Interracial and SSM

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Well I think that the word marriage would be great but they can’t get the legal benefits of marriage. Not tax repeals. Things like having the first decision for your unconscious SO in emergency situations.

In 1997, the City of San Francisco passed a law that all companies must provide the same benefits for domestic partners as for their spouses. Levada objected that this violated Catholic teaching on the unique status of marriage, but the city would not budge. Levada stated that unmarried employees of the archdiocese could designate any person sharing the same address as their beneficiary. This complied with the statute while avoiding a privileged status for unmarried domestic partnerships.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levada

I think that was pretty clever.

 

[Lokadottir]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levada

I think that was pretty clever.

If your gonna b*tch over words fine. Just give them their freaking rights. (i mean that in an agreement way)

 

[Rau]

If your gonna b*tch over words fine. Just give them their freaking rights. (i mean that in an agreement way)

What rights, and tax benefits, do gay couples (assuming not ‘married’)miss out on that are unjust? I agree they exist, but can you list the ones that you consider key?

 

[Lokadottir]

What rights, and tax benefits, do gay couples (assuming not ‘married’)miss out on that are unjust? I agree they exist, but can you list the ones that you consider key?

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other’s debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can’t cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can’t always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don’t cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA’s and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family’s resources without adverse tax consequences.
(Source:freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson I realize its biased but they summed it up nicely.)

 

[Rau]

(Source:freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson I realize its biased but they summed it up nicely.)

In many countries, Marriage has as a consequence, most of those rights & obligations, though it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Joint tax filing is particularly interesting - my jurisdiction doesn’t offer that to any couple - so it is not a universal benefit of marriage. FYI, in my jurisdiction, the financial benefits (of substance) arise as “family payments”, which necessitates having children, and the status of the parents (married, defacto or same sex) makes no difference. This kind of makes sense to me - I don’t see why 2 people in a marriage should as a matter of course pay less tax than 2 single people. So to me, this is a tax anomaly.

The “portability” question is an interesting one, and points to the long historical precedent attached to marriage - including the (historical) unanimity of opinion as to what marriage represents. I’m not clear however that individual states changing their definition of marriage will necessarily produce the desired effect in other jurisdictions - ie. will all States that define marriage as one Man + one Woman accept, for all legal purposes, another definition (eg. same sex, multi-party, etc.)? That is not the case today, even within the jurisdictions of the US of A! In fact, in the USA, the law on spousal debts (as an example) varies significantly, according to the State you live in.

In many jurisdictions (perhaps not in the US?), the bulk of the provisions you list are granted to couples independent of whether they are Married, and whether or not they are a ‘same sex couple’. That is, marriage is not a pre-requisite. Those jurisdictions (I surmise) have sought to recognise the practicalities of same sex couples and accommodate them within the State’s legal framework. They choose however to retain “Marriage” as a unique institution, notwithstanding that married couples and same-sex couples might have an equivalent call on various State-administered provisions - eg. inheritance.

Presumably civil unions delivered many of the outcomes you list?

 

[JimG]

Interracial marriage can be marital. Marital sex is possible.

Same sex ‘marriage’ can never be marital. Marital relations are impossible. It is a contradiction in terms.

 

[severus68]

All communities from all countries have developed seperately over long periods of time.
They have different customs ,different religions,different languages etc; All of them would
be wary of too close relations with one another,and until the post war period,when travel,
radio ,television,and now the internet breaks down barriers ,and we can get to know one another better we can judge ,not on external things like colour,lots of money etc .
I think that there is too much made of "black slavery " for there were masses of white Irish and even some English,taken as slaves to the new world . Human history is full of bloodshed ,but some make an excuse of their “hard times”,to avoid personal responsability,as though they were the only ones to suffer .

Anyway this is off the point a bit . Homosexuality has nothing to do with the developing
of different cultures ,history etc ,but is caused within families universally ,by something profoundly wrong in interpersonal relations,and a lack of true relation with God and Christ
and His laws of how we relate to one another in general .

Absolute rubbish - about enslavement of blacks and t he cause ofhomosexuality.

 

[jonathan_hili]

(Perhaps OT, but just out of interest: )

By whom? I’ve always seen it described as a physical addiction and hence somatic, and often with a genetic predisposition. A mental disorder can trigger alcohol abuse, of course, which again leads to alcoholism, but I’ve never seen alcoholism as such described as a mental disorder by any health professional.

You’re right. What I should have said was a “mental problem” or some such.

Perhaps, something like anorexia would be a better comparison.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

You know that is a horrible thing to say when there are kids who as they hit puberty with everyone else but were interested in the “wrong” gender. For people like me who had a beautiful girl/guy walk into the room and fell HARD. People are BORN gay, bi, pan, asexual, and the rest. The same way you did not CHOOSE to be straight but were BORN that way! Do NOT presume you know a person’s life, mind, and heart.

I made that statement so I only feel it is right for me to respond to it. I was born a human being. As a human being I have an intellect and will and that these are to be governed by the use of reason. Because of these gifts I know that I was born to be a moral being and that I have the ability (don’t confuse this with “the right”) to love someone or something correctly or incorrectly. I am capable of living a life of sin or of virtue and that I am the one that makes this choice and that I am responsible for making this choice. To say otherwise would be to remove the dignity I have as a human being -made in the image of God- and would degrade me to the level of mere beasts that are led here and there by their instinct and emotions.

 

[Lokadottir]

I made that statement so I only feel it is right for me to respond to it. I was born a human being. As a human being I have an intellect and will and that these are to be governed by the use of reason. Because of these gifts I know that I was born to be a moral being and that I have the ability (don’t confuse this with “the right”) to love someone or something correctly or incorrectly. I am capable of living a life of sin or of virtue and that I am the one that makes this choice and that I am responsible for making this choice. To say otherwise would be to remove the dignity I have as a human being -made in the image of God- and would degrade me to the level of mere beasts that are led here and there by their instinct and emotions.

But I’m ASSUMING you were also born to be attracted to the opposite sex. You didn’t pick that.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

But I’m ASSUMING you were also born to be attracted to the opposite sex. You didn’t pick that.

You assume a lot, since over the course of my life I’ve had many attractions. Once I used to think like you but then God proved me wrong.

 

[DrTaffy]

Interracial marriage can be marital. Marital sex is possible.

Same sex ‘marriage’ can never be marital. Marital relations are impossible. It is a contradiction in terms.

That is a rather circular argument, in that you define only heterosexual sex as ‘marital’ and then assert that only ‘marital sex’ justifies marriage.

And again, you are making marriage all about sex. Or one particular sex act. Or at least the possibility of one particular sex act.

Yet those who think marriage is about a loving relationship between two people are the ones cheapening marriage?

 

[Sarcelle]

I hope this is in the right place. I couldn’t figure where exactly this should go.

Why is it that SSM is compared to interracial marriage? It infuriates me when my marriage is compared to something that is unnatural. Here is an excerpt from a song and many people, especially young adults feel this way:
Gay is synonymous with the lesser
It’s the same hate that’s caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment
The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins
It’s human rights for everybody, there is no difference

If I say that I’m against SSM, then I’m told I’m a hypocrite because I married outside of my race. I don’t see how that statement is even logical.

Has the Church ever opposed interracial marriage? I know some Protestant churches have. Some activists may be referring to this opposition when they compare opposition to homosexual marriage to interracial marriage. This does not apply to the Catholic church since if I remember right did not refuse interracial marriage like it does homosexual marriage.

 

[Sarcelle]

I hope this is in the right place. I couldn’t figure where exactly this should go.

Why is it that SSM is compared to interracial marriage? It infuriates me when my marriage is compared to something that is unnatural. Here is an excerpt from a song and many people, especially young adults feel this way:
Gay is synonymous with the lesser
It’s the same hate that’s caused wars from religion
Gender to skin color, the complexion of your pigment
The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins
It’s human rights for everybody, there is no difference

If I say that I’m against SSM, then I’m told I’m a hypocrite because I married outside of my race. I don’t see how that statement is even logical.

I think what people need to realize is that the institution of marriage as we know it has become so debased by heterosexuals in the West that it would be logically consistent to allow gay marriage which I suppose goes to show just how far gone the secular institution of marriage is. Marriage in the West has become so divorced from children through contraception, sterilization and abortion that arguing “they can’t have children” is kind of irrelevant. Either we work to restore marriage and make it about children again or we come across as contemptibly insincere.

 

[Sarcelle]

No, it wouldn’t be logically consistent. The reasoning because heterosexuals have royally messed up the sacrament of marriage by being nominal/culture Christians, or cafeteria Catholics, or non-religious yet still getting married and taking vows – in a church, or what you, and approving of all those positions you’ve listed, does not logically allow homosexuals to marry each other. What it does it taints marriage itself and creates indifference, hostility towards marriage and making broken families the norm. No where does it say “Hey, if heteros mess up, then the homosexuals marry each other.” It’s just not sound. You don’t widen the net.

And those who think people who uphold marriage are insincere don’t understand the what marriage stands for. The faults of heterosexuals does not give the go to SSM if they’re intellectually honest about the issue.

Homosexual marriage is a consequence of the redefinition of marriage as defined by the Church to a feel good self-centered activity that could end once the thrill is gone. If this is how marriage is perceived in society than of course I can understand why same sex couples would also like to have a piece of the action so to speak.

 

[Sarcelle]

Well the argument that marriage must produce babies is great when you have a need for babies. But when you don’t need tons and tons of babies so some could survive why does it matter so much.

Where was it said that marriage must produce babies? All the Church teaches is that couples should be open to children which is why it never opposed the marriage of infertile or elderly couples and that sex could lead to babies.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

But I’m ASSUMING you were also born to be attracted to the opposite sex. You didn’t pick that.

I didn’t choose to have MDD psychosis or GAD, but it is still a burden I have to bear.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Has the Church ever opposed interracial marriage? I know some Protestant churches have. Some activists may be referring to this opposition when they compare opposition to homosexual marriage to interracial marriage. This does not apply to the Catholic church since if I remember right did not refuse interracial marriage like it does homosexual marriage.

I do believe reading somewhere that priest were hung in New Orleans for performing interracial marriages. It was actually one of the factors that lead my husband and I to the Church, she never opposed us.

 

[JimG]

That is a rather circular argument, in that you define only heterosexual sex as ‘marital’ and then assert that only ‘marital sex’ justifies marriage.

And again, you are making marriage all about sex. Or one particular sex act. Or at least the possibility of one particular sex act.

Yet those who think marriage is about a loving relationship between two people are the ones cheapening marriage?

I’m also assuming that there is a reason that human beings come in two sexes, which are sexually complementary.
I assume the same thing about nuts and bolts. It has to do with how things are made, including human beings.

I have loving relationships between many people. I only married one woman.

 

[Sarcelle]

I do believe reading somewhere that priest were hung in New Orleans for performing interracial marriages. It was actually one of the factors that lead my husband and I to the Church, she never opposed us.

Oh yes, your post reminded me of a book that chronicled the story of a priest that performed a marriage between a white woman and a Hispanic man. The priest was later killed by the woman’s father. The title of the book escapes me though.