I'm signing, but with reservations.

ummmmmmmm

so same sex "marriage" would involve either a two husband or a two wife family unit?

pulllleeeeeeeeeezeeeeeeeee

Why do you need to call any civil union marraige? There are lots of civil unions that are called marraige now and no one has a right to reject them even though there are many, many people who object to them.

I don't see what the religious ceremony of some marraiges has to do with it. In this country why would we want to distinguish between those marraiges that have a civil component and those marraiges that have both a civil and religious component? It's the civil portion that is of interest to the state, not the religious portion.

This absolutely fascinates me. If peoples lives were not so tied to the outcome of this debate it would be endlessly amusing, but the subject is too serious for that.

Dan

Dave, alow me to suggest a possible reason, legal benefits.
Let me use myself as an example in a fictional senario. Let's say for argument that such a law in on the books in this senario. Say My wife passed on from something like cancer. So there I would sit with all those government benefits that she would have gotten when I died, being my spouse. Say after that I'm in the hospital, and fading fast. My long time single male friend, who I have known since our military days, and who is not adverse to pulling a wacko legal stunt for fun (He's the reporter who got fired for one we pulled a while back, remember that?) is there in the room with me. I get another idea and have him get a judge up there and marry us. I say, "I do" and promptly die. Bingo, bango, he's got all those benefits as my "spouse", including the spouse pension and medical options that I have. Cute, huh, zap the government.
But let's do the same senario setup with a couple of changes in a more serious vein. Let's say I was never married nor was he, and he comes down with a serious, medical problem and has no insurance or insurance that is not of the quality that would cover very expensive treatment. We do the instant marraiage game and I immediately file the papers to put him on my fancy medical insurance as my spouse. Again, bango, instant medical (and other) benefits, this time not as a stunt but as a legal trick to get him those benefits to which to which he was not entitled before. It bumps up the future medical premiums for the others on that plan, but what the hey, so microscopically that it'd never show. With the survivor pension benefits, that would be even harder to show, as that microscopic (in the big total Government expense picture) would be spread out among all taxpayer's taxes.
Just a thought, with two "what if" examples just for a thought provoker. But there is serious a bottom line here. A well known quote goes, "What's in a name". If the name is spouse or wife rather than something like "life partner" the answer may be many things, legally. The term spouse or wife brings many legal privileges along with it, many of them financial.

Hi, J.

Your scenario would be no different if the long-time buddy were the widowed spouse of a friend who was down on her luck. In a pluralistic society, any gender-based difference in how relationships are treated is simply prejudice -- homophobia, if you will.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... this reply to J contradicts your original reply to Dan whereby you wish to distinguish a civil union.

This would not even be an issue if we had a tax code that was free of social engineering and privatized social security, etc.

I can already designate the heir/beneficiary to anything I own personally. SS confiscates income with the promise to take care of the immediate needs of those designates it deems "legal" left behind. While my FIL's new wife will get his SS bennies, she will not get his private pension. I don't think she should get either (and that relates to the fact that she came to this country and married him after retirement not cuz I don't particularly like her ) A look at how SS shakes out with multiple marriages is yet another thing that is totally avoided if the individual is given the freedom to decide for him/herself how the fruits of their life's work should go to care for those they leave behind. Incidentally, since the lifespans of blacks are historically significantly lower than whites, the racial discriminatory nature of compulsed SS is about as bad as it gets.

I can designate anyone with power of attorney for anything from medical to financial decisions. Now our laws give many of these priveleges "by default" to the spouse, but it's no big deal to set them up, and I know a lot of older singles (and some more aware younger ones) who do just that! For whatever reasons some people might want someone other then their spouse to attend to any number of details.

A flat tax with only a per-person amount of income exempt is the closest way for an income tax to become socially neutral, although a consumption tax goes even further to remove the insidious social engineering by Big Brother that is our current bloated tax code.

Which leaves health insurance which if there really is a drive for more "family" policies a lucrative niche will be filled. There are already dental "co-ops" you can join as roommates. If I were employed full-time, I would have to get the insurance through my employer or pay an additional $1200/year to my husband's employer to be on his (that is on top of the employee + spouse premium which is more than 2X the employee premium). IOW, the way most insurance works these days unless there are kids involved "family" policies are not necessarily a great deal. I see nothing wrong or homophobic if private insurers choose to offer reduced rate policies to the traditional family.

Evie

Hi, Evie.

The problem is that there are still states where "unrelated" people don't have the same legal rights as "related" ones, even when the appropriate legal documents (wills, powers of attorney, etc) are filed. In those states, being married makes you legally "related." I don't see any reason to push for a civil "gay marriage," but there needs to be a univerally recognized method whereby committed homosexual couples can obtain the same legal rights as a married couple have. For want a better term, and because it's already used in Vermont, I chose "civil union."
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

just give them both a broom and be done with it? They can sweep each other's feet with them.

..................

I'm glad you like it, JR. I like mine that way, too. But just because we like it one way doesn't meat that those who like it another way should be left out in the cold. Most people like a turkey sandwich with mayo. That's fine. If I don't tell the guy behind the counter at my local deli any different he'll put mayo on my turkey on whole wheat every time. All I have to do is say "No mayo, plenty of mustard, please" and he'll say "Sure". It's all the same to him, and to the guy next to me at the counter and everyone else in the deli. Why should they care.

Why do we care who gets marriad to whom? You and I want to get married with mustard, why do we want to stop the people who want to get married with mayo?

Dan

OK, I took the condiments thing way to far, but you get my idea.

Oh yeah, NT

.

`

.

Arizona.

JR

.

.

But I'm betting he doesn't believe in restricting marriage to two people.

I think he's advocated allowing group marriages before. Group meaning any combination of more than two people.

Dan, if I'm wrong, I apologize for apparently sticking words in your mouth.

Not something I could support personally, but not quite certain where I would want the law to draw the line.

roger

.

.

.

Nothing quite as funny and gay as making a mockery of marriage.

.

.

`

Yeah, imagine the nerve "they" have, wanting the same rights as anyone else.

Living Wills, Last Wills, joint tenancy is available for properties and bank accounts, there is nothing that marriage will provide them legally that can't be done by other instruments of law. Therefore they aren't interested in "same rights". Instead they are looking for a legal justification of their immoral activities to use as a smokescreen of morality for them. If they want any more declaration than legal parity, then put an add celebrating their mutual decadence in the newspaper personals' section.