Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
Author Message
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #21
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
You have a point, Tom.

I think Republicans lose with gays because (and admittedly, I'm generalizing) once they hear "You don't get to do what straight people do" they don't hear much else you have to say.

Not unlike how they lose with Latinos because once they hear "We're going to deport grandma" they don't hear much else you have to say.
03-08-2013 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #22
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-08-2013 02:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 02:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  "Marriage predates government.....Families are the precedent for government." I don't see either being contingent upon it being a Male/Female relationship.

Then you aren't digging into the actual history.

Quote: Like Reb...I want the government out of the business of marriage. One should not be required to kiss the hand of the government and beg it's permission to get "legally" married.

I've said before, I see marriage recording as reasonable. Licensing? Not so much. But that term is subject to various definitions. A fishing license isn't so much going to the government to "beg its permission", as it is paying the gov't a fee for use of the commons.

Quote: It should be a contractual agreement among human adults caveated with the non aggression principle.

Fine, but you get "gov't out of marriage" and you'll have more problems than you solve. And that means more wasted money and more bureaucracy.

Honestly...I am really not concerned with the history of this issue. Things change..we adapt..the world moves on. I don't believe for a second this is issue is as important as some would lead us to believe.

I agree with you in your example of fishing licences in regard to the subtle difference between paying for things one uses and paying a government tribute. I have no real problem with "pay for use" licencing. What I object too is having a gun held to my head and being forced to pay a tribute to the government in order to "contract" with another peaceful adult. Courts uphold contracts all the time between adults that do not require that tribute. Why is the marriage contract different? Seems damn contradictory to the rule of law IMO. Of course I am not a legal expert.

You may be correct. There may be unintended consequences of abolishing marriage licencing. I am willing to suffer them on principle.
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2013 10:51 PM by Fo Shizzle.)
03-08-2013 10:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #23
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.
03-08-2013 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #24
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-08-2013 09:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You have a point, Tom.

I think Republicans lose with gays because (and admittedly, I'm generalizing) once they hear "You don't get to do what straight people do" they don't hear much else you have to say.

Not unlike how they lose with Latinos because once they hear "We're going to deport grandma" they don't hear much else you have to say.

This is one of the issues that will not allow me to be a member of the Republican Gang. One would think that the Gang that preached that the government stay out of peoples lives the most would support people doing what ever the F they want to do as long as the principle of non aggression is not violated in the process.03-idea Republicans preach constantly on the freedom of the individual....but they don't practice it.
I don't blame homosexuals a bit for not supporting Republican candidates.
They do nothing to garner that support.
03-08-2013 11:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #25
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

A huge issue for Gay Americans is the fact that for those of us that are in partnerships with a non-US citizen partner, we cannot gain US residency for our partners due to the status of our partnership. Its perhaps the creulest part of how our government discriminates against us. Straight people can simply get their wife/husband US legal status simply by marrying them. Gay people cannot, even if they are legally married under the valid laws of a US state, because DOMA prohibits the US government from recognizing them.

There is a bill in the US Congress to resolve that problem, called the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. It has virtually no support from the homophobes in the US House, who seek to make it illegal for our families to live in the same country, while at the same time, denouncing us for being sexually promiscuous.

But really, the question is really applicable to straight and gay couples. If the government gets out of the business of recognizing marriages, how would the government enable valid couples of whatever sexual orientation to gain legal status for their partners? Tying legal status for the partner to marriage (so long as that marriage institution is open to gays and straights) makes sense as marriage also has some serious penalties if used without thinking (alimony, community property etc.).
03-08-2013 11:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #26
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-08-2013 12:16 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  You don't think it's a story when a former President writes an Op-Ed where he says a major piece of legislation that he championed is unconstitutional?

It's only a story because we have a major politician putting party over personal conviction.
03-08-2013 11:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #27
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-08-2013 11:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

A huge issue for Gay Americans is the fact that for those of us that are in partnerships with a non-US citizen partner, we cannot gain US residency for our partners due to the status of our partnership. Its perhaps the creulest part of how our government discriminates against us. Straight people can simply get their wife/husband US legal status simply by marrying them. Gay people cannot, even if they are legally married under the valid laws of a US state, because DOMA prohibits the US government from recognizing them.

There is a bill in the US Congress to resolve that problem, called the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. It has virtually no support from the homophobes in the US House, who seek to make it illegal for our families to live in the same country, while at the same time, denouncing us for being sexually promiscuous.

But really, the question is really applicable to straight and gay couples. If the government gets out of the business of recognizing marriages, how would the government enable valid couples of whatever sexual orientation to gain legal status for their partners? Tying legal status for the partner to marriage (so long as that marriage institution is open to gays and straights) makes sense as marriage also has some serious penalties if used without thinking (alimony, community property etc.).

OK...I understand what you were referring to. Nothing IMO should prohibit one from obtaining legal status while engaged in a contractual agreement with another adult to share each others assets. Of course caveated that the contract does not involve theft, fraud, violence or destruction of property(principle of non aggression). I would think the contract between the partners would be enough. I see no difference between this type of contract and a marriage license. Both are legally binding IMO and should garner the same benefits and punishments. I have always said that same sex couples should HAVE to be married and suffer the same punishment as the rest of us.03-lmfao

Of course...I don't have ANY say in what the jokers in Washington do. I hope eventually same sex contracts will be allowed in some form nationwide.

If I want to live free...I must allow my neighbor the same prerogative.. Only violation of the principle of non aggression limits my tolerance of my neighbors freedoms.
03-09-2013 12:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoApps70 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 20,650
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 290
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location: Charlotte, N. C.
Post: #28
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
Sounds like Taxation Without Representation if you have no one in Washington to represent you. People joined into a tea party in the past to rectify that. Guess that wouldn't be your first choice though.
03-09-2013 12:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #29
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 12:50 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Sounds like Taxation Without Representation if you have no one in Washington to represent you. People joined into a tea party in the past to rectify that. Guess that wouldn't be your first choice though.

Tea Party elected official = 100% Pat Robertson voting record.

No matter what any tea partier says about placing priority on economic issues, there aren't any tea party electeds on a national level that support any measures of equal rights.

I got a serious downgrade when my house got shifted (shafted) from SJL to the hateful bigot, Ted Poe.
03-09-2013 12:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

But you cant grant citizenship via a civil contract...
03-09-2013 02:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #31
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 02:45 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

But you cant grant citizenship via a civil contract...

Agreed. I'm admittedly ignorant on the process now in place. I doubt just being married is all that is needed now. Isn't there still a process to go through?
03-09-2013 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #32
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 02:45 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

But you cant grant citizenship via a civil contract...

And this brings up the same reason why Gay people will be given marriage rights valid in all 50 states within 10 years (if not within 10 weeks by the courts). The right wing never tried to civil unions work for Gay Americans. The lead plaintiff in the DOMA case is a woman, who had a legal marriage who got charged 300,000 dollars extra after her legal spouse died, simply because she was married to a female. Another case involves a binational couple. The elected officials opposed to the term marriage for Gay relationships have largely opposed and blocked measures such as the Estate Tax Equalization Act and the Permanent Partners Immigration Act to even maintain the fiction that Gay Americans can obtain the same citizenship/governmental rights and obligations through civil unions. Don't get me wrong, I believe that separate is not equal. But the GOP/Religious Right never even tried to make that fiction even defensable.

The GOP would do well to just hope the Courts rule against DOMA this year. That would allow them to complain about the 'activist courts' (which really wouldn't be the case - the courts would just be upholding the equal protection and commerce clauses) and it would largely remove an issue from them where public opinion is moving against them - rapidly.
03-09-2013 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #33
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 09:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 02:45 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

But you cant grant citizenship via a civil contract...

Agreed. I'm admittedly ignorant on the process now in place. I doubt just being married is all that is needed now. Isn't there still a process to go through?

Of course there is still a process. But its pretty much guaranteed if you are in a straight marriage. If your partner is a citizen of a third world nation and is not a college graduate, not wealthy, or have a not perfect health record, you pretty much need marriage in order to gain legal status.

Obama, to his credit, has instructed the INS to stop deporting foreign partners of US citizens, but that does NOT allow that partner to work in the USA. And if any GOPer gets elected President, they will likely start forcibly breaking up the families of Gay Americans by removing that block on deportations.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2013 09:53 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-09-2013 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #34
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 09:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 02:45 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

But you cant grant citizenship via a civil contract...

And this brings up the same reason why Gay people will be given marriage rights valid in all 50 states within 10 years (if not within 10 weeks by the courts). The right wing never tried to civil unions work for Gay Americans. The lead plaintiff in the DOMA case is a woman, who had a legal marriage who got charged 300,000 dollars extra after her legal spouse died, simply because she was married to a female. Another case involves a binational couple. The elected officials opposed to the term marriage for Gay relationships have largely opposed and blocked measures such as the Estate Tax Equalization Act and the Permanent Partners Immigration Act to even maintain the fiction that Gay Americans can obtain the same citizenship/governmental rights and obligations through civil unions. Don't get me wrong, I believe that separate is not equal. But the GOP/Religious Right never even tried to make that fiction even defensable.

The GOP would do well to just hope the Courts rule against DOMA this year. That would allow them to complain about the 'activist courts' (which really wouldn't be the case - the courts would just be upholding the equal protection and commerce clauses) and it would largely remove an issue from them where public opinion is moving against them - rapidly.

My stance is pretty clear. Adults humans should be able to contract with each other for ANY reason publicly or privately as long as the principle of non aggression is not violated. I hope this issue is resolved. We have more important things to worry about in America.

IMO...The citizenship issue should be handled by bureaucratic authorities. I don't personally think that just because two people join together contractually that citizenship should be automatic for the non citizen partner. Some type of process should still be followed. I expect some temporary status caveated with stipulations could be used while one's application is vetted. This issue is a bit complicated for sure.
03-09-2013 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #35
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 09:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 09:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 02:45 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 09:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You can't get government out of marriage. How would you figure out how someone gets US legal status due to their partner, for example. How would inheritance law work for intestate couples? Child custody?

Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

But you cant grant citizenship via a civil contract...

Agreed. I'm admittedly ignorant on the process now in place. I doubt just being married is all that is needed now. Isn't there still a process to go through?

Of course there is still a process. But its pretty much guaranteed if you are in a straight marriage. If your partner is a citizen of a third world nation and is not a college graduate, not wealthy, or have a not perfect health record, you pretty much need marriage in order to gain legal status.

Obama, to his credit, has instructed the INS to stop deporting foreign partners of US citizens, but that does NOT allow that partner to work in the USA. And if any GOPer gets elected President, they will likely start forcibly breaking up the families of Gay Americans by removing that block on deportations.

IMO...There should be no discrimination in this process. Same sex and Straight couples should be treated equally and have to go through the same process and meet the same requirements for citizenship.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2013 10:09 AM by Fo Shizzle.)
03-09-2013 10:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #36
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 10:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 09:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 09:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 02:45 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(03-08-2013 10:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Contractual agreements between adults is all that is needed. The government need not be involved beyond arbitration of those contracts. Nothing else is needed.

Im confused about the US legal status part. Please clarify.

But you cant grant citizenship via a civil contract...

Agreed. I'm admittedly ignorant on the process now in place. I doubt just being married is all that is needed now. Isn't there still a process to go through?

Of course there is still a process. But its pretty much guaranteed if you are in a straight marriage. If your partner is a citizen of a third world nation and is not a college graduate, not wealthy, or have a not perfect health record, you pretty much need marriage in order to gain legal status.

Obama, to his credit, has instructed the INS to stop deporting foreign partners of US citizens, but that does NOT allow that partner to work in the USA. And if any GOPer gets elected President, they will likely start forcibly breaking up the families of Gay Americans by removing that block on deportations.

IMO...There should be no discrimination in this process. Same sex and Straight couples should be treated equally and have to go through the same process and meet the same requirements for citizenship.

But there is discrimination in the process.

We're not getting rid of marriage. There are over 1,900 rights that come from marriage. Its going to be impossible to contract for all of them. Its an interesting argument (but one that I would not even consider until straight people have to go through the expensive and frequently ineffective 'contract process') but really just academic at this point.

Do you realize how EXPENSIVE and complicated these contracts would be? We in the Gay community know exactly how much these cost. And they are frequently ignored by the court, by medical providers, etc. What would happen under the 'just contract for marriage' scenario is that 80% of the people wouldn't bother with most of the contracts needed. And then there would be endless, EXPENSIVE, litigation to sort all this stuff out.

In the 40 years of the modern Gay rights movement, not a single lawyer or court has even been able to produce a legal contract that comes close to providing benefits similar to marriage. I'm going to defer any consideration of such a 'solution' until someone can produce a legal contract that is functional in our court system.
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2013 10:36 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-09-2013 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ole Blue Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,244
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: The Good Guys
Location: New Jersey
Post: #37
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
I think people don't really realize how many "rights" that come with government-approved marriages. Most people take these for normal, but when you've got a same-sex partner it just doesn't happen.

I'm pretty sure DOMA will be overturned, and if it isn't by the court it should (probably) be repealed by a new law. It's way out-of-date, and I think the country's views on gay marriage are finally evolving.
03-09-2013 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #38
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 10:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 10:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 09:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 09:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(03-09-2013 02:45 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  But you cant grant citizenship via a civil contract...

Agreed. I'm admittedly ignorant on the process now in place. I doubt just being married is all that is needed now. Isn't there still a process to go through?

Of course there is still a process. But its pretty much guaranteed if you are in a straight marriage. If your partner is a citizen of a third world nation and is not a college graduate, not wealthy, or have a not perfect health record, you pretty much need marriage in order to gain legal status.

Obama, to his credit, has instructed the INS to stop deporting foreign partners of US citizens, but that does NOT allow that partner to work in the USA. And if any GOPer gets elected President, they will likely start forcibly breaking up the families of Gay Americans by removing that block on deportations.

IMO...There should be no discrimination in this process. Same sex and Straight couples should be treated equally and have to go through the same process and meet the same requirements for citizenship.

But there is discrimination in the process.

We're not getting rid of marriage. There are over 1,900 rights that come from marriage. Its going to be impossible to contract for all of them. Its an interesting argument (but one that I would not even consider until straight people have to go through the expensive and frequently ineffective 'contract process') but really just academic at this point.

Do you realize how EXPENSIVE and complicated these contracts would be? We in the Gay community know exactly how much these cost. And they are frequently ignored by the court, by medical providers, etc. What would happen under the 'just contract for marriage' scenario is that 80% of the people wouldn't bother with most of the contracts needed. And then there would be endless, EXPENSIVE, litigation to sort all this stuff out.

In the 40 years of the modern Gay rights movement, not a single lawyer or court has even been able to produce a legal contract that comes close to providing benefits similar to marriage. I'm going to defer any consideration of such a 'solution' until someone can produce a legal contract that is functional in our court system.

If everyone is required to contract under a civil union then what is the difference between that and a marriage license? I would assume the rights(if there actually is such a thing) you refer to would go along with this contract. I am not for having separate contracts. I am for EVERYONE contracting the same way..Straight or Same Sex. The marriage aspect can be done in church or whatever a couple wishes. It is immaterial to me what couples call it. All I am concerned with is the contract aspect of two adults agreeing to share each others assets. We can call anything as long as it is legally binding.

Change the law. Make everyone contract the same way in a civil union without the governments permission. We are making this much more complicated than is necessary. Hell...lets not forget that until recently common law marriage was in some states. The government was not involved at all in this. Why now?
03-09-2013 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #39
RE: Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA
(03-09-2013 11:56 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  I think people don't really realize how many "rights" that come with government-approved marriages. Most people take these for normal, but when you've got a same-sex partner it just doesn't happen.

I'm pretty sure DOMA will be overturned, and if it isn't by the court it should (probably) be repealed by a new law. It's way out-of-date, and I think the country's views on gay marriage are finally evolving.

I agree.

I think the word "marriage" is a big part the problem. I don't see it having anything to do with the contract aspect of the union. It should be called what it is. A legal contract binding two adults together financially. If we want to call it a Civil Union...fine. I really could care less.

IMO..."marriage" is a ceremony...not a contract. The two things need to be separated. Only the contract should be the legal portion of this.
03-09-2013 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.