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.
No, you are wrong. If it was for the progeny, then only couples with children would get the benefits and rights. That is a big fat lie you are stating and have stated before. And there is a right to marriage that was affirmed with Loving verses the state of Virginia. Why should gay couples also not merge their property and you ignore that gay couples often do have children, so why are they being denied full equal benefits, if they are for the progeny. YOU FAIL, so do all the other nay sayers on ssm that use the bible or say it is for the kids. Baloney, baloney baloney. Why do senior citizens get the benefits when they marry, can you answer that on logically?
The answer is simple - you're talking about socialist benefits only available to those who signed up with FICA.
Do not believe me. Go contact any "Benefit" agency and tell them you have no SSN but want some of those great "Freebies" ... They will tell you to take a hike.
Better yet, go read the law about marriage.
==================
MARRIAGE - Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash. App. 247,522 P.2d 1187,1193. Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent on those whose associations is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and a woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in state of union which ought to exist between a husband and a wife.
- - -Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.972
SOLEMNIZATION - To enter marriage publicly before witnesses on contrast to a clandestine or common law marriage.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.1392
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE - One not solemnized in the ordinary way (i.e. ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by cohabitation. A consummated agreement to marry between persons legally capable of making marriage contract, per verba de praesenti, followed by cohabitation...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.277
CURTESY - The estate to which by common law a man is entitled, on the death of his wife, in the lands or tenements of which she was seised in possession in fee-simple or in tail during her coverture, provided they have had lawful issue born alive which might have been capable of inheriting the estate.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 383
As stated before, the beneficiary of marriage was the progeny, the posterity that inherited the merged property. As to the right of CURTESY (and dower), there had to be children born alive for the right to exist, otherwise, the deceased spouse's blood kin had a superior claim on the property of the deceased.
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE - One not solemnized in the ordinary way (i.e. ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by cohabitation. A consummated agreement to marry between persons legally capable of making marriage contract, per verba de praesenti, followed by cohabitation...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.277
Since 1935, and Socialist InSecurity, enumerated participants lacked the legal standing of making a common law marriage contract.
Those who have no legal standing need government permission (license) to wed.
Earlier today - actually just a few hours hours ago - the British House of Commons passed a law to legalize same sex marriage by a vote of 366 in favor to 161 against.
Earlier today - actually just a few hours hours ago - the British House of Commons passed a law to legalize same sex marriage by a vote of 366 in favor to 161 against.
Comments like this send my blood pressure skyrocketing. So going by your logic why should I as a taxpayer pay for straight couples who have no children? Why should gays (many that I know are well educated and have very good jobs), pay for the benefits of straight married people? Why? Explain!
Simple - and there are many explanations here already:
The institution of marriage, is to provide a safe and stable arrangement for having and raising children.
It is not an institution whose function is to capture benefits and pass them on to a "loved" one.
Let's reinforce and clarify the function, through better divorce laws, instead of watering it down, and turning Marriage into another state-sanctioned way of grabbing benefits.
Put a FORK IN:
+ Gay Marriage (where it is "about the money"), and
+ Financial Predators exploiting marriage
Thanks everyone, for driving me to better clarity in my thinking, and lets work to change the absurd divorce laws, while also finding a way for Gays to make a life-long and respected commitment to their partners, which is NOT ABOUT GRABBING MONEY.
Breaking news:
Earlier today - actually just a few hours hours ago - the British House of Commons passed a law to legalize same sex marriage by a vote of 366 in favor to 161 against.
Another step on the road to... state control of our minds, and the destruction of traditional family values.
Congratulations.
My predictions:
+ Britain will leave the EU, and
+ Someday, will repeal or modify: Divorce Law and/or Gay Marriage Laws
Haha. I see the right wing Neanderthals are still in a tizzy over this. LOL. Too bad!
Now go live your rotten lives and try to mind your own damn business.
Fine.
Then get your hand out of my pocket, and out of my wallet
Why should we care about what someone in Hong Kong thinks about same-sex marriage in the United States?
Simple.
Because the wonderful MainStream media in the US is unwilling or unable to discuss the real issues in this proposed new law - they have it all wrapped up in a "happy fog".
I suppose that most Americans are so dumbed-down that they have not even noticed - that is the usual way these days.
Simple - and there are many explanations here already:
The institution of marriage, is to provide a safe and stable arrangement for having and raising children.
It is not an institution whose function is to capture benefits and pass them on to a "loved" one.
Let's reinforce and clarify the function, through better divorce laws, instead of watering it down, and turning Marriage into another state-sanctioned way of grabbing benefits.
Put a FORK IN:
+ Gay Marriage (where it is "about the money"), and
+ Financial Predators exploiting marriage
Thanks everyone, for driving me to better clarity in my thinking, and lets work to change the absurd divorce laws, while also finding a way for Gays to make a life-long and respected commitment to their partners, which is NOT ABOUT GRABBING MONEY.
I think the Supreme court is expected to rule on DOMA in June so you better get to work if you want gays to have rights, but not have rights. Once the Supreme court rules you won't have much of a say.
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.
