Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You linked me to a list of "benefits" which are not benefits nor are they federal responsibilities.. For example, it says that unmarried couples do not receive domestic abuse protection.. That is 100% false.. a flat out lie.. Not only do they receive abuse protection, (because EVERYONE that resides in a household together does), but thats also not a federal responsiblity to dictate the definition and laws in regards to domestic abuse. Every state in the nation has domestic abuse laws and I know for a FACT that many of them, Ohio for sure, would protect an unmarried couple from domestic abuse, but every state would at minimum classify it as assault.
Listing a law that exists, and then claiming it doesnt, and then claiming that the non existant of that existant law isnt a "benefit"..
As an UNMARRIED heterosexual, I can tell you first hand that the individuals needed better lawyers. With the right legal document, NO ONE can overrule the wishes of two individuals who have signed a legal document.. NO ONE..
I'm not married but you can bet that my "spouse" will inherit all of my assets, and vice versa.. Claiming that we arent "married" doesnt provide an estate the power to overrule a will and trusts setup to transfer assets..
Again, they need better lawyers..
Just a question, but though you are unmarried, you are free to marry, right? You choose not to, so you choose the additional legal burdens to extend the benefits of marriage to your "spouse" without benefit of marriage.
But by denying gays the right to marry, you are removing the element of choice from their situation. They have to undertake those additional legal burdens whether they want to marry or not. Isn't that depriving them of a liberty? Isn't the right to choose to marry or not a liberty?
I understand that you actually believe this to be true. I also understand from having watched it happen that you are incorrect.
Tell me - how does one legally assign their social security benefits to a non-spouse? How about their pension benefits?
As to other benefits that can be obtained through legal wranglings rather than through marriage - how is it equal treatment to require one couple to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys and court filings and the like, in order to obtain benefits that another couple can receive through spending $20 at their local court house, once?
Well, here is one example of how unprotected gay couples are, regardless of how many other legal means they use to ensure rights of inheritance and kinship. And the final result.
This is a very short summation of rights denied couples who are not married under the law.
And here is a list of the 1,138 federal benefits denied same-sex couples under our current laws.
Have you even looked at any of the transcripts of the case??
I guess women should never be judges on women's rights issue, minorities should never be the judge on a Civil Rights issue, we should have made sure no judges in the Loving V Virginia case ever had an interracial relationship, etc....
oh i see what the question was, idk honestly i think it would be a confict of interest. i could be wrong
So in other words you believe only straight people should judge cases about Gays, only white people should judge cases about Civil Rights Issues, only men should judge cases about women's rights issues, etc. Is that what you are trying to suggest??
Everybody knows that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The only reason the APA removed that classification in 1973 was to please pro-homosexual political activists, not to be in line with science. To argue differently would be an open admittance that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Since gays vehemently deny that stance, we'll stick with the original diagnosis.
Before you go bashing and calling me a bible thumping neocon, remind yourself that Christians believe that all homosexuality is a learned behavior. I recognize that it is a mental deficiency acquired in the womb before birth. Saying that gays should not be allowed to wed would be identical to saying that the mentally retarded cannot marry. I personally believe that that would be unconstitutional.
But that does not mean I am in favor of it.
Well, this Christian will gladly call you ignorant and tell you that 99.9% of your statements above are pure garbage.
Kagan's nomination doesn't really change anything in this regard considering she is replacing Stevens. As far as the Supreme Court goes its likely going to come down to Kennedy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
