Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

President Bush just gave a national address on TV about Gay marriage

Feb 23, 2004 11:58PM PST

critical of San Francisco, California and Mass. Urges Congress to immediately pass an amendment to the constitution concerning marriage between man and woman.

Bout time.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:If that's so then why
Feb 24, 2004 3:46AM PST

I'm not sure I follow you completely. Room mates are not the same as life mates. I've had room mates and never had the need or desire to be considered a legal marriage. Never had the desire for any of the things mentioned previously (ins. etc.). In the other cases you mentioned are you talking adult and adult or adult child. The grand parent could easily be legal gaurdian. They are related by blood so I would imagine that would make inheritence easier.

I really don't care about the sex and prefer not to think about it.

- Collapse -
Re: If that's so then why
Feb 24, 2004 11:02AM PST

Hi, James.

The point is that two heterosexuals CAN marry and obtain the legal benefits thereof; if you and Bush have your way, homosexuals can't, no matter how committed they are. The first couple married in San Fransisco were a pair of lesbians in their 80's, who'd been together more than 40 years; that's a far cry from the image of the hedonistic promiscuous homosexual painted by those who want to "protect" marriage. The point is that marriage isn't in any danger from homosexuals entering the isntitution, any more than it was in danger from mixed-race heterosexual couples being married, back when the "miscegenation" laws were struck down. A Constitutional amendment on this issue would be a tragedy, because it would be the first Constitutional Amendment specifically intended to discriminate against a class of people, rather than preventing discrimination as do all other Amendments that involve civil rights.

-- 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!

- Collapse -
Benefit question, Dave...
Feb 24, 2004 2:11PM PST

Dave, if one party of one of of those those couples in San Francisco had AIDS and were legally declared disabled because of it, should the other party now get the Social Security $250 a month for their partner that I mentioned in another thread?
If one in another pair were a Federal employee, should they be able to "light -off" that spouse percentage of the retirement if that employee passed on?
There are Federal money benefits to be considered in some cases, and I think that that situation is worth bringing up.
BTW, Dave, the first case that I mentioned might be a perfect way to make a "Federal case" out of the question, and get the money situation/factor out in the open and widely discussed.

- Collapse -
Plumbing...
Feb 24, 2004 2:39PM PST
if one party of one of of those those couples in San Francisco had AIDS and were legally declared disabled because of it, should the other party now get the Social Security $250 a month for their partner that I mentioned in another thread? - J. Vega

This is too easy J. Let's just change the wording of your question a bit and see what your answer would be:

"If one party of a heterosexual couple has AIDS and is legally declared disabled because of it, should the other party get the Social Security $250 a month for their partner?"

If you think hetero couples should get this benefit, then you should believe that all couples should get it. If you don't think the hetero couple should receive the benefit, then you're opening up a huge can of worms. What other diseases would exempt a hetero spouse from receiving benefits???

Of course your question assumes that only Gays could be infected with AIDS. But AIDS is an equal opportunity disease that anyone can acquire regardless of their sexual orientation...

If one in another pair were a Federal employee, should they be able to "light -off" that spouse percentage of the retirement if that employee passed on? - J. Vega

I'm not sure what you mean by "light-off", but if you believe that hetero couples have the rights in question, then there shouldn't be any question whether any loving couple should receive it. All legal aged couples should be treated equally regardless of the plumbing between their legs...
- Collapse -
Any disablility, Blake...
Feb 24, 2004 3:26PM PST

Blake, AIDS has nothing to do with it, disabled for any reason will do it and raise the question. Hit by a taxi will do.
On the "light-off" of a Federal employee, the employee in question can chose to pay "x" dollars a month, and when they die, their spouse will get a percentage of their pension as long at the surviving spouse lives. I couldn't do that for just anybody, just for my spouse.
The question remains, is does a "marriage" by one of those couples in San Franscisco legally authorize them to obtain these benefits and require the taxpayers to pay them?
It's a new legal situation, and bears discussion.

- Collapse -
Loving and Committed Relationships...
Feb 24, 2004 4:20PM PST
The question remains, is does a "marriage" by one of those couples in San Franscisco legally authorize them to obtain these benefits and require the taxpayers to pay them? - J. Vega

If they paid for the benefits for all those years, just like any other couple, why wouldn't they be entitled to the benefits if a spouse dies? Is it better to pay the benefits to a surviving partner in a hetero relationship that was rocky at best for 5 years or less then it is to pay them to a loving and committed gay couple that was together for 20 or more years???

I think if they paid their benefits, all surviving partners should be entitled to the benefits regardless of their sexual orientation...
- Collapse -
non-sequitur, Blake...
Feb 24, 2004 4:42PM PST

Non-sequitur, Blake, the situation does not exist yet, so no one in that San Francisco group could have been paying into such a plan.
The question is should such legal benefits and payment requirements now be required for the Federal government and the taxpayers in this "new" situation.
Loving and/or committed has nothing to do with it, it's a mater of a legal right given by a legally recognized situation, marriage in this case. If I absolutely despised my wife and she felt the same way about me, if I died she would still get those benefits. Does this "new" version of marriage give those "old" existing rights to the "new" situation and require the government/taxpayer payment burden?

- Collapse -
Social Consequences...
Feb 24, 2004 5:30PM PST
The question is should such legal benefits and payment requirements now be required for the Federal government and the taxpayers in this "new" situation. - J. Vega

Why wouldn't the benefits be available and apply to all partners???

It's like driving a car. Should drivers of Vegas be allowed insurance while drivers of Pintos be denied? Just because some drive a different car than others shouldn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to purchase the car insurance and use it if need be...

Why would gay couples be treated any different than hetero couples? There is really no good reason to discriminate against this group unless you truly believe that being gay is a choice. I truly believe that hetero people can't choose to be gay anymore than gay people can pretend and choose to be hetero...

Given the social consequences in our society, why would anyone choose to be gay? Why would any hetero person who is turned on by the opposite sex feel a need to choose a same sex relationship instead? It wouldn't make any sense to do so if sexual orientation was truly a choice...
- Collapse -
Re:Social Consequences...
Feb 24, 2004 11:04PM PST
Given the social consequences in our society, why would anyone choose to be gay?

Given the social consequences in our society, why would anyone choose to be a criminal?

Obviously consequences are not always enough to persuade people to not follow their own desires.
- Collapse -
Legislating Morality...
Feb 25, 2004 4:00PM PST
Given the social consequences in our society, why would anyone choose to be a criminal? - James Denison

Why would any civilized society create laws which make its citizens into criminals who are born with a different sexual orientation than the law-makers? Why would any civilized society care what consenting adults do behind closed doors? Why would any civilized society try to homogenize itself when its history has proven over and over again that diversity has made it one of the most powerful and productive nations on the planet? In a melting pot society which holds greatly diverse measurements of morality, why would anyone try to legislate morality???

There is no way to legislate morality without violating the rights of many groups which don't share the views being imposed. Our Government wasn't designed and created to take rights away from its citizens. Our Government was created with a clear separation of Church and State as well. So our Government has no right creating legislation that promotes a religious viewpoint...
- Collapse -
Morality is legislated every time a criminal law is passed.
Feb 26, 2004 1:41AM PST

That's what legislatures do. They say what's right and what's wrong.

I must have missed it. I didn't see anybody mention religion or criminalizing gay behaviour. Do you really think the 'melting pot' was all about freeing gays to do their thing?

- Collapse -
because it's too expensive,
Feb 26, 2004 1:34AM PST

(Why wouldn't the benefits be available and apply to all partners???), and the taxpayers can't afford it. Isn't that what you guys are arguing elsewhere; the deficit is too large? Now, you want a large increase in spending?

BTW, besides anecdotal evidence, what evidence do you have that the practice of homosexuality is not a choice? It clearly is a choice, and one gets hooked by experience and fantasy.

- Collapse -
The practice of almost anything is a choice.
Feb 26, 2004 2:29AM PST

What has choice got to do with it?

Dan

- Collapse -
Ask those who say it's not a choice.
Feb 26, 2004 1:49PM PST

I didn't bring the subject up. I merely responded to it.

- Collapse -
Re: non-sequitur, Blake...
Feb 25, 2004 12:43PM PST

Hi, J.

>>Non-sequitur, Blake, the situation does not exist yet, so no one in that San Francisco group could have been paying into such a plan.<<
Take SS -- one's SS tax doesn't change based on marital status. It obviously would affect health insurance, but the premium for self and spouse is almost always higher than self-only, so your argument seems only marginally valid.

-- 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!

- Collapse -
Read the whole chain, Dave...
Feb 25, 2004 3:48PM PST

Read the whole chain od "conversation", Dave, I was talking about my pension that I get from my job when I went disabled. That one, not SS, gives me those options, one of which is letting my wife get a partial when I die. Obviously, Dave, no person in the San Francisco could have done that yet., for the reason that I said. Sheeesh...

- Collapse -
Re: Read the whole chain, Dave...
Feb 26, 2004 2:45AM PST

Hi, J.

I haven't heard anyone suggest that such staus changes should be done retroactively -- I smell red herring!

-- 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!

- Collapse -
Of course, yes.
Feb 24, 2004 10:13PM PST

Why wouldn't they be?

Dan

- Collapse -
O.K. Dan, that's clear...
Feb 25, 2004 3:22AM PST

O.K., Dan, that's a clear opinion. So let's think further. If I were to join one of those splinter sects of the Mormon (LDS) church that allows polygamy and took on another wife, should she also get those benefits? What the hey, make that 2 more wives, same question. Here's a confusing thought in that same senario: What if, considering my physical condition, my wife were to take on another husband. Would my new "co-husband" be eligible for government benefets, based on my disability?
See what I'm trying to say? It's not just a gay-straight situation, it's a legal re-definition of the legal term "marriage" and consideration of the consequences of that, including the consequences for those not directly involved, such as taxpayer liabilities.
So far it's been basically a matter of gays waving the distrimination banner, but a legal re-definition on the legal term "marriage" will have an effect on "new" forms of marriage and results that are not in the realm of gay-straight.

- Collapse -
Yes, for all them, too.
Feb 25, 2004 3:34AM PST

If my survivor benes are $X what difference does it make to whom or how many that $X is distributed?

Dan

- Collapse -
Why just X dollars, Dan...
Feb 25, 2004 3:54AM PST

Dan, why just "X" dollars? The $250 a month that I mentioned is that amount due to the fact that currently someone can have but one spouse legally. Change that to multiple spouses and shouldn't each spouse get $250? After all, each minor child gets $250, not just one child.
On the survivor pesnion situation, currently with just one spouse being legal, that one spouse gets the pension. So If we change the rules, why shouldn't a polygamist in that situation be able to start paying a premium for each new spouse as they come "onboard" so that when the main pension holder dies, all spouses have equal future financial protection. It's a nice deal, and I'm sure that "add-on" spouses would love to be able to get it, but we need to bear in mind that that deal is paid for by the taxpayers.
Again, with all of the banner waving and charges of discrimination flying about, people aren't discussing all the possible future changes with such a re-definition of marriage. The results go beyond just allowing the people involved to have a title or feeling, there are other legal things that come into play when a marriage, whatever that ends up meaning, becomes legally binding.

- Collapse -
Well, if you want to support that, go ahead.
Feb 25, 2004 4:21AM PST

As for me, I think it would be better to establish the payout limit and let people make their own choice based on having to spread it over the surviving spouses. Adjustments are made. This would get settled one way or the other. It doesn't seem to be enough money to make these kinds of life choices on. Your mileage may vary.

Interesting point. I'm glad to see some are getting past the 'if' and considering the 'when'.

Dan

- Collapse -
Enough money, Dan...
Feb 25, 2004 4:45AM PST

Enough money, Dan? Like you said, your mileage may vary. If the situation changed and I entered a plural marriage with 10 "co-kids", just that $250 a month for each kid would mean $2250 a month just for having me in a room somewhere. You can't limit the number of kids or make some of them unequal and without the government benefit, think about welfare.
You also need to consider that bring up the financial consequences of such a change in the legal meaning of "marriage" and discussing them might not guarantee the results that you would like. Such might not guarantee that all the people involved would see it as a "when" but possibly as a "should we". In any case, consider that if I thought of those possible senarios and their possible consequences for the whole country, surely others will think of it in other venues and generate a full discussion(s) elsewhere. However it comes out, we will see, but the bottom line is that sooner or later all consequences of such a change will probably be discussed before such a change takes place. I don't think that a quick charge of the "D" word will get such changes enacted quickly, before all the possible ramifications are fully discussed.

- Collapse -
Re:Enough money, Dan...
Feb 25, 2004 4:55AM PST

Just off the top of my head, perhaps survivor benes should only go to children with one remaining parent. Perhaps.

There are families with many children now. 10 is less common than it once was, but is by no means unheard of. As much as I think population on the planet is way out of control I don't think it warrants legal limits in this country. I also don't think it has much to do with the question at hand. Do the number of children in hetero marriages disturb you? They should be accorded equal consideration.

Dan

- Collapse -
The number of children, Dan...
Feb 25, 2004 5:04AM PST

The number of children is not what I noticed in your post, it was the idea that losing that $250 that I get for my kid because he has 2 parents would cause me a bit of hardship.

- Collapse -
Re:The number of children, Dan...
Feb 25, 2004 6:07AM PST

I'm sorry, I must have missed your point here. What circumstances do you mean that cause you to lose $250 for your kid?

Dan

- Collapse -
Something you said, Dan...
Feb 25, 2004 6:28AM PST

Dan, you said, "perhaps survivor benes should only go to children with one remaining parent.".
O.K. I get $250 a month for my kid, as I'm totally disabled, and my wife is still living. My kid has two parents, so if your statement were the case, that $250 would go bye-bye, as he didn't have one remaining parent, but still both.
Dan, see what just happened? The discussion here started but a short time ago, and when it went from just a feel-good or name definition to the possible financial ramifications for the public in general, in short order a proponent of that change suggested something that would cost me money.
As I said, such a change needs to be fully examined widely before it were to be enacted. I think it better that this were done and sudden legal "surprises" be held to the minumum.

- Collapse -
Re:Something you said, Dan...
Feb 25, 2004 6:43AM PST

OK, let's change that to one remaining able-bodied parent. I was thinking survivor benefits, not disability benefits.

Dan

- Collapse -
Sigh: I cant see Mary Cheney as a single mom! (NT)
Feb 25, 2004 7:08AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Two questions
Feb 25, 2004 10:28PM PST

Why can't you see her as a single mom?

What's the connection to what we were discussing?

Dan