Gay Marriage in Mass.

[Izumi Koushirou]

I will first state that my opinion will have some bias in it, as I am of the homosexual orientation.

In my opinion, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling is that has all the legal backing in it. Nowhere in the constitution of Massachusetts or in the constitution of the United States does it specfically say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Secondly, since when is marriage a religious institution? From what I gather, marriage has existed for far longer than western religions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/gay.m ... index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw ... 20304.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/findl ... ss.ruling/

[otseng]

A gay couple stay together for 60 years. Both are committed to building a life together.They are ostracised by their families.

Are they ostracized because they are not married? Or because they have a homosexual relationship? I would believe it's mostly the latter.

One of them dies, and despite the fact that their (singular their) family has abandoned them, all the benefits of next of kin go to... whom? Not the partner that has stood by them for so long.

There are other ways to manage inheritance without even having to be married.

Then there's the fact that marriage might allow adoption. See my previous points on what I think will be the benefits of allowing gay couples to adopt.

I'm curious, didn't you say Wertz adopted children? Do you know how was he able to do it?

[Corvus]

A gay couple stay together for 60 years. Both are committed to building a life together.They are ostracised by their families.

Are they ostracized because they are not married? Or because they have a homosexual relationship? I would believe it's mostly the latter.

Either way, the family shouldn't receive the benefits is what I'm saying.

One of them dies, and despite the fact that their (singular their) family has abandoned them, all the benefits of next of kin go to... whom? Not the partner that has stood by them for so long.

There are other ways to manage inheritance without even having to be married.[/quote]

There are other benefits denied to gay couples. If you support them having those benefits, then why not just allow them marriage? Are you one of those people who support the separate but equal civil union for homosexuals?

Then there's the fact that marriage might allow adoption. See my previous points on what I think will be the benefits of allowing gay couples to adopt.

I'm curious, didn't you say Wertz adopted children? Do you know how was he able to do it?[/quote]

Irish single parenting laws. Remember Wertz lived in Ireland for a long time. But I think two parents - even of the same sex - provides a more stable environment than a single parent, or worse, an orphanage.

[otseng]

There are other benefits denied to gay couples. If you support them having those benefits, then why not just allow them marriage?

Bottom line is that because allowing homosexual marriages will legitimize homosexuality in society.

I'm not convinced it's an issue of benefits. Many companies already recognize "domestic partners". And I'm sure more will follow. I see it more as an issue of legitimacy. And the final step in legitimizing homosexuality is the state recognizing gay marriages.

Are you one of those people who support the separate but equal civil union for homosexuals?

I don't know what "separate but equal civil union" is.

[Corvus]

There are other benefits denied to gay couples. If you support them having those benefits, then why not just allow them marriage?

Bottom line is that because allowing homosexual marriages will legitimize homosexuality in society.

I'm not convinced it's an issue of benefits. Many companies already recognize "domestic partners". And I'm sure more will follow. I see it more as an issue of legitimacy. And the final step in legitimizing homosexuality is the state recognizing gay marriages.

I see. You think the state shouldn't recognise homosexuality is normal. Would it change your mind if you could be convinced that homosexuality is something one is born with?

Are you one of those people who support the separate but equal civil union for homosexuals?

I don't know what "separate but equal civil union" is.

Oh, a lot of people are opposed to gay marriage but support gay people having civil unions for some selfish reason or other relating to their own definition of marriage. Others say that if they can get the same benefits as a married couple without ever actually being a married couple, there would be nothing wrong. They'd still think homosexuality is evil, but, well, see no evil, hear no evil - out of sight and out of mind.

[Wertz]

I'm not convinced it's an issue of benefits. Many companies already recognize "domestic partners". And I'm sure more will follow. I see it more as an issue of legitimacy. And the final step in legitimizing homosexuality is the state recognizing gay marriages.

I am convinced it's an issue of benefits.

Without legal recognition of gay unions of some sort, gay couples are denied Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses, eligibility for the housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation, exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, public assistance from the Department of Human Services, death benefits for the surviving spouse of a government employee, accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee, funeral leave for government employees, veterans' preference to spouse in public employment, exemption from property taxes in homes of totally disabled veterans, rights regarding the burial of service member's dependents, right to change names, right to enter into pre-marital agreement, spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications, rights by way of dour or courtesy, payment of proof of business partnership, beneficial owner status of corporate securities, insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society, income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates, exemption from conveyance tax, real property exemption from attachment or execution, tax relief for natural disaster losses, right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land, exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants, spousal immigration benefits, nonresident tuition deferential waiver, right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate, criminal injuries compensation, sole interest in property, in vitro fertilization coverage, legal status with partner's children, appointment as guardian of a minor, notice of guardian ad litem proceedings, right to support from spouse, right to file action for nonsupport, award of child custody in divorce proceedings, certificates of occupation, control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property, division of property after dissolution of marriage, right to support after divorce, disclosure of vital statistics records, waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics, making partner medical decisions, rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment, spousal visitation rights during hospitalization, qualification at a facility for the elderly, consent to post-mortem examination, making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts, permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation, financial assistance for burial payments, right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act, worker's compensation benefits after death, payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee, notice of probate proceedings, continuation of rights under existing homestead leases, right of survivorship to custodial trust, inheritance of land patents, right to inherit property, and rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code.

Yeah, you're right. Homosexual marriages will legitimize homosexuality in society. It will make homosexuals legitimate human beings with no more and no fewer rights than those accorded to every heterosexual human being in this country. It's called equal protection under the law - and whether it conforms to one's morality and beliefs or not, it is a constitutional right.

[otseng]

I see. You think the state shouldn't recognise homosexuality is normal.

Correct.

Would it change your mind if you could be convinced that homosexuality is something one is born with?

No. Actually I do believe in the vast majority of cases it is a predilection that someone is born with. And also in almost all cases it's not something the person has chosen to be.

However, just because it is something one is born with doesn't give it legitimacy. We are all born with a predilection to sin and do wrong. Just because I was born with some sort of predilection to do wrong doesn't give me license to do those wrong things nor to be given rights to do those wrong things.

Oh, a lot of people are opposed to gay marriage but support gay people having civil unions for some selfish reason or other relating to their own definition of marriage.

Does a "civil union" here mean something recognized by the state?

[otseng]

I am convinced it's an issue of benefits.

Without legal recognition of gay unions of some sort......

Thanks for the info.

It will make homosexuals legitimate human beings with no more and no fewer rights than those accorded to every heterosexual human being in this country.

So, it seems like there's two main reasons for homosexual marriages: legitimacy in society and spousal benefits. I will concede on the issue of spousal benefits. But the legitimacy in society is a show stopper.

I am all for homosexuals being considered as human beings. And that society should not dehumanize them. They are no less human than anyone else.

But the problem is that homosexuality itself cannot be legitimized. This is why I said on the outset that for me this is the central issue.

[Corvus]

Oh, a lot of people are opposed to gay marriage but support gay people having civil unions for some selfish reason or other relating to their own definition of marriage.

Does a "civil union" here mean something recognized by the state?

Yes. It's actually marriage in every other thing but name. Hence, separate but equal.

[otseng]

Does a "civil union" here mean something recognized by the state?

Yes. It's actually marriage in every other thing but name. Hence, separate but equal.

Then I think it doesn't make any sense. Just to call it something else doesn't mean anything. I think those who support "civil union" but not "marriage" doesn't have a good support for their case. Unless someone can prove their case to me.

[Corvus]

Does a "civil union" here mean something recognized by the state?

Yes. It's actually marriage in every other thing but name. Hence, separate but equal.

Then I think it doesn't make any sense. Just to call it something else doesn't mean anything. I think those who support "civil union" but not "marriage" doesn't have a good support for their case. Unless someone can prove their case to me.

Hey, it doesn't make much sense to me either. If it looks like marriage, smells like marriage and walks like marriage, I'd call it marriage. But I guess some people don't want homosexuals to have the same sort of standing in society.