| # | Author | Message |
11
| SingleParkPassholder
Sat 4/12/2008 7:25a | "Did I miss something here?"
No, he's been what he feels is legally consistent, not at all schizophrenic as post 7 suggests. When the state legislature has passed bills allowing gay marriage, he's vetoed them because he feels this is an issue the voters should decide, not the legislature. Now that there's a ballot measure on the subject, albeit one that bans it, he's against the measure. For this to come full circle, if there was a ballot measure that would authorize gay marriage, he'd come out in favor of it. |
12
| johnno52
Sat 4/12/2008 8:18a | >I think we should just ban marriage for everyone altogether. It's an archaic tradition that defines relationships more as a property transaction than a meaningful bond between two people.<
Does anyone every think how important this is for the children. Whether this archaic tradition is a religious or a civil, I feel that it is very important to them that their parents have some kind of legal bonding.
I'm not saying 2 gay people couldn't give this same bonding to their children. I would rather see some sort of "legal" commitment between 2 adults than have them play parents until they have had enough.
Many people while performing a commitment as in employment etc. have to sign a legal contract so why could not this be done for 2 people living together?
|
13
| Sport Goofy
Sat 4/12/2008 8:22a | << Does anyone every think how important this is for the children. Whether this archaic tradition is a religious or a civil, I feel that it is very important to them that their parents have some kind of legal bonding. >>
Yes, because we all know how much children are benefited when their parents cheat on one another and do other things to break their "contract." Or the children who get to suffer through the dysfunctional relationships where the parents "stay together for the kids." We'd all be better served if we just honestly acknowledged that not all relationships can last forever and it's ridiculous to assume that sort of fantasy in a legally binding contract.
|
14
| SingleParkPassholder
Sat 4/12/2008 8:32a | "I think we should just ban marriage for everyone altogether. It's an archaic tradition that defines relationships more as a property transaction than a meaningful bond between two people."
Well, speak for yourself. |
15
| johnno52
Sat 4/12/2008 10:57a | >Yes, because we all know how much children are benefited when their parents cheat on one another and do other things to break their "contract." Or the children who get to suffer through the dysfunctional relationships where the parents "stay together for the kids." We'd all be better served if we just honestly acknowledged that not all relationships can last forever and it's ridiculous to assume that sort of fantasy in a legally binding contract. <
When one defaults in a legal binding contract the partnership can be dissolved. My point was not that its a unbreakable commitment. I agree that many "sham marriages" do more harm not only to themselves but also to the children. However I am talking about the partnerships that have "love". Yes many common law partners can say we have that. We can sign all kinds of contracts for a car, house, job, credit cards etc. with people we don't know, however for the one we do and love we don't need to?
Doesn't this show you would have more commitment with a finance company than your own spouse? Its a cop out saying its not needed!
Not allowing Gays that "legal document" of matrimony may deny them the ability to have family health benefits and pensions. Yet a common law spouse (even without a legal contract) can. |
16
| Sport Goofy
Sat 4/12/2008 11:09a | << Not allowing Gays that "legal document" of matrimony may deny them the ability to have family health benefits and pensions. >>
So, the purpose of the relationship is a means to gain financial benefits? |
17
| johnno52
Sat 4/12/2008 11:25a | >So, the purpose of the relationship is a means to gain financial benefits?<
Yes as an added bonus, many people marry for love and the legal marital contract adds perks. If you consider the Mills/McCartney marriage/relationship and the breakup settlement, very very nice perks!
I don't think medical benefits to one who is terminally ill would consider it a financial gain! Also a retirement pension for many may be enough for daily subsistence and not enough for world travel.
|
18
| woody
Sat 4/12/2008 1:56p | >>That does seem to be precisely the response we often hear against gay marriage. Dogs and cats, men and horses, women and goats. Let gay marriage happen, bestiality, polygamy, and people marrying their plasma TV is next.<<
The slipery slope is most applicable to polygamy. As for the rest, a bit of hyperbole to divert the issue. |
19
| ecdc
Sat 4/12/2008 2:24p | >>The slipery slope is most applicable to polygamy. As for the rest, a bit of hyperbole to divert the issue.<<
Not at all. The bestiality argument is trotted out all too often by opponents of giving the same rights to everyone.
As for polygamy, why outlaw it between consenting adults, too? If they'd like that kind of relationship, it seems like they should get the same legal status as the rest of us. I certainly want no part of it, but I just don't understand this need some conservatives have to pass judgment on everyone who isn't like them.
Living in Utah, I know that it isn't prosecuted unless it involves children or force, like the case we're seeing in Texas. The reason it isn't prosecuted is because prosecutors know it may not actually stand on appeal and they don't want to go down that road. |
20
| woody
Sat 4/12/2008 7:47p | >>The reason it isn't prosecuted is because prosecutors know it may not actually stand on appeal and they don't want to go down that road.<<
I don't know if it is true, but gay marriage will make any legal arguments against polygamy irrelevant. |
