54% of Iowans Vote to Oust "Gay Marriage" Judges (military, visa)

[Darkatt]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Not in most places in the US - firing somebody because you find out he or she is gay or denying to renew his lease simply because you find out he is gay is perfectly legal in most US states.

Oh, married gay couples don't get the benefits of married heterosexuals in the military. A gay married military member gets paid less than a married straight military member - the gay military member doesn't get the increased housing allowance a straight military member is entitled to. The spouse of a gay military member isn't allowed to live in family base housing with his husband or her wife, the spouse isn't allowed to shop at the base commissary, etc, etc, etc.

Married gay couples where one spouse is foreign cannot get spousal immigration visas whereas married straight couples are entitled to them.

A married straight business owner who employs his wife doesn't have to pay unemployment insurance tax on her wagers. A married gay business owner who employs her wife is required to pay that tax.

Married gay couples are not entitled to Social Security survivor benefits when a spouse dies whereas married straight couples are.

etc, etc, etc

1. Since marriage is not legal between people of the same sex in most states, then gay couples comparisons are not indicative if benefits unallowed. Not married is not married. I could be sleeping with the same woman and living in her house for the past 20 years, but and if she's military and I am not, I cannot shop on base, or in the commissary, she doesn't draw extra pay, if I was foreign, I would not get an immigration visa, etc etc ad nauseum.

2. what I think should be the fix is, the government gets out of the marriage business and call everything a civil union, and anyone who gets a civil union, gets the same rights and benefits as a current married couple would receive.

Problem fixed.

Last, in what state can you be fired for being gay, or in what state can they refuse to rent to you because your gay?

[Darkatt]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

All the benefits that go along with a secular, government endorsed marriage license (which is the only kind that carries any weight in this country.)

Just an observation, the above comment is accurate for any single person, or anyone living with anyone without being married, this includes heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and I daresay there are more hetero couples living together without the benefit of marriage.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Darkatt

1. Since marriage is not legal between people of the same sex in most states, then gay couples comparisons are not indicative if benefits unallowed. Not married is not married. I could be sleeping with the same woman and living in her house for the past 20 years, but and if she's military and I am not, I cannot shop on base, or in the commissary, she doesn't draw extra pay, if I was foreign, I would not get an immigration visa, etc etc ad nauseum.

Of course it's a valid comparison - it's the only comparison. Civil marriage contracts confer a collection of joint rights (or benefits) to couples. It doesn't make sense to talk about the rights of marriage unless you're talking about couples. The fact of the matter is you, as a heterosexual, have the ability to exercise these rights with the woman you've been with for 20 years whereas I, as a homosexual, am denied by law the ability to exercise these rights with the man I've been with for 20 years.

I stand by my answer. You asked what benefits gay people are denied because they are gay. The answer is simply they are denied access to the benefits that are endowed to couples that enter into civil marriage contracts - and it doesn't matter whether that gay couple is legally married in Iowa, in a civil union in New Jersey, or married in a Church in Arkansas, or just playing house in Arizona.

2. what I think should be the fix is, the government gets out of the marriage business and call everything a civil union, and anyone who gets a civil union, gets the same rights and benefits as a current married couple would receive.

Problem fixed.

More than fine by me, although I don't really see the point in changing the name from "civil marriage contract" to "civil union contract." But hey, as long as I get acccess to the same rights and we call it the same thing for everybody, I don't care if we call them "alkdjfalksdjs".

Last, in what state can you be fired for being gay, or in what state can they refuse to rent to you because your gay?

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

[L.Funk]

Originally Posted by momonkey

We fought a war to get rid of a king. These would be leftist dictators got their walking papers today and it's a good sign that the people are still in control.

momonkey !!! ... On The Money !

Indeed ... This represents a jolly good decision by some good American folks !!! Bloody well done !!! ... and may we as a nation presently made up of at least a 54% sanity rate continue to win battle after battle against those among us whose sole desire is to render this nation totally decadent !!!!!!!!!

Way to go Yanks !!!!! Good Day ... Old Sgt. Lamar

[Darkatt]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Of course it's a valid comparison - it's the only comparison. Civil marriage contracts confer a collection of joint rights (or benefits) to couples. It doesn't make sense to talk about the rights of marriage unless you're talking about couples. The fact of the matter is you, as a heterosexual, have the ability to exercise these rights with the women you've been with for 20 years whereas I, as a homosexual, am denied by law the ability to exercise these rights with the man I've been with for 20 years.

Incorrect, one cannot hide the color of one's skin, one CAN fail to act on one's sexuality. Additionally, You keep talking about RIGHTS, marriage is a privilege, not a right.

To quote Eleanor Roosevelt - "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"

However, the legal def -

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, such as constitutional rights, common law rights, and statutory rights, are bestowed under a particular political and legal system; they are relative to specific cultures and governments. Legal rights are enumerated in constitutions, in statutes (by a legislative body), in case law (especially in countries with a common law tradition), in treaties, and in administrative regulations.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

It is not legal to fire someone for being gay. In fact, an employer can not ask an employee their sexual preference when hiring them at all, so the employer would never know.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by Darkatt

Incorrect, one cannot hide the color of one's skin, one CAN fail to act on one's sexuality.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You said my comparison between gay couples and married straight couples is not a valid one since gays can't get married in most states. Here are your words again:

Since marriage is not legal between people of the same sex in most states, then gay couples comparisons are not indicative if benefits unallowed. Not married is not married

I don't know where this race thing is coming from - I haven't mentioned race a singe time.

Originally Posted by Darkatt

Additionally, You keep talking about RIGHTS, marriage is a privilege, not a right.

To quote Eleanor Roosevelt - "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"

However, the legal def -

There is a distinction between inalienable or natural rights, and legal or civil rights. E.R. seems to be talking about natural rights in that quote. A legal or civil right is something provided by law: be it a benefit, a privilege, a protection, or a responsibility. Civil marriage contracts provide a collection of benefits, privileges, protections, and responsibility: in other words, a collection of legal rights. But this is just a silly semantics debate, so who cares?

Originally Posted by Darkatt

It is not legal to fire someone for being gay. In fact, an employer can not ask an employee their sexual preference when hiring them at all, so the employer would never know.

Yes it is. Lets say I work at a restaurant in Wyoming and the owner throws a company Christmas party for employees and their families and I bring my boyfriend. It would be perfectly legal for him to approach me and say "I disagree with your lifestyle, and now that I know you're gay I'm firing you for it."

And also, in most states an employer can ask about sexual orientation when hiring - the federal law prevents questions about race, beliefs, religion, marital status, age, and national origin - it doesn't cover sexual orientation.

If you disagree, show me where in either federal or Wyoming law such action by the business would be prohibited.

[hammertime33]

Oops, I need to make a correction. In 2009 Delaware added sexual orientation to is laws that prevent discrimination in employment and housing . It's 29, not 30, states that still allow this kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

Duane Morris LLP - Delaware Enacts Law to Extend Employment Discrimination Protections Based on Sexual Orientation

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by h0tmess

Why are people so threatened by this? Just don't marry someone of the same sex if you disagree and leave others alone? Gosh, people are so dense it's scary

why are some people so threatened by the voters in some states for their process that they chose for themselves.

[hammertime33]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

why are some people so threatened by the voters in some states for their process that they chose for themselves.

They emphasizing for a minute. Put yourself in the shoes of a gay person and then ask yourself that question.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

They emphasizing for a minute. Put yourself in the shoes of a gay person and then ask yourself that question.

I dont have to, my middle daughter is a lesbian and agrees with what I just said. if the state itself made the law, then so be it.