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.
For gays and lesbians who have lost their spouse, the inability to collect Social Security survivor benefits highlights just one of the many ways in which gay married couples are treated differently than their heterosexual counterparts under federal law, same-sex marriage advocates say. In opposite-sex couples who have been married for a certain length of time, survivors are entitled to collect an amount equal to the deceased’s benefits.
It highlights that this is really about social freebies. I wonder if modern progressives link the poor treatment of labor in this society with the devalutaion of of what it takes to create real wealth in this world? High investment in the next generation is the main source of wealth. They seem to think children being viewed superfluous spawn in one moment will not make it more difficult to call them human capital the next. On the one hand children are not the issue and then on the other they become the precious labor class.
For the 77-year-old retired shoe salesman, that amounts to around $1,100 per month that he cannot collect, he said, and is income that would have been crucial to keeping his home eight years ago.
Yeah well taking 20 years out of one spouse's life to make sure we don't have a criminal class of latchkey kids isn't the reason. Thus the collective nature of it has to do with the next generation.
If an adoption is in the works, then it is clear resources will be diverted and certainly for the social benefits of all. As it is its not so sex buddies can live comfortably off tax payers.
The social freebies that all married straight people collect for just being married, the 1049 federal rights, privileges and protections that they get for free, the right to inherit their loved partners property with out undue taxation??? Those are not social freebies, those are givens with marriage that any loving and dedicated couple regardless of sexual orientation should receive without the intervention of the moral majority. Why should I or my same sex spouse of 34 years have to be penalized for being a gay couple? Why did my friend Barbara inherit her husband George's social security and get survival benefits from the VA when he passed away. They had no children together and got married when they were both past child bearing age and were together half the time my partner and I have been together? If anything it is us gays and lesbians that are being punished and taxed so that you can enjoy those 1049 plus/minus Federally granted rights and protections that you call social freebies. Last time I checked, I am a US citizen too and I have been granted the same rights and protections you get. That should and will include the right to marry the person I love and have the protections our relationship deserves. WE ARE TAX PAYERS TOO
The social freebies that all married straight people collect for just being married, the 1049 federal rights, privileges and protections that they get for free, the right to inherit their loved partners property with out undue taxation??? Those are not social freebies, those are givens with marriage that any loving and dedicated couple regardless of sexual orientation should receive without the intervention of the moral majority. Why should I or my same sex spouse of 34 years have to be penalized for being a gay couple? Why did my friend Barbara inherit her husband George's social security and get survival benefits from the VA when he passed away. They had no children together and got married when they were both past child bearing age and were together half the time my partner and I have been together? If anything it is us gays and lesbians that are being punished and taxed so that you can enjoy those 1049 plus/minus Federally granted rights and protections that you call social freebies. Last time I checked, I am a US citizen too and I have been granted the same rights and protections you get. That should and will include the right to marry the person I love and have the protections our relationship deserves. WE ARE TAX PAYERS TOO
Like I said, wrong premise.
The original social contract of marriage was to make sure resources went to the offspring, not your BS as stated " loving and dedicated couple". If you do so with the intent to adopt, then there is a social benefit.
If anything I would deprive such late marriages of any benefit as well since quite clearly no one's career was crippled and no resources went into said offspring.
If it does pass I would content to end social security all together. The fraud will be endless.
The original social contract of marriage was to make sure resources went to the offspring, not your BS as stated " loving and dedicated couple". If you do so with the intent to adopt, then there is a social benefit.
If anything I would deprive such late marriages of any benefit as well since quite clearly no one's career was crippled and no resources went into said offspring.
If it does pass I would content to end social security all together. The fraud will be endless.
"The original social contract of marriage" means nothing in today's world. I'm sorry it's so hard for so many troglodytes to evolve on this issue.
Enough already.
The "fraud"? Why would you expect any more sham marriage fraud between homosexuals than the amount in existence today for heterosexuals who marry for benefits alone?
The original social contract of marriage was to make sure resources went to the offspring, not your BS as stated " loving and dedicated couple". If you do so with the intent to adopt, then there is a social benefit.
If anything I would deprive such late marriages of any benefit as well since quite clearly no one's career was crippled and no resources went into said offspring.
If it does pass I would content to end social security all together. The fraud will be endless.
Come on and get real!!!! Offspring have absolutely NOTHING to do with it. A dumb arguement is worse than no argument and it just makes your case very much weaker.
If you theory had one single little bit of truth to it then marriage laws would differ from couples with children and those without. Also id you have not notices, many same sex couple HAVE KIDS!!!!!
I'm not advocating for same sex marriage. I have mixed feelings on the issue but for goodness sakes, when you take a public position on any issue, BASE IT ON FACT. Not on fables.
According to who? Where is this written down? A lot of people confuse their personal feelings about marriage with fact.
You are suggesting it was a free for all?
The laws which, in many countries on the Continent, forbid marriage unless the parties can show that they have the means of supporting a family, do not exceed the legitimate powers of the State: and whether such laws be expedient or not (a question mainly dependent on local circumstances and feelings), they are not objectionable as violations of liberty.
It's wrong to assert that offspring have, or at least had, nothing to do with marriage, since many generations of people appear to have accepted with all sincerity the injunction (as BCP has it) that "matrimony was ordained for the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman; for the procreation of children...and for the mutual society, help and comfort, that one ought to have of the other".
If the purpose and primary justification of the state's role in sanctioning and regulating marriage is the maintenance of this Christian definition, then limiting marriage to this Christian definition makes perfect sense. For most of its history the United States was Christian; notwithstanding the "establishment of religion" clause, almost until the present time Americans understood themselves as a Christian society. If it had ever crossed their minds to consider the point, the vast majority of the population would have been perfectly happy for the state to endorse a Christian definition of marriage and its purpose.
The explicit connection between Christianity and the state is no longer tenable - no longer accepted even by many American Christians, many of whom would recoil at the suggestion that the U.S. has a de facto national religion. The definition of marriage as "the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman" was only supportable while American culture endorsed a tacit, de facto established religion. Now that social change has made that quiet unspoken cultural assumption impossible, the only way to maintain the link between the Christian definition of marriage and state policy is to support an official religion.
I don't see an alternative: either one backs the traditional definition of marriage as part of a policy of official Christianity in the U.S., or else one abandons the entire project in favor of strict state secularism, including in matters matrimonial. There is no legitimate middle position.
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.
