Gay Marriage revisited, Political postings discouraged

[hippietim]

People can use whatever is the most comfortable provided it isn't male.. LOL ..

That's good to know Gertrude.

:ROTF:

[necrotechno]

"More than 1,451 marriages licenses were issued or scheduled to be issued as of 3 p.m. today in California -- nearly three times as many as on a typical June day -- as gay couples across the state embraced the first opportunity to wed legally in the wake of the state Supreme Court's rejection of a ban on same-sex marriages, a Times survey found.

Based on reports from 56 of the state's 58 counties, most counties were experiencing a spike in marriage license applications, if not the overwhelming crush of requests some expected on a historic day. On an average June day, 460 marriage licenses are issued in the state."

Right now, because of the all the fuss, these are probably mostly legit couples.

But after a while — and the main reason I oppose same-sex marriage — many non-gays will get "married" just for some other benefit of it. Health insurance (which universal health care would render moot), military personnel wanting to get 2x the housing money so they don't have to live in the barracks, people with legal troubles pending and are trying to have some internal correspondence tossed out of court evidence (ie Rosie O'Donnell), etc.

I don't know what percentage of the population we're claiming are gay. Kinsey said 10%, but that's a crock. I've read other claims of 1-2%, which seems more likely. But the bottom line is, if there are more same-sex marriages than there are gay people, something extremely wrong will have transpired.

[Tekky]

But after a while — and the main reason I oppose same-sex marriage — many non-gays will get "married" just for some other benefit of it. Health insurance (which universal health care would render moot), military personnel wanting to get 2x the housing money so they don't have to live in the barracks, people with legal troubles pending and are trying to have some internal correspondence tossed out of court evidence (ie Rosie O'Donnell), etc.

Honestly, that is not a same-sex marriage issue. I'm not sure if there are statistics out there on it, but I'm sure that just as many heterosexual couples are marrying for the same thing. Gold-digging or convenience marriages is most certainly nothing new.

[GodOfRhythm]

Honestly, that is not a same-sex marriage issue. I'm not sure if there are statistics out there on it, but I'm sure that just as many heterosexual couples are marrying for the same thing. Gold-digging or convenience marriages is most certainly nothing new.

Exactly.

The real issue, and true equality, would then be allowing gays to use the same loopholes/immoral constructions. But just as well, have them be 'abused' by the same system, as much as heterosexual people are, until the true problem is solved (in this case: marriage as the objective construct) Any other treatment would be, in all forms, discrimination.

[Jason1212]

How would a couple in the military use same sex marriage to get additional benefits? Doesnt the military have the dont ask dont tell policy? Also this argument is flawed in that if people want these benefits then a gay man can "marry" a gay women thus circumventing any policies or laws that are in place. Which has been done in the past.

[GodOfRhythm]

Also this argument is flawed in that if people want these benefits then a gay man can "marry" a gay women thus circumventing any policies or laws that are in place. Which has been done in the past.

That is sidestepping the issue of gays and discrimination. Used by politicians, but rhetorically and logically false.

[SEEGERMANY]

Right now, because of the all the fuss, these are probably mostly legit couples.

The numbers I quoted were directly from the LA Times and were listing gay marriages. I would assume if they were issued a marriage certificate, that would make them "legit."

[Jason1212]

I am not trying to sidestep gay discrimination. I know it's out there and I disagree with it. I was addressing necro's comment that non gays would use the changes in marriage laws to pose as a same sex couple to get benefits. To me that sounds like a last ditch argument to stop these folk's attempts to attain equility.

[Bengal]

As someone else put so well. (I don't remember who)

Why not let them get married? They should have the same right to be miserable just like the rest of us married folk.

Kidding there. I love my wife and I'm glad I'm married. But a good joke is a good joke.

[SEEGERMANY]

I think horns (Bill) made that statement.

[joelayres]

the main reason I oppose same-sex marriage — many non-gays will get "married" just for some other benefit of it. Health insurance (which universal health care would render moot), military personnel wanting to get 2x the housing money so they don't have to live in the barracks, people with legal troubles pending and are trying to have some internal correspondence tossed out of court evidence

No matter what, there will always be dishonest people who will try to bilk the system - that is no excuse to deny anyone basic human rights.

[~K~]

Democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.

The majority cannot vote away the civil right of a minority ... it goes against everything this country was founded on.

[SEEGERMANY]

........

[ABSOLUT CHARVEL]

did anyone ask if you and your wife are still married in the states point of view? are you retro or do you lose anything? i'm sure this may have been brought up already, but shit 20 pages!!!

[~K~]

did anyone ask if you and your wife are still married in the states point of view? are you retro or do you lose anything? i'm sure this may have been brought up already, but shit 20 pages!!!

My understanding is that my marriage cannot be legally voided by the state. It doesn't matter either way. We were married in Mass and now they have full marriage and NH has civil union.The bottom line is that according to our certificate we were married as man and woman.

That could possibly be challenged when and if my birth certificate is ammended. but it isn't likely to change anything.

If California actually get to vote and repeal it then it will open a pandoras box for those already legally wed. I don't think that those certificates can be voided and if they are the state will probably get hit with class action suits.

The notion that a majority cannot vote on a civil right for a minority is why this ends up in court and not on a ballot. If you could vote on someones civil rights then slavery would have never been abolished as it didn't have the support in the south at the time.

There's all different angles to look at it and I'm sure any particular group can skew it to make a point of their own agenda. The bottom line is that people need to be afforded equal protections under the law and without that piece of paper, not everyone has the same rights...