C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Pretty soon it will be federal law. All states are well on their way to jumping on the bandwagon. It won’t be long now.
- Status
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Why would a celibate couple get any benefits at all? Friends don’t get benefits.
R
Rau
Guest
Because the US has crazy laws that give tax breaks to married people, which is an injustice to those not married. The tax breaks should only arise if there are children!
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Well, they certainly don’t if they’re celibate!Why would a celibate couple get any benefits at all? Friends don’t get benefits.
M
Monica59
Guest
[QUthat’dOTE=Corki;12237000]This is crazy. So same-sex couples who were previously getting benefits are now cut off unless they get “married” even if SS"M" is not legal in their state?
That’s right, but the govt will recognize ss marriage from any state. So, it is forcing chaste ss couples who might think domestic partnerships are okay but not marriage, to give up their benefits. Google this under office of mngt and budget, you’ll see.
That’s right, but the govt will recognize ss marriage from any state. So, it is forcing chaste ss couples who might think domestic partnerships are okay but not marriage, to give up their benefits. Google this under office of mngt and budget, you’ll see.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Exactly. The US Constitution mandates that all groupings of two adults capable of consent must be allowed to enter into the same arrangement. If people need the US government’s acceptance to be secure that they are entering into a marriage, and are not comfortable trusting in the power of the Catholic Church to do so, then they will reap what they sow from desperately hanging onto the word in legal discourse.
As it stands, gay partnerships, even non-sexual ones, need to culminate in marriage to access all the protections the social institution provides, as well as insurance and job benefits. That is patently unfair to Catholics. Marriage should not be recognized legally, especially not the [completely fake] American idea of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual.
The American definition of consummation is sex. Gay people can have sex, even under Catholic teaching. Just because they can’t consummate under the Catholic faith does not mean they can’t fit the legal definition of consummation, just as they can meet the legal definition of marriage even if they can’t meet the Catholic definition.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
So what? Two roommates who aren’t attracted to each other, but live together long term, don’t get benefits either. What makes SSA couples who don’t have sex so special?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Actually that case has also been raised as an issue with the system because honestly there isn’t that huge a difference between them and a heterosexual couple who choose not to have kids.
R
Rau
Guest
Of course, though not simply to “defeat” the pro-gay marriage advocates. Tax breaks (or, explicit governmental assistance) should stand on its own logic and fairness. Of course, any move in that direction will face enormous opposition - from the married people with no kids who will lose $, and from gay couples who will see it as an attack on them.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That may be “the American” definition of consummation but you should read some of the state’s definitions…They are pretty explicit.
R
Rau
Guest
Explicit…with what intent?
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Well what is it you are trying to say? Marriage being defined as anything between any two people no matter what their inclinations? Pretty odd if you ask me.
Anyway that’s not how the law is coming down. It is only about homosexual marriage, not marriage between friends. It is being made law and it is happening now. They will have to be accountable for their partners, and in turn they will receive benefits. If their partnership falls apart, they will also be accountable. They will have the same divorce laws applied to them as people in traditional heterosexual marriages.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
No, more like either introduce domestic partnerships or change legal marriage into civil unions.Well what is it you are trying to say? Marriage being defined as anything between any two people no matter what their inclinations? Pretty odd if you ask me.
Anyway that’s not how the law is coming down. It is only about homosexual marriage, not marriage between friends. It is being made law and it is happening now. They will have to be accountable for their partners, and in turn they will receive benefits. If their partnership falls apart, they will also be accountable. They will have the same divorce laws applied to them as people in traditional heterosexual marriages.
Why should the state give benefits to contracepting heterosexual couples?
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
It’s always been that way. That won’t change. But it’s definitely going to be gay marriage not civil unions.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Yes, mainly because of those who would not surrender the usage of the legal term “marriage,” even if it meant that gay couples would also be given access to it.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
OK…
But follow along with me here, Rau. I am looking for a “loophole” in order to satisfy both sides.
You mentioned “The tax breaks should only arise if there are children!” I find that interesting. From my side I would go with that in a minute. Say…Married people with children of their own or the ability to produce children receive all federal and state marriage benefits. Yeah!
But, as you say, that would not be fair to our SSM brethren.
I propose allowing civil “unions” all benefits available to married couples. That way SSM gets the benefits and we get to keep the proper definition of marriage. I really think this is a win-win. Heck…gays could call their relationship a Rainbow Connection or whatever …and we could happily keep “traditional marriage” as between one man and one woman.
The costs would be minimal since gays make up less than 2% of the population and not all of them want to form a “union”.
What do you think Rau?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Why should people who have the ability to produce children and choose not to get any benefit? Put another way, why should people get to be freeloaders? The tax benefits should be for those who are raising children either their own or adopted.
You could just call it a “domestic partnership”. Given the amount of effort the LGBT community has had to put into it they aren’t going to stop until they actually get the civil institution of marriage. Thanks foolish conservatives.
R
Rau
Guest
In other jurisdictions, the legal obligations and benefits of marriage apply to defacto couples, including same sex. Marriage is not the obligatory trigger. I believe the gay movement persists with demands for “marriage” because they want the “badge”, the acceptance, the affirmation that their relationship, their love, their family in some cases, is no less than a straight couple’s.
In the US you just have this additional defect of joint filing (ie tax benefit) for married people regardless of whether there are children. ( Surely that aggravates singles? )
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I see what you mean and I agree.
The gay community’s goal is not equal benefits. It is a slam-in-your-face intolerant demand for acceptance. Pretty gutsy on their part when you think about it. The majority of Americans have indicated by vote and by poll that we do not want marriage redefined. Yet with political influence and a “captured” media the gay movement is changing a beloved tradition.
How can they expect sympathy, understanding and acceptance with games like this??
The Church, in a very pastoral way tells us: “they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Apparently the Church does not expect the same respect, compassion, and sensitivity from them.
- Status