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.
A few years ago my state (and others) went through all laws to get rid of the now-deemed-offensive term of 'oriental.' There was no outcry about "use of funds." It was done, and was considered no big deal. Why couldn't we do it again? Law Bans Use of 'Oriental' in State Documents - NYTimes.com
The state can't ban anyone from saying oriental. If it was in government forms it should have been changed.
We are discussing ALL federal and state laws, or forms that mention marriage. A lot more than just the forms or laws of one state.
Marriage is directly connected to over 1000 federal benefits, all of those would have to change, as well as any forms, and any laws.
It's simple. Redefinintion of words in the context of politics is a very bad idea. "Marriage" is an English word that has had a pretty clear definition for a long time. Now we've got a political interest group that wants to alter the definition.
So let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Do you agree:
1. That a legally recognized same-sex couple should have the same filing status and tax benefits as an opposite-sex "married filing jointly" couple?
2. That a legally recognized same-sex couple should have the same exemption to the estate tax that a married opposite-sex couple has?
3. That one member of a legally recognized civil union couple should have the same entitlement to bring his/her noncitizen partner into the United States that a husband or wife does?
4. That a civil union partner of a member of the military should have the same right to on-base housing as the husband or wife of a member of the military?
5. That a surviving civil union partner should have the same right to collect on his/her spouse's Social Security account as a surviving husband or wife?
6. That a civil union partner should have the same right to coverage under the civil union partner's employer-provided health insurance as a married spouse without paying income tax on the value of that insurance?
7. That civil union partners should be entitled to receive all the same federal employment benefits that married opposite-sex couples receive?
Finally, do you agree that committed same-sex relationships are entitled to the same respect, the same social approval, and the same social support as opposite-sex marriages?
I'll be glad to wait for your answer. (And in case you're wondering, answering "I don't think married couples should get [X] benefit either" is not an affirmative response to any of these questions.)
The state can't ban anyone from saying oriental. If it was in government forms it should have been changed.
We are discussing ALL federal and state laws, or forms that mention marriage. A lot more than just the forms or laws of one state.
Marriage is directly connected to over 1000 federal benefits, all of those would have to change, as well as any forms, and any laws.
THEN we get to the states.
Why would the rights and benefits change? They are not gender specific. All that changes is it says spouse or participant A and spouse or participant B. There are no other changes to the form or the benefits.
The gays are not doing that. If they want to be gay that is their right. But they are forcing their gayness as being normal on the public..they are the activists.
If they want to do what they do in the privacy of their bedroom they have a choice.. but they are not willing to keep it there.. they want to redefine what marriage is..
You are trying to force your fear of an imaginary parental deity and a boogeyman called Satan on other people. Manage your own childish anxieties and fears and keep them private please.
No God did not create deviant sex between same sex people. It is an abomination. It is a lust act that people are snared into.
No one is born gay. If one shows themselves to be an easy target they are then subjected to other gays advances. It is a lust spirit. One man can love another man but it is a lust spirit that directs them into the sex act that they become ensnared into. Ones involvement is the choice of free will.
We are all born with the capacity to become involved in a variety of such things as drugs, alcohol etc to where there is no self control left, sin is sin and one can fall into it and feed on it . We make choices here and if one does not have the knowledge to know of such things , they can feed on it and become very vunerable without the knowledge of God.
Religious zealotry hampers the development of the brain and it's abusive to force it on children.
Letting the states decide ignores the denial of 1,138 benefits related directly to federal marriage recognition. And because letting the states decide always works so well when it comes to the rights of citizens in the UNITED states of America. Uh-huh.
As for referring to all of it as a "civil union" for every couple regardless of gender, are we also going to re-issue every single marriage certificate already out there with a new one to reflect the new name? That'd be a wise use of funds.
You can roll your eyes all you wish. Until further notice, the 10th amendment is still valid. Or do you want the fed to take over every law from coast-to-coast.
Letting the states decide ignores the denial of 1,138 benefits related directly to federal marriage recognition. And because letting the states decide always works so well when it comes to the rights of citizens in the UNITED states of America. Uh-huh.
As for referring to all of it as a "civil union" for every couple regardless of gender, are we also going to re-issue every single marriage certificate already out there with a new one to reflect the new name? That'd be a wise use of funds.
There are many reasons why'marriage' won't be changed to 'civil union,' but the obstacle you mention isn't among them. It would be very easy to say in the law, 'On and after x date' civil union shall replace marriage. Those already married need a new certificate.
The state did not try to ban anyone from saying "oriental." Read the link before bloviating.
We're talking about changing the laws to reflect a change in societal attitude towards a word. We did it with "oriental," why not with "marriage?"
We are. Societal attitude towards the word marriage says same sex couples are just as worthy to use the word as opposite sexed couples.
We are changing the laws to reflect this.
Why would the rights and benefits change? They are not gender specific. All that changes is it says spouse or participant A and spouse or participant B. There are no other changes to the form or the benefits.
We were discussing having two different names for marriage. So they could keep their word.
The rights and benefits wouldn't change, but the wording of those rights and benefits which now only include the word marriage. If another word were used for same sex marriages, then the laws surrounding those benefits would have to change to include another word.
That is why it is easier and cheaper to just allow same sex marriage.
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.
And because letting the states decide always works so well when it comes to the rights of citizens in the UNITED states of America. Uh-huh. 