Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

    Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>.. .
    Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president! No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays get what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every dictionary in print. What's the big deal??
    In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than the name?

    Josh Rosenbluth

  • #2
    this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

    [email protected] (Josh Rosenbluth) shared:
    Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>.. .
    Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president! No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays get what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every dictionary in print. What's the big deal??
    In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than the name?
    I believe that civil unions convey most (if not all) of the state
    rights that are associated with marriage. They *do not* afford
    federal rights (e.g. Social Security survivor benefits).

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

    --
    Paula

    "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
    And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
    Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

    Comment


    • #3
      this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

      [email protected] (Josh Rosenbluth) shared:
      Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>.. .
      Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president! No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays get what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every dictionary in print. What's the big deal??
      In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than the name?
      I believe that civil unions convey most (if not all) of the state
      rights that are associated with marriage. They *do not* afford
      federal rights (e.g. Social Security survivor benefits).

      Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      Paula

      "We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
      And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory"
      Deconstuction - Indigo Girls

      Comment


      • #4
        this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages


        "Paula" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
        news:[email protected]
        [email protected] (Josh Rosenbluth) shared:
        Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message
        news:<[email protected]>.. .
        Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president! No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays
        get
        what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every dictionary in print. What's the big deal??In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than
        the name?
        I believe that civil unions convey most (if not all) of the state rights that are associated with marriage. They *do not* afford federal rights (e.g. Social Security survivor benefits). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
        That's my understanding, too - people in civil unions really don't get the
        "breaks of marriage", as somebody mentioned. They don't get to file taxes
        jointly, don't have the same inheritance rights or the same rights to
        tax-free transfer of property from one partner to the other, don't have the
        same ability to cover each other on health insurance plans, don't have
        things like the FMLA rights (the right to take a leave of absence to care
        for a sick family member), or as Paula said don't get the S.S. benefits,
        etc. It also isn't "portable". If a couple gets a civil union in one
        state, they get the rights granted by that state - but then move to another
        state - they no longer have the same rights. The only way to get the
        "breaks of marriage" in a civil union would be for the federal government to
        provide them, instead of individual states.

        While I'll confess that I didn't read it all, it looks like this document
        may have a lot of info on legal matters in which marital status is
        pertinent - keeping in mind that folks in civil unions do not have any of
        the federal rights involved, it appears to be significant:
        http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf


        Comment


        • #5
          this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages


          "Paula" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]
          [email protected] (Josh Rosenbluth) shared:
          Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message
          news:<[email protected]>.. .
          Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president! No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays
          get
          what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every dictionary in print. What's the big deal??In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than
          the name?
          I believe that civil unions convey most (if not all) of the state rights that are associated with marriage. They *do not* afford federal rights (e.g. Social Security survivor benefits). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
          That's my understanding, too - people in civil unions really don't get the
          "breaks of marriage", as somebody mentioned. They don't get to file taxes
          jointly, don't have the same inheritance rights or the same rights to
          tax-free transfer of property from one partner to the other, don't have the
          same ability to cover each other on health insurance plans, don't have
          things like the FMLA rights (the right to take a leave of absence to care
          for a sick family member), or as Paula said don't get the S.S. benefits,
          etc. It also isn't "portable". If a couple gets a civil union in one
          state, they get the rights granted by that state - but then move to another
          state - they no longer have the same rights. The only way to get the
          "breaks of marriage" in a civil union would be for the federal government to
          provide them, instead of individual states.

          While I'll confess that I didn't read it all, it looks like this document
          may have a lot of info on legal matters in which marital status is
          pertinent - keeping in mind that folks in civil unions do not have any of
          the federal rights involved, it appears to be significant:
          http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf


          Comment


          • #6
            this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

            Joy wrote:
            "Paula" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]
            [email protected] (Josh Rosenbluth) shared:
            Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message
            news:<[email protected]>.. .
            >Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay>marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care>into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president!>>No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household>should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative>couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays
            get
            >what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every>dictionary in print. What's the big deal??In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than
            the name?
            I believe that civil unions convey most (if not all) of the staterights that are associated with marriage. They *do not* affordfederal rights (e.g. Social Security survivor benefits).Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
            That's my understanding, too - people in civil unions really don't get the "breaks of marriage", as somebody mentioned.
            For the past many thousand years, marriage was intended to provide a
            social structure for the producing and raising of children. Whatever
            "breaks" the society provides is/was an incentive to help those who bear
            the HUGE cost of children. When *****s take benefits they might as well
            be robbing an orphanage. It steals benefits intended for families with
            children.

            They don't get to file taxes jointly,
            Not the IRS, but probably state taxes can be filed jointly.
            don't have the same inheritance rights or the same rights to tax-free transfer of property from one partner to the other,
            Property is a state issue. A state union would likely provide the same
            legal status as to property, but it could vary from state to state.

            A community property state could easily declare their property to be
            community property.

            don't have the same ability to cover each other on health insurance plans,
            State issue, not federal.
            don't have things like the FMLA rights (the right to take a leave of absence to care for a sick family member),
            State issue, unless you work for the feds.

            or as Paula said don't get the S.S. benefits, etc.
            Federal issue.

            It also isn't "portable". If a couple gets a civil union in one state, they get the rights granted by that state - but then move to another state - they no longer have the same rights.
            Yep, the federal government and many states still are trying to support
            children and families.

            The only way to get the "breaks of marriage" in a civil union would be for the federal government to provide them, instead of individual states.
            They ought not get the breaks that have been created for children and
            families. They have no intention of producing children. They rob the
            children.

            While I'll confess that I didn't read it all, it looks like this document may have a lot of info on legal matters in which marital status is pertinent - keeping in mind that folks in civil unions do not have any of the federal rights involved, it appears to be significant: http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

            Thai's a shame.

            Bob

            --

            When did we divide into sides?

            "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
            on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
            President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























            [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
            posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]


            Comment


            • #7
              this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

              Joy wrote:
              "Paula" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]
              [email protected] (Josh Rosenbluth) shared:
              Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message
              news:<[email protected]>.. .
              >Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay>marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care>into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president!>>No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household>should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative>couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays
              get
              >what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every>dictionary in print. What's the big deal??In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than
              the name?
              I believe that civil unions convey most (if not all) of the staterights that are associated with marriage. They *do not* affordfederal rights (e.g. Social Security survivor benefits).Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
              That's my understanding, too - people in civil unions really don't get the "breaks of marriage", as somebody mentioned.
              For the past many thousand years, marriage was intended to provide a
              social structure for the producing and raising of children. Whatever
              "breaks" the society provides is/was an incentive to help those who bear
              the HUGE cost of children. When *****s take benefits they might as well
              be robbing an orphanage. It steals benefits intended for families with
              children.

              They don't get to file taxes jointly,
              Not the IRS, but probably state taxes can be filed jointly.
              don't have the same inheritance rights or the same rights to tax-free transfer of property from one partner to the other,
              Property is a state issue. A state union would likely provide the same
              legal status as to property, but it could vary from state to state.

              A community property state could easily declare their property to be
              community property.

              don't have the same ability to cover each other on health insurance plans,
              State issue, not federal.
              don't have things like the FMLA rights (the right to take a leave of absence to care for a sick family member),
              State issue, unless you work for the feds.

              or as Paula said don't get the S.S. benefits, etc.
              Federal issue.

              It also isn't "portable". If a couple gets a civil union in one state, they get the rights granted by that state - but then move to another state - they no longer have the same rights.
              Yep, the federal government and many states still are trying to support
              children and families.

              The only way to get the "breaks of marriage" in a civil union would be for the federal government to provide them, instead of individual states.
              They ought not get the breaks that have been created for children and
              families. They have no intention of producing children. They rob the
              children.

              While I'll confess that I didn't read it all, it looks like this document may have a lot of info on legal matters in which marital status is pertinent - keeping in mind that folks in civil unions do not have any of the federal rights involved, it appears to be significant: http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

              Thai's a shame.

              Bob

              --

              When did we divide into sides?

              "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
              on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
              President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























              [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
              posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]


              Comment


              • #8
                this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

                "Paula" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
                news:[email protected]
                [email protected] (Josh Rosenbluth) shared:
                Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message
                news:<[email protected]>.. .
                Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president! No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays
                get
                what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every dictionary in print. What's the big deal??In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than
                the name?
                I believe that civil unions convey most (if not all) of the state rights that are associated with marriage. They *do not* afford federal rights (e.g. Social Security survivor benefits). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
                Just to clarify, I wasn't asking how civil unions as they are constructed
                today (only in Vermont) differ from civil marriage. I was asking how Markus
                felt they *should* differ since he thinks it is an "easy answer."

                Josh Rosenbluth


                Comment


                • #9
                  this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

                  "Paula" <[email protected]_hotmail.com> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected]
                  [email protected] (Josh Rosenbluth) shared:
                  Markus Gauçier Henrí <[email protected]_SPAM_myexçel.com> wrote in message
                  news:<[email protected]nilink.net>.. .
                  Wow! What an amazing string of statistical correlations! Tying gay marriages, littering, foreign policy, the job market and health care into one convenient wrapper! Dude, YOU should be the next president! No but seriously, any two people sharing the burden of a household should get the breaks of marriage, but only potentially procreative couples should be allowed to marry. Easy answer: civil unions. Gays
                  get
                  what they want and we don't have to rewrite the Constitution and every dictionary in print. What's the big deal??In what ways are civil unions different than civil marriage other than
                  the name?
                  I believe that civil unions convey most (if not all) of the state rights that are associated with marriage. They *do not* afford federal rights (e.g. Social Security survivor benefits). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
                  Just to clarify, I wasn't asking how civil unions as they are constructed
                  today (only in Vermont) differ from civil marriage. I was asking how Markus
                  felt they *should* differ since he thinks it is an "easy answer."

                  Josh Rosenbluth


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

                    On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:29:10 -0000, Robert Grumbine
                    <[email protected]> wrote:

                    <Snip>
                    There's no 'new priviledge' involved, and certainly not any special priviledge. All it is, is a matter of _not_ treating people differently. Of course that also means that divorce laws will also have to be applied no differently.
                    People are not treated any differently. A gay man has the ability to
                    marry any woman who will have him. Just like me. A lesbian has the
                    ability to marry any man who will have her. Just like my wife.

                    -Tony

                    --
                    "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
                    to fertilize your lawn!"
                    Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
                    Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

                      On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:29:10 -0000, Robert Grumbine
                      <[email protected]> wrote:

                      <Snip>
                      There's no 'new priviledge' involved, and certainly not any special priviledge. All it is, is a matter of _not_ treating people differently. Of course that also means that divorce laws will also have to be applied no differently.
                      People are not treated any differently. A gay man has the ability to
                      marry any woman who will have him. Just like me. A lesbian has the
                      ability to marry any man who will have her. Just like my wife.

                      -Tony

                      --
                      "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
                      to fertilize your lawn!"
                      Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
                      Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

                        Tony Miller <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                        On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:29:10 -0000, Robert Grumbine <[email protected]> wrote: <Snip>
                        There's no 'new priviledge' involved, and certainly not any special priviledge. All it is, is a matter of _not_ treating people differently. Of course that also means that divorce laws will also have to be applied no differently.
                        People are not treated any differently. A gay man has the ability to marry any woman who will have him. Just like me. A lesbian has the ability to marry any man who will have her. Just like my wife.
                        People used to say that blacks and whites were not treated differently
                        when they each were only able to marry another of the same race as
                        they were. The Court struck down that argument. And yet you now
                        argue that people are not treated differently when they are only able
                        to marry another of the opposite gender.

                        Josh Rosenbluth

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          this forbids state laws from sanctioning same-sex marriages

                          Tony Miller <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                          On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:29:10 -0000, Robert Grumbine <[email protected]> wrote: <Snip>
                          There's no 'new priviledge' involved, and certainly not any special priviledge. All it is, is a matter of _not_ treating people differently. Of course that also means that divorce laws will also have to be applied no differently.
                          People are not treated any differently. A gay man has the ability to marry any woman who will have him. Just like me. A lesbian has the ability to marry any man who will have her. Just like my wife.
                          People used to say that blacks and whites were not treated differently
                          when they each were only able to marry another of the same race as
                          they were. The Court struck down that argument. And yet you now
                          argue that people are not treated differently when they are only able
                          to marry another of the opposite gender.

                          Josh Rosenbluth

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X