Pink triangles and barbed wire

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Well, as a heterosexual, I realize that I have more rights than my gay relatives and friends.

What is it you can do that they are not allowed to do?

Originally Posted by richlevy

It just seems that a lot of people are beginning to make it their business to nose into the private behavior of citizens.

Adoption is not private behavior.

I'm not really siding with the Republicans/religious right, etc. but we at least need to come to some kind of agreement as to the problem statement. I think homosexuals should be allowed to lead whatever life they want to and, as consenting adults, I don't think its any of the Fed's or the State's business. But there are quite a few legal questions that are quite sticky when applied to homosexual couples. For example, at what point should the principle of common-law marriage apply to gay couples? What are the consequences of children being raised in gay households? If the state recognizes a gay marraige but the Fed doesn't does that allow the couple to file joint tax returns? Is it truly discriminatory if they don't?

While I don't have the answers, I'm not just going to ignore the collateral questions.

Who knows what a politician's position means? Pandering to the base, taking an empty stand to score points, raise election money, elicit favors from politically expedient allies, take payola from a lobbyist, etc. With politicians, there is only one thing we can be certain of - it is definitely not a stand of principle.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Beestie

......But there are quite a few legal questions that are quite sticky when applied to homosexual couples.........

It's nice to see someone here of the same opinion as me. Quite a few legal questions. That's very true.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by slang

Quite a few legal questions. That's very true.

Like what? A human couple IS a couple. To deny a committed homosexual couple the benefits that marriage brings is unfair. To deny them the benefits of family health care is unfair. A lesbian couple in my area (with two adopted children) were denied the cheaper "Family membership" rate at a local swimming pool club. WTF? They'd been together for 10 years and had the 2 kids! That's not a family? Hey, it's lasted longer than either of my two marriages did! What a crock o' shiite!

[slang]

We've covered the subject at least 2 times before.

gay marriage

California voids Gay/Lesbian Marriages

The whole subject is very cut and dry to some, that this is just some religious objection that should be quickly overcome and let that be that.

The more that you think about the overlapping complexities of existing anti-discrimination law, custody battles, child support, alimony and a host of other issues it may seem otherwise.

For the record, I am not in favor of gay marriage for reasons that many of you will not agree with but that I dont see how it wont eventually pass at some point.

Just a few of the non-religious issue are:

- The effect of public education and the exposure to alternate lifestyles as opposed to home schooling which often allows very little exposure.

- Divorce and custody settlements and the new system that will have to be devised and tested as opposed to the old methods and precedent. IE - the woman normally gets the child, gets the man's check.

- Changing demographics in the US and the political makeup of the southern states and the shifting makeup of the USSC

- The natural progression that once one specification within the definition of marriage is changed, that the same legal argument is valid that other changes will follow and require even more changes in the legal system from the issues listed above.

So, it may very well be an injustice that your friend was denied discount for a pool membership, it may also very well be that USSC cases are born from such injustices but it seems counter productive to the gay marriage movement to move more quickly than the legal system and those changes required to implement the new changes throughout the entire US, can handle.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by slang

- The effect of public education and the exposure to alternate lifestyles as opposed to home schooling which often allows very little exposure.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

- Divorce and custody settlements and the new system that will have to be devised and tested as opposed to the old methods and precedent. IE - the woman normally gets the child, gets the man's check.

That sounds like a good thing, not a problem.

- Changing demographics in the US and the political makeup of the southern states and the shifting makeup of the USSC

That's a reason it's hard, not a reason it shouldn't be done.

- The natural progression that once one specification within the definition of marriage is changed, that the same legal argument is valid that other changes will follow and require even more changes in the legal system from the issues listed above.

The only thing that could possibly be a natural progression from gay marriage is adult polygamy. Nothing else. Not marriage to kids, not marriage toanimals, not marriage to cars.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

But there are quite a few legal questions that are quite sticky when applied to homosexual couples. For example, at what point should the principle of common-law marriage apply to gay couples?

Same as straight.

What are the consequences of children being raised in gay households?

Probably a slightly lower chance of bigotry. That's not really a legal issue, though.

If the state recognizes a gay marraige but the Fed doesn't does that allow the couple to file joint tax returns?

Yes

Is it truly discriminatory if they don't?

Yes.

The questions aren't that sticky, really.