Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Replies
-
I have several friends who are very deeply involved in this fight. One couple who went out of state to marry, another who are holding out until they can legally do it right here at home. They, and we, are fighting like hell to get this legally changed.
What do you think about a compromise, of sorts? Say the government grants all unions of people living together/raising children the same benefits as a man/woman marriage, would that be enough to satisfy people? Or is the bigger issue wanting approval from society and wanting to be considered "married" as a man and woman are? Thoughts?I think the issue is that the lawyer is a paid middleman. The best option imo - government undoes the discrimination against gay folks - then no gay couple would have to ask for permission. Cut the middleman (lawyer) out of the way and file directly with the government as always.
So this is something I know a good bit about, and I know a lot of folks who are strongly active on this issue.
I do not know one single person who is trying to mandate a change in the attitudes of the very fundamental. I don't know any who would want Catholic or Baptist etc,etc,etc, churches forced to perform rites that they do not agree with. Nobody is that concerned about "Approval" from those folks. They/we won't get it. We understand that. That's fine.
The 'bigger issue' is wanting to be legally married, just like anybody else. That's all. Folks who disagree are free to huff and puff and disapprove and look down their noses 'til kingdom come. My grandfather never accepted my cousins interracial marriage. My pal Craig's mom ain't happy that he married a shiksa. That's fine... it doesn't matter. They just want legal rights.0 -
So, would you say the bigger issue is just being considered "married", or that they want the same rights/benefits as a "married couple"?The 'bigger issue' is wanting to be legally married, just like anybody else.
I guess I'm just looking for a compromise that would make both sides of the issue happy!0 -
Applying for a marriage license isn't "asking approval". If you are legally able to be married you cannot and will not be denied. It's more registering your marriage than asking for approval.0
-
But as things stand right now, those who don't fit the government's definition of marriage aren't issued licenses.
So my ramblings were an attempt to remove the need to "ask" by applying for a license.0 -
I honestly don't understand what you're asking Patti. What's the difference between being "considered married", and having all the rights and benefits that go along with marriage? Honestly, Roger and Chris and Melanie and Vel don't care if a bunch of the population doesn't "Consider" them married (whatever that means). They don't care what other peoples' irrelevent private opinions are. "Consider" whatever you want. They want to be legally married, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that go along with that.
So, would you say the bigger issue is just being considered "married", or that they want the same rights/benefits as a "married couple"?The 'bigger issue' is wanting to be legally married, just like anybody else.
I guess I'm just looking for a compromise that would make both sides of the issue happy!
ETA - great page, this is worth a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States0 -
So rather than making some sort of convoluted "go through a lwyer to go through the government" sort of round-about, just adjust the legal definition of marriage to be any 2 consenting adults who are no closer in relation than cousin.But as things stand right now, those who don't fit the government's definition of marriage aren't issued licenses.
So my ramblings were an attempt to remove the need to "ask" by applying for a license.
I find it odd that the very people who I would think would be against gay marriage are arguing that 2 roomates, siblings, etc should be able to get married. Of course, I may be wrong in my assumptions of who is and who isn't in favor of gay marriage and I am not speaking of everyone who is arguing that position either.
Besides, how would it be any different to go through a lawyer to get those rights? It still has to be done through the government. If they can deny a gay couple who go directly to them because they don't meet the qualifications then why wouldn't they be able to deny that gay couple who go through a lawyer? You mentioned it would be like forming a corporation. You don't just draw up papers to form a corporation and you can be turned down. The government is the bottom line and if you don't meet their qualifications - whether it's a marriage license, forming a corporation, or registering your vehicle - you can be denied.0 -
I find it odd that the very people who I would think would be against gay marriage are arguing that 2 roomates, siblings, etc should be able to get married. Of course, I may be wrong in my assumptions
Looks like it.0 -
I find it odd that the very people who I would think would be against gay marriage are arguing that 2 roomates, siblings, etc should be able to get married.
I may have missed something otherwise, but is this in reference to Patti's proposal of siblings raising a nephew in one household situation? If so, I don't think she meant that the siblings were going to get married--just that they should have the rights in a "couple" or "relationship" status...since they are both raising said child together in one home. At least that's how I took it. Not in a marital or sexual way, but as a legal joint effort.0 -
That's correct, Kimmy. I just don't see why people who devote their lives to each other can't receive the same benefits that come with being married. Why should the government be in the business of giving incentives based on romance or sex? As I stated in the beginning of this thread, I said I find it heart breaking that a couple of the same sex who love each other, have been together for 30 years, or whatever cannot cover each other under insurance policies, be legal next of kins, be able to spek for each other, etc. so, if the issue is the definition of marriage- don't call the relationship a marriage, but give the same benefits. That's what I mean by a compromise between the two sides of the issue.I may have missed something otherwise, but is this in reference to Patti's proposal of siblings raising a nephew in one household situation? If so, I don't think she meant that the siblings were going to get married--just that they should have the rights in a "couple" or "relationship" status...since they are both raising said child together in one home. At least that's how I took it. Not in a marital or sexual way, but as a legal joint effort0 -
Yeah, I thought Brown v. Board of Education covered that about 58 years ago. Uh uh... nope.0
-
What's the difference between that and a marriage? Or should all marriages just be abolished and everyone just has a legal union? Personally, I like being married. I don't want to change the name. I also disagree that someone should have to claim 1 other specific person to legally join with just to get insurance and legal rights? What if 2 people are married but neither of them has a job where tey have insurance - can they legally join with another person(s) to get those benefits? If everyone can join with everyone just to get insurance benefits then wouldn't it just be easier to be in favor of universal health care in the first place?
That's correct, Kimmy. I just don't see why people who devote their lives to each other can't receive the same benefits that come with being married. Why should the government be in the business of giving incentives based on romance or sex? As I stated in the beginning of this thread, I said I find it heart breaking that a couple of the same sex who love each other, have been together for 30 years, or whatever cannot cover each other under insurance policies, be legal next of kins, be able to spek for each other, etc. so, if the issue is the definition of marriage- don't call the relationship a marriage, but give the same benefits. That's what I mean by a compromise between the two sides of the issue.I may have missed something otherwise, but is this in reference to Patti's proposal of siblings raising a nephew in one household situation? If so, I don't think she meant that the siblings were going to get married--just that they should have the rights in a "couple" or "relationship" status...since they are both raising said child together in one home. At least that's how I took it. Not in a marital or sexual way, but as a legal joint effort0 -
What's the difference between that and a marriage? Or should all marriages just be abolished and everyone just has a legal union? Personally, I like being married. I don't want to change the name. I also disagree that someone should have to claim 1 other specific person to legally join with just to get insurance and legal rights? What if 2 people are married but neither of them has a job where tey have insurance - can they legally join with another person(s) to get those benefits? If everyone can join with everyone just to get insurance benefits then wouldn't it just be easier to be in favor of universal health care in the first place?
That's correct, Kimmy. I just don't see why people who devote their lives to each other can't receive the same benefits that come with being married. Why should the government be in the business of giving incentives based on romance or sex? As I stated in the beginning of this thread, I said I find it heart breaking that a couple of the same sex who love each other, have been together for 30 years, or whatever cannot cover each other under insurance policies, be legal next of kins, be able to spek for each other, etc. so, if the issue is the definition of marriage- don't call the relationship a marriage, but give the same benefits. That's what I mean by a compromise between the two sides of the issue.I may have missed something otherwise, but is this in reference to Patti's proposal of siblings raising a nephew in one household situation? If so, I don't think she meant that the siblings were going to get married--just that they should have the rights in a "couple" or "relationship" status...since they are both raising said child together in one home. At least that's how I took it. Not in a marital or sexual way, but as a legal joint effort
I can't speak for her, but I figured it was just because a child was involved, and it was more of a "in the best interest of the child" deal (having family and help, basically). Again, that's just how I took it.0 -
Thing is they can do most of what you stated through legal processes. They just can't do it as a "married" couple in some states.
That's correct, Kimmy. I just don't see why people who devote their lives to each other can't receive the same benefits that come with being married. Why should the government be in the business of giving incentives based on romance or sex? As I stated in the beginning of this thread, I said I find it heart breaking that a couple of the same sex who love each other, have been together for 30 years, or whatever cannot cover each other under insurance policies, be legal next of kins, be able to spek for each other, etc. so, if the issue is the definition of marriage- don't call the relationship a marriage, but give the same benefits. That's what I mean by a compromise between the two sides of the issue.
Really what we''re talking here about is "religious" marriage definition vs legal marriage definition and many religious organization are just against it because they believe "marriage" came from their god. That's pretty much it. You won't change their minds about it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
A wise friend wrote: "I don't think anyone is suggesting that a Church be forced to allow a gay couple into their place of worship and a be forced to perform a religious ceremony that is against their religious beliefs. What we're saying is religion lost its monopoly on the concept of marriage the minute I had to apply for a marriage license, get taxed differently by the IRS, and can make legally binding decisions on behalf of my spouse. Once that happened, everybody should get the same rights. Everybody. And not separate but equal rights, but the same rights."0
-
A wise friend wrote: "I don't think anyone is suggesting that a Church be forced to allow a gay couple into their place of worship and a be forced to perform a religious ceremony that is against their religious beliefs. What we're saying is religion lost its monopoly on the concept of marriage the minute I had to apply for a marriage license, get taxed differently by the IRS, and can make legally binding decisions on behalf of my spouse. Once that happened, everybody should get the same rights. Everybody. And not separate but equal rights, but the same rights."
That's a very good quote - I may borrow that, if that's OK?
I understand the proposal about legal contracts, but in the end, it's the government who registers corporations etc and enforces the contracts/papers that are required to form them. The government adjudicates disputes arising in its' courts of law, and sets the legal requirements of both formation and behaviour in relation to corporations and contractually-tied parties. In effect, having marriage be conducted by a legist/through contract would not remove the government from involvement in marriage, but in many ways, would increase governmental involvement. Because the majority of the 'rights' conveyed by marital statement are granted by the government, it is unfeasible - I'd almost go as far as to say impossible - to remove government from the processes of marriage.0 -
Brown v. Board of Education covered that about 58 years ago. Uh uh... nope. This is america. We don't do "Separate but equal" here.<<snip>>.... so, if the issue is the definition of marriage- don't call the relationship a marriage, but give the same benefits. That's what I mean by a compromise between the two sides of the issue.0 -
Brown v. Board of Education covered that about 58 years ago. Uh uh... nope. This is america. We don't do "Separate but equal" here.<<snip>>.... so, if the issue is the definition of marriage- don't call the relationship a marriage, but give the same benefits. That's what I mean by a compromise between the two sides of the issue.
Bottom line, if two people want to call their relationship a marriage, union, coven, partnership, dynamic duo, or a tag team with benefits, it's no one elses business. How is it that people think that if I were gay, I would some how need their frickin permission ot use a word to descirbe my own personal relationship. Mind your own business.0 -
Agreed. They can call their relationship anything they want. I don't care about that. My issue is: if the government DOES care (which it does in some states), then I still think the couples should be given equal benefits regarding the other issues.Bottom line, if two people want to call their relationship a marriage, union, coven, partnership, dynamic duo, or a tag team with benefits, it's no one elses business. How is it that people think that if I were gay, I would some how need their frickin permission ot use a word to descirbe my own personal relationship. Mind your own business.0 -
Then we're agreed. Marriage equality here we come! Woohoo! :laugh:0
-
History repeating itself
0 -
History repeating itself
Looks like a lot of the same people to me (except the guy in front w/the straw hat is probably dead now).0
This discussion has been closed.