Who Can the Intersex Marry? Judge Invalidates Marriage And Denies Death Benefits to Widow Of Firefighter Killed On Duty (solution, insurance)
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.
Ron Paul represents almost the exact opposite of what my views are. To start, he wants the Federal government out of civil marriage contracts entirely. The federal government confers to people in civil marriage contracts some 1100 civil rights. I like that. I just listed 3 federal marriage rights that I really like and said I think are good and that I don't want to do away with. Ron Paul would eliminate these 1100 federal civil rights. That's the exact opposite of what I want. I want to give them to more people (namely homosexuals) - not take them away from everybody.
Ron Paul believes that laws governing civil marriage contracts should be determined by the states. I agree - and they currently are as long as the civil marriage laws they craft don't violate the Constitution. Colorado can give married Coloradans different rights than Utah gives married Utahns. Hell, Colorado could decide to not offer civil marriage contracts at all. What Ron Paul really means is that he believes states should be able to discriminate in their marriage laws. He thinks states should be allowed to decide whether gays can get married or not, etc. Ron Paul lets his religious beliefs (and he's an anti-gay bigot - he spoke out in support of DOMA, he's talked about the "homosexual problem", etc) blind him to our Constitution. He doesn't seem to believe in the 14th Amendment and is willing to disregard it.
Ron Paul represents almost the exact opposite of what my views are. To start, he wants the Federal government out of civil marriage contracts entirely. The federal government confers to people in civil marriage contracts some 1100 civil rights. I like that. I just listed 3 federal marriage rights that I really like and said I think are good and that I don't want to do away with. Ron Paul would eliminate these 1100 federal civil rights. That's the exact opposite of what I want. I want to give them to more people (namely homosexuals) - not take them away from everybody.
Ron Paul believes that laws governing civil marriage contracts should be determined by the states. I agree - and they currently are as long as the civil marriage laws they craft don't violate the Constitution. Colorado can give married Coloradans different rights than Utah gives married Utahns. Hell, Colorado could decide to not offer civil marriage contracts at all. What Ron Paul really means is that he believes states should be able to discriminate in their marriage laws. He thinks states should be allowed to decide whether gays can get married or not, etc. Ron Paul lets his religious beliefs (and he's an anti-gay bigot - he spoke out in support of DOMA, he's talked about the "homosexual problem", etc) blind him to our Constitution. He doesn't seem to believe in the 14th Amendment and is willing to disregard it.
But he also believes that states need to honor the contracts of other states..ie enforce contracts and grant divorce.
But he also believes that states need to honor the contracts of other states..ie enforce contracts and grant divorce.
You either want big government or you don't.
I disagree with Ron Paul on almost everything, but I've always admired his principled stands on most things - except this.
On this issue - homosexuality and marriage - he lets his personal religious beliefs take over. Despite supposedly being a libertarian, he supports allowing states the ability to deny civil marriage rights to homosexuals - something that clearly violates the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. Here's a Ron Paul quote:
Quote:
If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
He also supports DOMA. Here's a quote:
Quote:
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act
Before DOMA, the feds didn't have any hand in defining civil marriage whatsoever. Before DOMA the Feds simply said "hey, if you contract a civil marriage in your state, we'll throw you some extra 1100 rights". DOMA came in and said - "Well, not always. If you're gay and contract a civil marriage in your state (or a civil union, or a domestic partnership), we are not going to give you those extra rights". DOMA was the first time the Feds involved themselves in defining marriage. DOMA also says that, despite the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, states do not have to recognize the civil marriage contracts of other states. Ron Paul supports this federal involvement in defining marriage and denying people rights.
This is where Ron Paul is a hypocrite (and everybody is a hypocrite sometimes). When it comes to gays and the right to contract civil marriage, he trades in his libertarianism for theocracy and Big Brother.
Last edited by hammertime33; 05-29-2011 at 05:37 PM..
Yeah i think we should let children be children, let them enjoy life and not confuse them with subjects that are to complexed for them.
Confusing for adults too. My friend's sister was born with both male and female parts. Her parents wanted to make her a girl, but her hormones said that she is a he. He looks female, but acts male. Making her a lesbian. She is married to a woman. That is a tough one. In that case she isn't really a she, because she has no uterus or ovaries, but had testicles (and a penis) that were removed. They gave her female hormones, and she had breast implants, but she hates being a she.
Tough. She does answer to both her female name, given at birth, and the male name she gave herself.
This is where Ron Paul is a hypocrite (and everybody is a hypocrite sometimes). When it comes to gays and the right to contract civil marriage, he trades in his libertarianism for theocracy and Big Brother.
Not really. Yes he opposes it for the state of Texas.
But if two gays married in California and then moved to Texas, under Paul's policies the state of Texas would have to recognize the marriage when it came to enforcing the contract or allowing a divorce, or, in the case of this thread..allowing the legally married spouse to inherit the estate.
While he opposes it for Texas, he does not oppose it for other states.
And in the case of states, it's usually what the majority want.
It's actually worse today with states having their own rules and the Fed sometimes interferring and sometimes not.
Confusing for adults too. My friend's sister was born with both male and female parts. Her parents wanted to make her a girl, but her hormones said that she is a he. He looks female, but acts male. Making her a lesbian. She is married to a woman. That is a tough one. In that case she isn't really a she, because she has no uterus or ovaries, but had testicles (and a penis) that were removed. They gave her female hormones, and she had breast implants, but she hates being a she.
Tough. She does answer to both her female name, given at birth, and the male name she gave herself.
That brings up a big issue in the intersex community: Should parents attempt to "correct" an intersex "condition"? Should they even have the "right" to do so? All of us, for the most part, view, or were raised to believe, that there are only 2 biological sexes - male and female - even though it's not really true. Parents of intersex kids (the "diagnosed" ones - many intersex conditions aren't identified until adulthood, if ever) very often want their child to fit into this perceived order - they want a "normal" kid who will live a "normal" life - so they make the decision to raise their child as either a boy or a girl. Very often this involves surgery and the removal of various sex organs or structures.
Sometimes, like in the story I'm quoting, the parents make the wrong decision. Their child, who is neither male or female, was raised as one sex but identifies much more strongly with the other. Or sometimes with neither or both. It causes a lot of strife within the intersex person. Very often when he learns of his condition and the steps his parents took, he becomes enraged (or depressed - the intersex have a very high suicide rates).
Many intersex adults disown their parents. They hate what their parents did to them. They feel that their parents are ashamed of them and rejected who they are. They feel as though they've been grossly violated. That their parents tried to force them to be something they are not. They feel that they've been violated in the worst possible - surgically altered, sculpted, into something that they are not because their parents wanted something different. I've met many intersex activists who want procedures to "fix" intersex conditions outlawed.
Not really. Yes he opposes it for the state of Texas.
But if two gays married in California and then moved to Texas, under Paul's policies the state of Texas would have to recognize the marriage when it came to enforcing the contract or allowing a divorce, or, in the case of this thread..allowing the legally married spouse to inherit the estate.
While he opposes it for Texas, he does not oppose it for other states.
And in the case of states, it's usually what the majority want.
It's actually worse today with states having their own rules and the Fed sometimes interferring and sometimes not.
Oh no - you're totally wrong (you've got it backwards). Paul is a big supporter of DOMA. DOMA specifically says that no state has to recognize the civil marriage contracts of another state.
Also, Paul supports DOMA's defining marriage at the federal level. Before DOMA, the federal government did not have any hand in defining marriage whatsoever. The feds simply gave an extra 1100 civil rights to anybody in a state approved civil marriage contract. DOMA defined marriage at the federal level for the first time with the express purpose of denying those 1100 civil rights to homosexuals.
Both of these parts of DOMA are unconstitutional in my opinion (and in the opinion of various lower courts), and the latter is sticking the Federal Government somewhere it's never been before. Paul's support is incredibly hypocritical.
Confusing for adults too. My friend's sister was born with both male and female parts. Her parents wanted to make her a girl, but her hormones said that she is a he. He looks female, but acts male. Making her a lesbian. She is married to a woman. That is a tough one. In that case she isn't really a she, because she has no uterus or ovaries, but had testicles (and a penis) that were removed. They gave her female hormones, and she had breast implants, but she hates being a she.
Tough. She does answer to both her female name, given at birth, and the male name she gave herself.
it's not a complex issue really.. not even for children.. it's a complex issue for adults because you've believed the world to be one way your whole life and now find out it's not what you thought.. black and white.. male and female
most the time children absorb something and say "ok cool" and that's that.. It's adults that have all these emotions and fears, and they use "the children" as a scapegoat for their own inability to process the truth.
It's pretty simple. These parents had an intesexed child (again, 1-2% of all humans are born this way). They freaked out not understanding that humans come in varieties other than male and female. They thought it best to raise the child as either a boy or a girl (even though the kid wasn't either). They made the decision to cut off the boy parts (they probably were underdeveloped and looked "funny") and to raise their child as a girl.
Despite being raised as a girl (which the child was not), the kid never felt like a girl (because the kid was not a girl). He always felt more male, so, in our culture which only allows for two options - male or female - he now chooses to identify as a male (even though he isn't).
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.
