an adoptive child as he was telling me about his adoption process. I didn't judge him at all and was glad he moved to a local area where his situation would raise no eyebrows.

Most don't have anything to lose although I don't know the specifics of your situation. You should be able to make decisions for your wife by having the hospital acknowledge your decision making capacity via a legal document. Many firms provide health insurance for domestic partners with no such legal requirement and you told a story about how yours changed their position so you could benefit from that.



No, I laughed because there was so much ridiculousness in that post.



My position is exactly marriage equality because equal footing would be provided to all. EVERYONE has acknowledge those 1000 "rights" and I have proposed eliminating them so institutional equality is ensured. I suspect that you want those "rights" because you are a liberal and think that is a legitimate role of government; we have a fundamental disagreement on that too I'm sure.

So you don't understand my position because of my screen name? No one has ever brought that up before so...

I'm sure that I'm not "smarter" than everyone else here because you confuse the F' out of me. :poke:



If referring me to as "effer" helps you in your confusion I grant you permission to refer to me as such. But you're right, I am not in support of what you want specifically, but generally I shouldn't have any privileges granted to me more than anyone else. You could be granted "marriage" in all its glory but I would still think that all of those privileges should be removed from the Federal Register.

My plan would eliminate DOMA so I guess we're in agreement there. My acquaintance was telling me how DOMA affected the process of his adoption, didn't stop it but threw some speedbumbs into the process. Individual states should be governing adoption processes.

My guess is that you/all would gain more than lose by my plan and I don't want to eliminate "legal marriages." Your wordsmithing implies that marriages would therefore be illegal which is ridiculous.

We would lose more than we'd gain by your plan. Why should we have to go to such great lengths to try and have legal rights that simply come with marriage?

No matter how much we try and how much money we spend on lawyers, we can still be legally screwed without a marriage license.

The way you describe being "non-judgmental" of the couple you met cracks me up.

[logroller]

We would lose more than we'd gain by your plan. Why should we have to go to such great lengths to try and have legal rights that simply come with marriage?

No matter how much we try and how much money we spend on lawyers, we can still be legally screwed without a marriage license.

The way you describe being "non-judgmental" of the couple you met cracks me up.
Ask sassy how much money she's spent on lawyers and still gets screwed by the system. You seem o believe marriage, as an institution, is the saving grace of social acceptance and the the state somehow caters to those who are married. It's a blatant falsity; that's why people, like FJ, ch, myself included, believe the states role in marriage is not only without utility, but complicates what is purely a contract for all intents and purposes.

[Wind Song]

Ask sassy how much money she's spent on lawyers and still gets screwed by the system. You seem o believe marriage, as an institution, is the saving grace of social acceptance and the the state somehow caters to those who are married. It's a blatant falsity; that's why people, like FJ, ch, myself included, believe the states role in marriage is not only without utility, but complicates what is purely a contract for all intents and purposes.

Try doing some research. Marriage comes with over one thousand rights.

[fj1200]

We would lose more than we'd gain by your plan. Why should we have to go to such great lengths to try and have legal rights that simply come with marriage?

You don't get rights with marriage, you get privileges. Those privileges are not in the purview of government to grant IMO. Besides, it would then put you on the exact same footing as me when ensuring that private enterprises treat all equally.


No matter how much we try and how much money we spend on lawyers, we can still be legally screwed without a marriage license.

The same as everyone would be "screwed"? :rolleyes:


The way you describe being "non-judgmental" of the couple you met cracks me up.

You'll have to show me how I was judgmental then.

[fj1200]

Try doing some research. Marriage comes with over one thousand rights.

:slap: WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT? Besides, they're privileges.

[logroller]

Try doing some research. Marriage comes with over one thousand rights.

Name one. I bet you cannot. Because the rights aren't given by the state, privileges are.

What am I to research, exactly? I googled, things Windsong doesn't understand or convey; got well over a thousand thousand results.

When you say marriage conveys rights, (over a thousand), you imply those who aren't married don't have those rights; that's not how rights work. First off, you'll need to understand what a right is, where they come from, and the role the state has in recognizing them.
I'm not sure what pedagogy you'll respond to; so I'll just try analogies, as that comes naturally to me. You have a right to drive a car. However, others have a right to be safe from your driving; thus, the right to drive in public is limited by the State. We call these limited rights, privileges. You can still drive a car on your property however you wish; you need no license to do so. Once you drive on a public byway, pursuant to the protection of other's rights, your rights become abridged along with my own. When the state sanctions some activity, it does so to protect the rights of everyone; and with no light degree of contradiction, it does so by limiting them.

Not sure if you're still following me, but let me rehash the most important point thus far; the state secures rights by limiting them, it DOES NOT grant them.


Now, We, as individuals have the right to love whomever, the state cannot limit that. (functionally speaking, its impossible) The privileges which society attaches to marriage, (thousands of them, as you've said, repeatedly), are limited. Now you mentioned doing research, I have, extensively on a list of things that would make your head spin. gay marriage is but the flavor of month in the grand scheme of sociopolitical evolution.

Marriage likely predates recorded history. For an abundance of reasons, mankind recognized the importance of incorporating certain activities into a formal arrangement-- marriage is but one of these. Indeed, we still arranged marriages in many cultures; love, being a convenient happenstance or by-product to the functional role marriage plays in society. At its root, marriage was an arrangement by which property was attained and conveyed. Political alliances may also play a dominant role; though I would argue these too are pursuant to property/wealth. The want to transfer wealth across generations is an innate human quality, and one of the foundational tenets of marriage. In most cultures, such property rights were the exclusive dominion of the man. To the extent that it wasn't even that uncommon for a widow to become the wife of her husband's brother; which I believe is still practiced today in some parts of the world. This is why I struggle to understand why two lesbians would want to be married; as its foundation is wholly misogynistic, but I digress.

When society was composed of a loose association of villages, everyone knew who was married, perhaps adorned by some jewelry or specific dress; practices we still utilize today with the exchange of rings. As societies grew larger and more interconnected, people were exposed to others with whom they didn't know; yet people still needed to know what was who's. Enter government, first under the authority of the church, whose authority was likely more broad reaching than the sovereigns. Post reformation things began to change; marriages were no longer the exclusive dominion of one central power; states began documenting these marriages. Prior to the industrial revolution, agricultural practices were labor intensive, requiring man, woman and child(ren) to work in the fields; this was necessary for survival and the head of the household (the man) had exclusive dominion over these activities. With the increased urbanization which followed the industrial revolution, central authorities, charged with resolving property disputes, found it necessary to document marital arrangements out of expediency. This occurred before the equal rights movement though; women and their kids were the property of the man. Throughout the 20th century in the US this changed, first with suffrage and later with the equal rights movement of the 60's. This movement gave more rights to women. Two notable rights are community property and parental rights; the later more favorable to the woman. Which brings us to today. Most of what a marriage was, no longer is. We're left a shell of what was originally conveyed through the bonds of matrimony. We're left with what amounts to a legal partnership. One notable exception is spousal communication privilege which, depending on the state you live in, carries with it certain immunities. Though its important to point out that this privilege exists with others too: doctors, lawyers, clergy etc; so its not exclusive to marriage. Just like the over a thousand "rights" you lobby for are available to you without a civil marriage license.

That's off the top of my head; I could research it some more if you feel there's something I missed. I'd rather you tell me what though, and show me what marital "rights" are forlorn by a domestic partnership or civil union.

[Wind Song]

You don't get rights with marriage, you get privileges. Those privileges are not in the purview of government to grant IMO. Besides, it would then put you on the exact same footing as me when ensuring that private enterprises treat all equally.



The same as everyone would be "screwed"? :rolleyes:



You'll have to show me how I was judgmental then.
You get rights and priveleges with marriage. The right to not have to testify against your spouse in court, for one.

[fj1200]

You get rights and priveleges with marriage. The right to not have to testify against your spouse in court, for one.

Privilege you mean. I don't see that going away for a couple holding themselves out as married.

[Wind Song]

Privilege you mean. I don't see that going away for a couple holding themselves out as married.

I'm not at home right now so I don't have my books to refer to for the rights and priveleges that come with marriage.

[fj1200]

I'm not at home right now so I don't have my books to refer to for the rights and priveleges that come with marriage.

Why are you continually ignoring the fundamental tenet of my solution?

[Wind Song]

Why are you continually ignoring the fundamental tenet of my solution?
Because it leaves my community WORSE off rather than better.

[logroller]

Try doing some research. Marriage comes with over one thousand rights.


You get rights and priveleges with marriage. The right to not have to testify against your spouse in court, for one.
I enjoy such a privilege with my doctor, lawyer and pastor. I'm either a bigamist or such a privilege exists without being married. Which is it; or do you need to check you book?

[fj1200]

Because it leaves my community WORSE off rather than better.

Statement not proven, or then we're all worse off. :rolleyes:

[Wind Song]

I enjoy such a privilege with my doctor, lawyer and pastor. I'm either a bigamist or such a privilege exists without being married. Which is it; or do you need to check you book?

I don't know WTF you're talking about.

[Wind Song]

Statement not proven, or then we're all worse off. :rolleyes:
Fine.

You'd rather not have any rights and priveleges than allow gays and lesbians to have the same that you have.

[fj1200]

Fine.

You'd rather not have any rights and priveleges than allow gays and lesbians to have the same that you have.

Instead of trying to tell me why I hold my position, wrongly, why don't you show why these privileges MUST be granted by the Federal government?

[Wind Song]

Instead of trying to tell me why I hold my position, wrongly, why don't you show why these privileges MUST be granted by the Federal government?
That's a good piece of advice. Let me think about it.

[logroller]

I don't know WTF you're talking about.

of course you don't; but sure as hell act like your entitled to something you know nothing about.
The immunity from being compelled to testify is a privilege which exists outside of matrimony; thus, you can't say marriage alone gives you that privilege.

The only thing that I can possibly see that married people can do, which others cannot, is file their taxes jointly-- that is it. But seeing as how our tax code is fucked 8 ways from Sunday, I'd like to see a plethora of changes there anyways. If that's one of them, fine by me. Quite frankly, now that dependents need their own tax ID anyways, the purpose for married filings lacks foundation. It should just be household, as I don't see how the tax burden would differ between married persons or two cohabitants. If me and FJ want to move in together and share financial resources, regardless of whether we're lovers, it should be a financial decision the two of us should be free to enter into on a contractual basis.

[logroller]

Instead of trying to tell me why I hold my position, wrongly, why don't you show why these privileges MUST be granted by the Federal government?

And might I add ....to same-sex couples or opposite sex couples.

[Wind Song]

of course you don't; but sure as hell act like your entitled to something you know nothing about.
The immunity from being compelled to testify is a privilege which exists outside of matrimony; thus, you can't say marriage alone gives you that privilege.

The only thing that I can possibly see that married people can do, which others cannot, is file their taxes jointly-- that is it. But seeing as how our tax code is fucked 8 ways from Sunday, I'd like to see a plethora of changes there anyways. If that's one of them, fine by me. Quite frankly, now that dependents need their own tax ID anyways, the purpose for married filings lacks foundation. It should just be household, as I don't see how the tax burden would differ between married persons or two cohabitants. If me and FJ want to move in together and share financial resources, regardless of whether we're lovers, it should be a financial decision the two of us should be free to enter into on a contractual basis.

Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/estate-tax-will-estate-have-29802.html) and gift taxes (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/living-together-book/chapter9-8.html) for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trust (http://www.debatepolicy.com/dictionary/qtip-trust-term.html)s, QDOT trust (http://www.debatepolicy.com/dictionary/qdot-trust-term.html)s, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/disability), Medicare, and disability benefits (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-disability-benefits-29686.html) for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody), child custody (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody), and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-death-claims-overview-30141.html) of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic PartnershipsIf you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

[logroller]

Tax Benefits



Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits



Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/estate-tax-will-estate-have-29802.html) and gift taxes (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/living-together-book/chapter9-8.html) for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trust (http://www.debatepolicy.com/dictionary/qtip-trust-term.html)s, QDOT trust (http://www.debatepolicy.com/dictionary/qdot-trust-term.html)s, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits



Receiving Social Security (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/disability), Medicare, and disability benefits (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-security-disability-benefits-29686.html) for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits



Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits



Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits



Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits



Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody), child custody (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/child-custody), and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits



Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits



Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections



Suing a third person for wrongful death (http://www.debatepolicy.com/legal-encyclopedia/wrongful-death-claims-overview-30141.html) of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships

If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html


All things which are either A) screwball ideas for government to be involved in, marriage or not:e.g. social security, or b) things that government should handle differently: taxation, for example, and/or C) standard contracts. You keep crying about all these things you don't get; estate planning, really? If someone has enough assets to require estate planning, I GUARANTEE YOU they hired a lawyer that could draft the necessary documents regardless of a marriage license. Otherwise, any notarized will would do. And come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there's been more than few legal hangnails regarding a slighted married widow; so again I find your whole premise to lack proof of exclusion. The question is, why does the state recognize marriage? Answer that; then we can talk about why gays should be able get married.

[Wind Song]

All things which are either A) screwball ideas for government to be involved in, marriage or not:e.g. social security, or b) things that government should handle differently: taxation, for example, and/or C) standard contracts. You keep crying about all these things you don't get; estate planning, really? If someone has enough assets to require estate planning, I GUARANTEE YOU they hired a lawyer that could draft the necessary documents regardless of a marriage license. Otherwise, any notarized will would do. And come to think of it, I'm pretty sure there's been more than few legal hangnails regarding a slighted married widow; so again I find your whole premise to lack proof of exclusion. The question is, why does the state recognize marriage? Answer that; then we can talk about why gays should be able get married.

Why does the state recognize marriage? Because it does. It has done for our entire history. I get the impression from some folks that they would prefer to not have the state issue marriage licenses. What you don't understand is how many laws would be affected by that decision.

It seems like some people want so badly for gays and lesbians to not have equal rights that they are willing to give their rights and priveleges to make us equal.

That's not the kind of equal we want.

It's very disrespectful to tell a civil rights activist that we are "crying" or "whining" when we assert ourselves as full citizens.

Usually people with this privatization agenda want only the churches to marry. I just want a license and the same entitlements you have. They should not just go to the elite priveleged heteros.

[jimnyc]

It seems like some people want so badly for gays and lesbians to not have equal rights that they are willing to give their rights and priveleges to make us equal.

You've stated this like 2 dozen times now, and every single person you have stated it to has told you that is not what they want or meant. Take heteros and gays 100% out of the equation for a moment. Even if there was never a gay movement, these folks are telling you that they don't believe marriage should be handled/dictated by the government, not even for straight marriage. I believe what they're saying is, so long as this is such a hot topic right now, as long as things need to be "equalized", take the state out of it while you're at it.

See, you keep repeating "some people want so badly for gays and lesbians to not have equal rights" <------- and yet no one is telling you that. You KNOW this is true as you couldn't quote a post here where anyone is stating as much. You're arguing with Log now, who is advocating doing the EXACT SAME THING to any marriage/union. This is why you have issues. You invent things that aren't said and use those things to vilify some people and make yourself out to being treated badly. If you can't comprehend what I'm saying, that's on you - but you should really try quoting people and speaking about what they DO write as opposed to what they DON'T or NEVER DID.

[Wind Song]

You've stated this like 2 dozen times now, and every single person you have stated it to has told you that is not what they want or meant. Take heteros and gays 100% out of the equation for a moment. Even if there was never a gay movement, these folks are telling you that they don't believe marriage should be handled/dictated by the government, not even for straight marriage. I believe what they're saying is, so long as this is such a hot topic right now, as long as things need to be "equalized", take the state out of it while you're at it.

See, you keep repeating "some people want so badly for gays and lesbians to not have equal rights" <------- and yet no one is telling you that. You KNOW this is true as you couldn't quote a post here where anyone is stating as much. You're arguing with Log now, who is advocating doing the EXACT SAME THING to any marriage/union. This is why you have issues. You invent things that aren't said and use those things to vilify some people and make yourself out to being treated badly. If you can't comprehend what I'm saying, that's on you - but you should really try quoting people and speaking about what they DO write as opposed to what they DON'T or NEVER DID.

Yeah, I hear you. The truth is that we want legal marriages. We want that in order to better take care of our families.

[fj1200]

Benefits...

Which doesn't tell me why those benefits MUST be mandated by the Federal government or how those benefits are automatically rescinded if government no longer recognizes marriages by those of ANY persuasion. I will admit that there will have to be some major changes to some of those programs but the majority of them are ill-thought out to begin with so a fresh look would be overall beneficial. Also, many of those benefits are available even without the definition of marriage.

[fj1200]

Yeah, I hear you. The truth is that we want legal marriages. We want that in order to better take care of our families.

I think it's unfortunate when you think you need a government definition to "better take care."

[Howard Roark]

I think it's unfortunate when you think you need a government definition to "better take care."

That makes for a nice soundbite, but it doesn't address the issue.

You were given a list of so called 'benefits' that the fed/state govts. recognize for married couples.

These are real issues, that have govt. oversight.

Until/unless you plan to change the entire tax/estate law, your comment doesn't add any remedy to this issue.


It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriage was still illegal in some states.

[Howard Roark]

Yeah, I hear you. The truth is that we want legal marriages. We want that in order to better take care of our families.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Z7tl7Vy8U&feature=player_embedded#!

[Wind Song]

I think it's unfortunate when you think you need a government definition to "better take care."

You have a problem with pensions, estate taxes, social security benefits, miltary benefits, immigration law, etc?

The country is set up to favor families, and some folks want the gays and lesbians to remain second class citizens. We're not settliing for less than you have.

Our marriages and families are just as valid and deserving as yours are.

[jimnyc]

You have a problem with pensions, estate taxes, social security benefits, miltary benefits, immigration law, etc?

The country is set up to favor families, and some folks want the gays and lesbians to remain second class citizens. We're not settliing for less than you have.

Our marriages and families are just as valid and deserving as yours are.

I thought you had already stated that "marriage" wasn't what you were after, but the benefits that came with it, and unions would be fine with you if they came with them?

[Wind Song]

I thought you had already stated that "marriage" wasn't what you were after, but the benefits that came with it, and unions would be fine with you if they came with them?

Read the thread further. I have stated my position many times, I'm not going to do it again. I consider myself married because I am married. My relationship of 27 years is a marriage whether you like or not, or whether you deny, minimize or criticise it.

We want the same rights and priveleges that you enjoy in your marriage. We're not settling for second class citizenship. When I was denied sick leave to care for my wife when she had cancer, I felt like a "nigger". I use that term purposely.

[jimnyc]

Read the thread further. I have stated my position many times, I'm not going to do it again. I consider myself married because I am married. My relationship of 27 years is a marriage whether you like or not, or whether you deny, minimize or criticise it.

We want the same rights and priveleges that you enjoy in your marriage. We're not settling for second class citizenship. When I was denied sick leave to care for my wife when she had cancer, I felt like a "nigger". I use that term purposely.

Yep, another day and another attitude. I simply asked an innocent question. I'm not dealing with your mood swings, maybe a rock will come in behind me and try to discuss things with you.

[logroller]

That makes for a nice soundbite, but it doesn't address the issue.

You were given a list of so called 'benefits' that the fed/state govts. recognize for married couples.

These are real issues, that have govt. oversight.

Until/unless you plan to change the entire tax/estate law, your comment doesn't add any remedy to this issue.


It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriage was still illegal in some states.
Heres the thing though, neither will marriage. What they want is social acceptance, not legal rights. and though interracial hyperbole also make for a nice sound bite, the truth is there's still racial animus; from all races too. Homosexuality has been around a long time without having marriage be an issue. Whys that? I'll tell you what I think. Gays have always felt different than mainstream society; it angers some of them them to be different so they feel that some air of legitimacy might assuage the social pressure to assimilate. They are freaky perves that want the world to accept perversion as normal. Not gonna happen. I know some gays and about half of them were good people despite their perversions; probably only slightly worse than the straights. Here's my sound bite: The sooner this movement dies the aids infected death its destined for, the better off our society will be.

[Wind Song]

Yep, another day and another attitude. I simply asked an innocent question. I'm not dealing with your mood swings, maybe a rock will come in behind me and try to discuss things with you.


Fine. Ignore me then.

[Howard Roark]

Heres the thing though, neither will marriage. What they want is social acceptance, not legal rights.

Disagree. How do you force social acceptance? They want the same perks that other married people have. If you read the thread, you'll notice that there is a big difference. In my opinion, getting your spouse's pension after death is huge.




and though interracial hyperbole also make for a nice sound bite, the truth is there's still racial animus
Not a soundbite at all. There were still states that outlawed interracial marriage in the '60s. That's a fact. You are the one arguing (incorrectly) about animus, and social perception. This is about marriage.


.
Homosexuality has been around a long time without having marriage be an issue. Whys that?

It's only recently that homosexuality has been accepted by those who are intelligent enough to do so. Socially, it's been very secretive throughout history. The time has to come to move forward from social issues, to legal issues.





I'll tell you what I think. Gays have always felt different than mainstream society; it angers some of them them to be different so they feel that some air of legitimacy might assuage the social pressure to assimilate. They are freaky perves that want the world to accept perversion as normal. Not gonna happen. I know some gays and about half of them were good people despite their perversions; probably only slightly worse than the straights. Here's my sound bite: The sooner this movement dies the aids infected death its destined for, the better off our society will be.

Your warped perceptions notwithstanding, this is about the legal right to enjoy the same status as other couples.

[fj1200]

That makes for a nice soundbite, but it doesn't address the issue.

You were given a list of so called 'benefits' that the fed/state govts. recognize for married couples.

These are real issues, that have govt. oversight.

Until/unless you plan to change the entire tax/estate law, your comment doesn't add any remedy to this issue.

It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriage was still illegal in some states.

Are you going to ignore everything I've said about the issue as well? I would change the entire tax/estate law, plus SS, plus Medicare, plus, plus, plus... I put EVERYONE on equal footing.

Nice interracial straw man because it's a non-issue as everyone would be equal in my view.


You have a problem with pensions, estate taxes, social security benefits, miltary benefits, immigration law, etc?

The country is set up to favor families, and some folks want the gays and lesbians to remain second class citizens. We're not settliing for less than you have.

Our marriages and families are just as valid and deserving as yours are.

WHY do you insist on creating issues where there are none?

[Wind Song]

Disagree. How do you force social acceptance? They want the same perks that other married people have. If you read the thread, you'll notice that there is a big difference. In my opinion, getting your spouse's pension after death is huge.




Not a soundbite at all. There were still states that outlawed interracial marriage in the '60s. That's a fact. You are the one arguing (incorrectly) about animus, and social perception. This is about marriage.


.

It's only recently that homosexuality has been accepted by those who are intelligent enough to do so. Socially, it's been very secretive throughout history. The time has to come to move forward from social issues, to legal issues.






Your warped perceptions notwithstanding, this is about the legal right to enjoy the same status as other couples.

I don't know where you came from but bless you, for this post!

[Howard Roark]

Are you going to ignore everything I've said about the issue as well? I would change the entire tax/estate law, plus SS, plus Medicare, plus, plus, plus... I put EVERYONE on equal footing.That's very noble of you. How many years do you think that will take? In the meantime, a simple change in state laws will suffice.


Nice interracial straw man because it's a non-issue as everyone would be equal in my view.

It's a non issue to those who didn't wish to marry out of their own race. Just like gay marriage is a non issue to those who aren't gay. I'm impressed with your view, but that does nothing to change existing law.

[Howard Roark]

I don't know where you came from but bless you, for this post!

Watch the youtube I posted to you a few pages back. He nails it.

[fj1200]

That's very noble of you. How many years do you think that will take? In the meantime, a simple change in state laws will suffice.

Doesn't matter and there is nothing stopping the states right now.


It's a non issue to those who didn't wish to marry out of their own race. Just like gay marriage is a non issue to those who aren't gay. I'm impressed with your view, but that does nothing to change existing law.

You must still not be aware of my position. WS "wanting it" doesn't change existing law either, she has a position and I have a position.

[logroller]

Disagree. How do you force social acceptance? They want the same perks that other married people have. If you read the thread, you'll notice that there is a big difference. In my opinion, getting your spouse's pension after death is huge.




Not a soundbite at all. There were still states that outlawed interracial marriage in the '60s. That's a fact. You are the one arguing (incorrectly) about animus, and social perception. This is about marriage.


.

It's only recently that homosexuality has been accepted by those who are intelligent enough to do so. Socially, it's been very secretive throughout history. The time has to come to move forward from social issues, to legal issues.






Your warped perceptions notwithstanding, this is about the legal right to enjoy the same status as other couples.
hey thanks for the history lesson. My warped perceptions just happen to be share by the majority of the voting public; so whos warped; really. Answer: funkin queeeers( in my best Boston accent) You know gayness was well documented in ancient times, often men took young male lovers as sort of an apprenticeship. I'm talking about the cultures which form the foundations of western thought. Buthise big mean evil prudent Christians put the kibosh on that fun little practice. But thankfully we've intelligent people, like those at penn state, who can still embrace such things.
Hey look I don't give two shits if they get married, or not. I'm just sick of all the victim talk. I'm quite intelligent, go look at my posts, I've thousands. I voted against prop 8 in California and have nothing but respect for the lifestyle choices of others. That said, God hates queers.:lol:

[jimnyc]

I don't know where you came from but bless you, for this post!

Oh, I see, you CAN be nice, and reasonable with people you post with - I just hadn't realized it meant the other person needed to share your same point of view.