First legally married gays in the US

[DOMS]

Don't feel bad Fetus, we're still glad that you're a member of IM.

 

[tallcall]

I don't think getting married is the big issue at all here. I think it is what appens when I die and decide to leave everything to my partner. The State of Florida allows the family of same sex couples to fight and overturn Wills and other legal documents (and this has happened before, which has many of us demanding legal protection - my Will is a signed statement and no one has any place trying to overturn it).

Besides, change NEVER comes easy in this country, just look at the Civil Rights struggle that still continues today in some areas, that shit had to be made into law and forced on the states before any real change occurred (debate it's effectiveness all you want, it was a good step).

Another thing is that think amendment 14 of the US Constitution forbids the state from abridging anyone's rights:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The only argument here is whether or not Marriage is a right, I can only say that if one person has the ability to choose to marry, everyone should.

 

[min0 lee]

I don't think getting married is the big issue at all here. I think it is what appens when I die and decide to leave everything to my partner. The State of Florida allows the family of same sex couples to fight and overturn Wills and other legal documents (and this has happened before, which has many of us demanding legal protection - my Will is a signed statement and no one has any place trying to overturn it).

Besides, change NEVER comes easy in this country, just look at the Civil Rights struggle that still continues today in some areas, that shit had to be made into law and forced on the states before any real change occurred (debate it's effectiveness all you want, it was a good step).

Another thing is that think amendment 14 of the US Constitution forbids the state from abridging anyone's rights:



The only argument here is whether or not Marriage is a right, I can only say that if one person has the ability to choose to marry, everyone should.

There you go Bio, there goes one of the main reasons.

 

[bio-chem]

There you go Bio, there goes one of the main reasons.

i dont feel the 14th amendment applies to marriage. the government has been regulating marriage from the get go. marriage is completly different than being born black. the right to marry is different in my mind than what school a little boy or girl gets to go to

 

[KelJu]

Lawl!

 

[tallcall]

i dont feel the 14th amendment applies to marriage. the government has been regulating marriage from the get go. marriage is completly different than being born black. the right to marry is different in my mind than what school a little boy or girl gets to go to

It's true that it is a real gray area, but like I said, marriage really isn't the main point. Being legally bound and having meaningful paperwork in the event of a tragedy, which will stand in a court of law, is what most of us are after (some states may low this but for the others, we need the Federal Gov to step in).

 

[bio-chem]

It's true that it is a real gray area, but like I said, marriage really isn't the main point. Being legally bound and having meaningful paperwork in the event of a tragedy, which will stand in a court of law, is what most of us are after (some states may low this but for the others, we need the Federal Gov to step in).

hell, someone wants to sign over POA and have it stick in court. ill get behind that.

 

[tallcall]

hell, someone wants to sign over POA and have it stick in court. ill get behind that.

All we really want is legal documents to hold up in court, and I think Civil unions (or whatever you call them) is one of the best and most comprehensive ways to go.

About marriage being a sacred institution, I read somewhere that the divorce rate is about 55% - hmmm, it seems that the majority of straight people (55%) don't see marriage as "sacred." If they did, they might not be so likely to split up.

The separation rate of gay people is almost the same (~55%), the only difference is that it occurs after about 7-10 years, whereas straight people tend to divorce after about 20-30 years (kids are out of college and there is nothing left).

 

[brogers]

Gays are not being rounded up and thrown in jail, last time I checked. I could care less about a will, or any other similar document. If such things are a problem for gays, then they can seek to address those specific problems. I'm not familar enough with the legal aspects, but I never thought giving your estate to a non relative was a problem... a crazy old rich woman just gave her dog 12 million in her will. "Gay Marriage" is not about rights.

 

[tallcall]

"Gay Marriage" is not about rights.

If you like, we could always go back to the "it's about love" argument. I just think that arguing legality is much cleaner and easier, plus it is more likely to succeed than trying to force churches to accept things they shouldn't have to accept. Although, from what I've experienced and been told by others, most religions don't really have any problem with gay people, many now offer special programs (don't really know what that means, but they're out there).

Oh well, I love you anyways, Brogers! (love thy neighbor)

 

[maniclion]

My girlfriends gay brother married his life partner. It may not be legal but they had a ceremony and wear the rings. I think that since it happens already they may as well get the legal rights as well. I think people shouldn't be worrying about whether the people marrying are straight or gay, they should be more concerned with if they are serious or whether it's gonna just be a huge waste of paperwork for them to then turn around and get divorced in a short time....

 

[bio-chem]

they should be more concerned with if they are serious or whether it's gonna just be a huge waste of paperwork for them to then turn around and get divorced in a short time....

thats a different thread

 

[KelJu]

Gays are not being rounded up and thrown in jail, last time I checked. I could care less about a will, or any other similar document. If such things are a problem for gays, then they can seek to address those specific problems. I'm not familar enough with the legal aspects, but I never thought giving your estate to a non relative was a problem... a crazy old rich woman just gave her dog 12 million in her will. "Gay Marriage" is not about rights.

Yes it is. It is about the right to marry, you moron.

 

[min0 lee]

 

[brogers]

Yes it is. It is about the right to marry, you moron.

Could you please find the "right to marry" in the US Constitution for me? Also, while you're at it, find the "right to murder your unborn children."

Thanks in advance.

Considering the level of intellect you consistently put on display, I'd avoid calling others "morons."

 

[KelJu]

Could you please find the "right to marry" in the US Constitution for me? Also, while you're at it, find the "right to murder your unborn children."

Thanks in advance.

Considering the level of intellect you consistently put on display, I'd avoid calling others "morons."

You are always trying to derail the discussion. You get flamed in almost every thread you post in. You are as dumb as a blooming lotus. You make no sense, and frankly I am just going ot put you on ignore, because your stupidity annoys me. I am sad that people as dumb as you are even sharing my air!

 

[bio-chem]

You are as dumb as a blooming lotus. !

thats an amazing put down. i love references to the past

 

[brogers]

You are always trying to derail the discussion. You get flamed in almost every thread you post in. You are as dumb as a blooming lotus. You make no sense, and frankly I am just going ot put you on ignore, because your stupidity annoys me. I am sad that people as dumb as you are even sharing my air!

I must say, that's a great response to my request to find a "Right to marry" in the US Constitution, as you certainly implied there was one.

I'm quite happy that you find me to be unintelligent, and that my 'stupidity' annoys you. I would be rather disturbed if you felt my views were inline with yours, since I think you have no grasp of any subject which I have seen you discuss, other than 2nd Amendment rights.

I frankly don't mind the insults at all, but I'd love it if you'd actually put an intelligent thought, comment, or argument along with it. However, judging by past posts, I certainly won't get my hopes up.

 

[KelJu]

Lawl, there is a message that says brogers posted something, but I don't have to have my senses offended by reading it.

 

[tucker01]

I must say, that's a great response to my request to find a "Right to marry" in the US Constitution, as you certainly implied there was one.

I'm quite happy that you find me to be unintelligent, and that my 'stupidity' annoys you. I would be rather disturbed if you felt my views were inline with yours, since I think you have no grasp of any subject which I have seen you discuss, other than 2nd Amendment rights.

I frankly don't mind the insults at all, but I'd love it if you'd actually put an intelligent thought, comment, or argument along with it. However, judging by past posts, I certainly won't get my hopes up.

Here now you can read it Kelju

 

[Pylon]

Here now you can read it Kelju

Now that's service!

 

[Pylon]

Could you please find the "right to marry" in the US Constitution for me? Also, while you're at it, find the "right to murder your unborn children."

Thanks in advance.

Considering the level of intellect you consistently put on display, I'd avoid calling others "morons."

You clearly haven't noticed that today's leaders don't consider the Constitution to be a sacred or meaningful document anymore...unless, of course, they find it convenient. So using that logic, I can promise you that defending the rights of gays to marry is vital to the security of our country! We know the enemy hates gays. So the only way to be sure who out there are the enemy is to make everyone enter into a same-sex marraige. Those who refuse must hate gays, and therefore be the enemy, and hate America!

Now come on...you don't hate America....do you?

 

[BoneCrusher]

Here now you can read it Kelju

Lol ... you beat me too it.

 

[BoneCrusher]

You clearly haven't noticed that today's leaders don't consider the Constitution to be a sacred or meaningful document anymore...unless, of course, they find it convenient. So using that logic, I can promise you that defending the rights of gays to marry is vital to the security of our country! We know the enemy hates gays. So the only way to be sure who out there are the enemy is to make everyone enter into a same-sex marraige. Those who refuse must hate gays, and therefore be the enemy, and hate America!

Now come on...you don't hate America....do you?

Somehow you just managed to make it un-American not to suck a dick.

 

[BoneCrusher]

i dont feel the 14th amendment applies to marriage. the government has been regulating marriage from the get go. marriage is completly different than being born black. the right to marry is different in my mind than what school a little boy or girl gets to go to

Why is that? Our desire to reproduce is our strongest drive and marriage is formed around that drive. Not to consider marriage as a protected right makes no sense. The individual right of WHO to marry is not anyone's business. How is it the business of some congressman to intrude upon the right of the individual to chose according to his/her own needs?

The biggest thing I object to is that the laws are based on a morality built upon a uniquely Christian perspective. If I am a Muslim I cannot bring all four of my wives into my legal transition of assets any more than if I was a gay man leaving my wealth to my same sex partner. How does that serve ALL of America?

BC you as a Cristian have no right to tell me as a gay man or as a Muslim who to leave my wealth too. In America that choice is my fundamental right. It's no different than if I were black or born on the moon ... my rights are exclusive of your perspectives.

 

[brogers]

Why is that? Our desire to reproduce is our strongest drive and marriage is formed around that drive. Not to consider marriage as a protected right makes no sense. The individual right of WHO to marry is not anyone's business. How is it the business of some congressman to intrude upon the right of the individual to chose according to his/her own needs?

The biggest thing I object to is that the laws are based on a morality built upon a uniquely Christian perspective. If I am a Muslim I cannot bring all four of my wives into my legal transition of assets any more than if I was a gay man leaving my wealth to my same sex partner. How does that serve ALL of America?

BC you as a Cristian have no right to tell me as a gay man or as a Muslim who to leave my wealth too. In America that choice is my fundamental right. It's no different than if I were black or born on the moon ... my rights are exclusive of your perspectives.

There is no law forbidding who you can, or can't leave your wealth to... If you're gay, or an unmarried heterosexual couple, you just need a will to make it happen. This argument is often used, but it's not really valid.

Taken from a USA Today article:

Unlike some other legal hurdles, this is one problem unmarried partners can easily avoid, says Frederick Hertz, an Oakland attorney and co-author of A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples. There's no law against leaving your property to your partner ??? or anyone, for that matter. "This is one area where couples do have control if they take control," he says.
You don't need a lawyer to prepare a will. There are several do-it-yourself Internet sites that will help you prepare a will for less than $200. If your estate is large, or you fear your relatives will raise a ruckus, you should consult an estate-planning lawyer.

This is why I say that it has nothing to do with "rights."

 

[BoneCrusher]

There is no law forbidding who you can, or can't leave your wealth to... If you're gay, or an unmarried heterosexual couple, you just need a will to make it happen. This argument is often used, but it's not really valid.

Taken from a USA Today article:


This is why I say that it has nothing to do with "rights."

You speak from the orifice located where you sit regarding this issue. In any marriage of legal standing my assets go to my wife upon my untimely demise with or without a will. In any gay union this right is denied. Legal protection is the issue I am concerned with. Morally there is no issue as far as I'm concerned.

That will you posted has and will continue to get beaten in court time and time again.

 

[Pylon]

There is no law forbidding who you can, or can't leave your wealth to... If you're gay, or an unmarried heterosexual couple, you just need a will to make it happen. This argument is often used, but it's not really valid.

Taken from a USA Today article:


This is why I say that it has nothing to do with "rights."

There are more rights at stake than just wealth. What about family? If a woman gives birth to a child and dies, her husband would still be the legal guardian of the child. If that woman is in a lesbian marraige, however, that child may instead be given to her parental family, with whom she may or may not still have a relationship. This can lead to children being taken away from one loving mother after losing another, and being sent to a home that they no only do not know, but may resent the very sight of them.

All in the name of "family".

 

[brogers]

You speak from the orifice located where you sit regarding this issue. In any marriage of legal standing my assets go to my wife upon my untimely demise with or without a will. In any gay union this right is denied. Legal protection is the issue I am concerned with. Morally there is no issue as far as I'm concerned.

That will you posted has and will continue to get beaten in court time and time again.

If assets are really the problem, have a "will signing ceremony" instead of a marriage. It does stand up in court, and countless lawyers would love to assist you if you're not comfortable doing it yourself. No right is being denied here. Different means accomplish the same goal, and signing a will is much easier than getting married, in my opinion.

 

[KelJu]

Here now you can read it Kelju

Fucker!