R
rlg94086
Guest
I believe they call that “personally opposed, but politically ‘pro-choice’” regarding abortion and marriage. I’m opposed to that viewpoint.
- Status
S
scipio337
Guest
So, which rights are “denied”? In CA domestic partnerships, it was the ability for a minor to get married with parental consent, and cohabitation.
More proof that this battle isn’t about “equality”.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
This is why we have to strengthen the separation of Church and State issue and fight the government mandate on providing birth control. Unfortunately, from what I read, looks like Scalia and the other Catholic Supremes messed that up in the peyote case when they decided the government could decide what religious practices were allowed and which were not. If they are attacking the Church, Catholics kicked open the legal door to do so.
P
Publisher
Guest
Out of the 1000+ “rights” afforded to married couples…those same sex couples have 800-900 of the 1000+ rights…eventually ALL the rights afforded to opposite sex couples will be allowed for same sex couples.
“Proof”…strange…the courts don’t see your “proof” as “proof”.
B
Brendan
Guest
It will always have governmental regulation.
For example. If a religious institution recognizes the intitution of marriage and offers spousal benefits, would it be legally free to not grant benefits to the ‘significant others’ of those whose religion recognizes their marriage.
In your view, would a homosexual couple have any legal grounds to sue the Catholic Church if benefits were only offered to marriages that the Catholic Church recognized.
Or how about a Catholic employer who owed, say a grocery store, would he too be free from governmental regulation on what benefits he offered to marital couples.
S
scipio337
Guest
Well, why don’t you list them?Out of the 1000+ “rights” afforded to married couples…those same sex couples have 800-900 of the 1000+ rights…eventually ALL the rights afforded to opposite sex couples will be allowed for same sex couples.
“Proof”…strange…the courts don’t see your “proof” as “proof”.
If there are 100 rights that OR same sex civil unions don’t offer, it should be fairly easy to list ONE, right?
The 9th Circuit itself didn’t address any disparity.
P
Publisher
Guest
Here’s 25 that typically are not “protected” by civil unions/domestic partnerships that are protected under “marriage.”…they may vary from state to state that allows domestic partnerships/civil unions…I’m sure you can find “one”…right"?..Since you asked.
1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as “next-of-kin” for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Wrong, many libertarians including myself are all for the right to life.
As far as gay marriage, I don’t want it in my state, but I also don’t want my state thinking they have the right to consider it an option. I’m sure there are many in Washington who would like that very much right now.
M
mlund
Guest
Scipio said “rights” not “privileges” or “benefits.”
There is an objective difference between the two even if the Modern Left insists on plugging both fingers in their ears and screaming “La la la I want everything in life insured to me by the government,” at the top of their lungs.
There is an objective difference between the two even if the Modern Left insists on plugging both fingers in their ears and screaming “La la la I want everything in life insured to me by the government,” at the top of their lungs.
- Marty Lund
P
Publisher
Guest
Ahhh…I stand corrected…there are 1000+ “rights, priveleges benefits” afforded to married opposite sex couples not afforded completely to same sex civil unions/dometic partnerships.
M
mlund
Guest
The elephant in the room is that a Privilege is not the same thing as a Right.
Lawrence v. Texas already settled that states can’t prohibit gays from arranging their private romantic lives as they see fit between consenting adults. There’s no legislation or legal decision on the table to change that. No one is “imposing their religion” on you by restricting what you can or can not do in that regard. You have the right as a private citizen to go about your business without the authority of the State hindering you.
Civil Marriage involves two things: a contract between private parties and the award of public benefits. The matters of contract between private parties is not contested. Our system lets you contrive and enforce just about any contract you could imagine. So this really boils down to the public benefits - which are privileges handed out by the State.
The idea that “opposite-sex couples can get these benefits but same-sex couples can’t” is a rhetorical deception. There are millions of opposite-sex partnerships that don’t enjoy any such benefits and never can. Every non-sexual sort of partnership are denied the status of Civil Marriage. Even heterosexual sexual partnerships are denied that status on the basis of things such as polygamy or incest - and with clear reason: as a matter of public records these partnerships can not provide the Public Benefit the State was trying to put an incentive on.
Without that Public Interest there are no grounds for the State to award privileges or benefits via Civil Marriage.
What’s really in play here is ignoring the requirement of Public Interest in Civil Marriage and instead using the Government to impel sanction, assent, and subsidy of a homosexual lifestyle from a Public that does not consent to such of its own volition.
Lawrence v. Texas already settled that states can’t prohibit gays from arranging their private romantic lives as they see fit between consenting adults. There’s no legislation or legal decision on the table to change that. No one is “imposing their religion” on you by restricting what you can or can not do in that regard. You have the right as a private citizen to go about your business without the authority of the State hindering you.
Civil Marriage involves two things: a contract between private parties and the award of public benefits. The matters of contract between private parties is not contested. Our system lets you contrive and enforce just about any contract you could imagine. So this really boils down to the public benefits - which are privileges handed out by the State.
The idea that “opposite-sex couples can get these benefits but same-sex couples can’t” is a rhetorical deception. There are millions of opposite-sex partnerships that don’t enjoy any such benefits and never can. Every non-sexual sort of partnership are denied the status of Civil Marriage. Even heterosexual sexual partnerships are denied that status on the basis of things such as polygamy or incest - and with clear reason: as a matter of public records these partnerships can not provide the Public Benefit the State was trying to put an incentive on.
Without that Public Interest there are no grounds for the State to award privileges or benefits via Civil Marriage.
What’s really in play here is ignoring the requirement of Public Interest in Civil Marriage and instead using the Government to impel sanction, assent, and subsidy of a homosexual lifestyle from a Public that does not consent to such of its own volition.
- Marty Lund
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I think we need to seperate employment and benefits. If it cost my employer 60k a year to hire me and I’m only getting paid 40k, then give me the right to take the 60k and figure out the benefits for myself. If I pay for them through another source and want to list my neighbors nephew then what part of that is any of your business?
S
scipio337
Guest
Source?
ALL of those were provided in the CA case. While I don’t have the OR law in front of me, I’m suspect.
P
Publisher
Guest
Since you asked for “just one”…and now you find them suspect…I’m sure you can do your own search to satisfy your “suspicions”.
S
scipio337
Guest
Well, if you like, I can post the CA law that shows those ARE covered.Since you asked for “just one”…and now you find them suspect…I’m sure you can do your own search to satisfy your “suspicions”.
leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
I should be substantiating your claims…why?
M
Mudgely
Guest
Then I guess you would agree that blacks should not be allowed to marry, as it once was, and that women should be chattel. That was after all a rather significant extension of privilege. There are far more women than gay people in the world.The extension of license and privilege is, by definition, a process of discrimination. It gives to a particular sort of couple that which is denied to another (like siblings or business partners). It can only be done by the state if it has a Rational Basis under which such a behavior furthers the Public Interest.
No, not really. We saw this same sort of normalized degeneracy in Greece, and Rome, and many other decadent cultures. It always ends in one of two ways: decline into collapse, or reformation to respect the Natural Law. The Church, however, shall ever endure long after empires drunk on libertine nonsense have rendered themselves to dust.
That’s an amusingly euphemistic spin to put on it, but it betrays a complete failure to comprehend the nature of the Church or of Moral Law.
You’re right about one thing, it has created a hardship for us reasonable people that gay “rights” fanatics have hijacked one of our political parties.
- Marty Lund
P
Publisher
Guest
No reason “why”…you called them into suspect…you need not confirm or substantiate any claim as to the disparity of “rights, priveleges or benefits” between marriage and civil union/dometic partnerships if you choose not to…I have no stake at seeking to convince you of anything…your beliefs are yours to hold…your right to accept or reject anyone’s claims is not an issue with me…you asked me to provide “just one”…I have no need to convince you of anything…
M
Mudgely
Guest
How conveniently you neglected to notice the other elephant, which is discrimination. It is the same old song and dance. It takes a few generations to get over it. This is borne out by the polls. Opinions on the topic are largely generational.
Here is a link of some valentine’s day pics on flickr’s blog, which everyone might enjoy:
blog.flickr.net/en/2012/02/14/happy-valentines/
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Offensive link reported.
M
Mudgely
Guest
It may take some time, and you are correct that it might not happen. I mean, it took more than 600 years just to change the opinion that Jews should be kept in ghettos, etc… The Church may be socially progressive in some areas, but it in woefully inert in others.
Though it has changed it moral teaching on such topics as lending money, grounds for annulment, what to do with heretics, slavery, and so on. So, it’s moral doctrine is clearly not static in all areas.
- Status