Oregon has joined about half a dozen other states in recognizing civil unions among gays — only it isn’t calling them civil unions. Oregon state lawmakers determined that “union” sounded too much like a marriage term for Oregon voters who have opposed gay marriages. Citizens were more comfortable with “domestic partnerships” — even though they grant the same legal rights as civil unions.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Moore has had enough of House
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/22
114 Comments
Yeah well, it sounds way too much like separate but equal, which turned out to be separate, but anything but equal! Gay and lesbian people aren’t anymore likely to settle for half-measures than any of the rest of us; nothing more or less than the same rights everyone else has.
I don’t think the sky will fall if it is passed in other states. Seems to be a legal sanction of what is already occurring in non sanctioned relationships.
Baby steps… Baby steps and then you end up running. Do you know what the difference is in the terms “Major victory” and “minor victory”? At one point or another a victory is still a victory.
I’ve said this before on several boards: What gays REALLY want is equal status to lay claim to Social Security, and other benefits afforded to married people. They can have all the ceremonies, titles, etc. We as taxpayers do not want to pay for survivor benefits for a male wife, or other such arrangement. We only want the benefits that we pay for to go to traditional relationships. That’s why there is so much “dancing” and uproar, about the wording.Want to change the law? Fine, put it up for a vote. Quit trying to get judges to re-interpret the law to favor you.
Marty,Since when is the right to equal treatment under the law at the discretion the voters? It’s guaranteed us in our Constitution.Should a bunch of us get together and vote to strip you of your rights? Maybe we could find a majority to agree to confiscate your precious firearms or deny bail to conservatives, or some such.
As long as the gay people have full legal rights, I do not care what they call it. In fact, every legal “marriage” should be refered to as a “civil union” in the eyes of the law. “Marriage” is something a church does- not a government.
I agree with you in part, Kev, except about the “not a government” part. My wife and I were married by a court clerk…no church involved.
You do bring up an interesting thought, tho. Since there is a constitutional requirement of separation of church and state, why do governments recognize marriages performed by a church? Isn’t that “respecting” an establishment of religion?
What difference does it make what you call it? Everyone should have the right to be treated equally and have the same protections under the law. How “equal” a person is shouldn’t hinge on their sexual perference or anything else. If two gay people want to get married and make their union legal, why not? I don’t understand why some see it as such a threat.
raptor – I agree with kev. What I would do is ‘grandfather’ your court marriage as a Union and then have no more such marriages.
I got married twice in the same day. Once when we filled out the government paperwork and once in a Nuptual Mass. I would replace that first one with the ‘union’ terminology.
I would still allow Priests etc to do the civil part; quite frankly I don’t want to have to pay (taxpayer) for the extra Courthouse help to do it. I would also allow certain others to be licensed to do it; i would not pay them. Then, there would, of course, be the Courthouse option.
“What gays REALLY want is equal status to lay claim to Social Security, and other benefits afforded to married people.”
SO WHAT?! Don’t they pay the same taxes? Aren’t they citizens?
In point of fact, a gay couple is LESS likely to claim Social Security spousal benefits that a ’stratght’ couple. The reason is that fewer of them have the ’stay-at-home’ spouse.
Now all we need is equal treatment for polygamists!
HAHAHAHAA. Good one Nathan.
Beastiality might be a far reach, now that the science is in on people being born loving animals.
The only argument those radical right wing Christians have to stand on is that animals are not people, so the beastiality crowd might have a ways to go before they get their equal treatment too.
I think the polygamist question may be a fair one, but to even bring in the bestiality thing does nothing for the discussion, and just lowers the validity of those who do
Oh great, yes absolutely gotta have one bonehead in the whole bunch who brings up bestiality.
Gays are PEOPLE and they have the right to be treated equally and love who they want without you poking your nose into it.
Polygamists should also be ok. It’s not my job to determine who can love whom. As long as they’re all adults who can consent, it’s none of my business, and certainly none of yours.
Politcal_mom,
The argument has nothing to do with saying who can love whom.
It never was.
The argument is about State sanctioning it.
Good point, Nathan.
And the State, being in no way representative of or allied with the Christian religion or any other religion, has as its first obligation “justice for all.”
If marriage provides benefits that same sex couples want, the State has no right and no basis to deny those benefits.
I think you can make a case, mom, that polygamy is harmful to society.
When men take more than one wife that means other men will have no wives, for instance.
Also, polygamy as it is practised in the US among fundy Mormons is extremely patriarchal: fifty year old mean with a harem of 15 year old “wives.”
How dare you judge those people Capnamerica with your values.
I think the state always has a right to decide which unions to sanction, or activity to allow, based on the collective morality of it’s citizens, concurrent within the framework of the Constitution. In fact, I believe all laws are based on somebodys morality. The question is, should they always excercise that right?Obviously not. In this case, I am not sure. On a personal basis, I think the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, but not any more wrong than people living together without the “sanction” of marriage, etc. It is not a threat to me or mine, nor is it a reason for me to care, really. Live and let live. Do I sanction “gay” marriages? At this point, I really don;t know. I used to be opposed, simply on my own personal moral grounds, however, I have heard no good or rationale argument on civil grounds not to. Perhaps my exposure to gays who have come out the closet, including a friend or two, has changed my mind. Perhaps it is the mostly irrational arguments againstthat has changed my mind, I don;t know. I still think the state has a Right to decide what sanctions they endorse, as it’s people indicate, I am just not sure anymore that they should
I have to also agree that polygamy should be in play also. Once again, I think that is a moral judgement only. No different than the gay issue, and bringing up the 15 year old issue is sidetracking and specious, just as bringing up the Gays= nambla argument is.
I think the granting of this ‘right’ is the camel poking his nose under the side of the tent.
If it stopped at a union between one man/woman and one man/woman would that be so bad? But some on here were very upset by Alexa’s law yesterday not because of the law but because they thought it was an assault on abortion.
Once this union is recognized then what will stop others from saying I want to marry my mother, son, daughter, etc… Anyone who might want the benefits granted a spouse. As ridiculous as this sounds it is very feasible and then the drain on an already overtaxed social security and other programs will increase. In one fell swope the retirement plans in the country would have millions in future liabilities they had not planned on. Unfunded liabilities would sky rocket.
Having been in the insurance industry I have seen this kind of thing first hand. Anyone can list someone as a common law spouse and frequently this is a friend who wants med ins or dental ins. When we started requiring a certificate issued by the state that they were indeed common law the number of these union went down. Because if you got this certificate you then had to go through the divorce process when you separated.
This was brought about because a man with a legal wife had enrolled his live in girl friend and her four children as his common law family. After paying out thousands of dollars in claims for this family the wife turned him in.
This is just one of the many things that can and do happen in our imperfect world.
I don’t care about the additional drain on social security or whatever. We simply must have a rationaldiscussion on what is right, then do it.
Please explain how gay marriage affects Social Security? Its not like gays to not collect it when they reach the entitlement age. They pay in just like the rest of us, so please explain how gay marriage will drain SS?
First, a disclaimer:
I serve as state Chair of Kansas Equality Coalition, which is the statewide organization that advocates for fair treatment and equal rights for gay, lesbian, and transgendered Kansans. The views I post on this blog are my own, however, and are not necessarily the policy of KEC, its State Board, its chapters, or its members.
That said…
My partner and I have a daughter who is currently in college. When she was living at home, I worked part time from home as an independent software developer so that there would always be a parent at home for our child. This is precisely why there are Social Security survivor’s benefits: It’s a recognition that in many traditional American families, one parent works full time outside the home, while the other stays at home to care for the kids.
Just like every other working American, my partner has paid into Social Security his entire adult life. If something had happened to him, why should our family have suffered the loss of the same SS benefits that every other working parent in this nation has paid for and is entitled to?
Furthermore, why should the stay-at home parent in a relationship such as ours not be able to be covered by his or her partner’s employer-provided health plan?
People like to talk about the so-called “gay lifestyle.” Let me tell you about the “gay lifestyle.”
We have regular jobs. We have a mortgage. We have a child in college. We took care of ill, elderly parents in their final years. We pay our taxes, vote in every single election, support our military, love our great nation, and observe our faith in quiet privacy. We have a modest home in a modest neighborhood in the middle of Wichita. We’re kind to our neighbors, and help the elderly ones with household chores whenever they ask. We drive 1990’s cars (kid in college, remember?) that are paid for, and we go out to dinner *maybe* twice a month.
We don’t have wild parties, we don’t go club-hopping, we don’t sleep around, and we don’t rape children or abuse animals.
So just drop the “sanctioning gay lifestyle” crap, and pay attention for a few minutes to the lives of people you find so easy to demean and dismiss.
Thanks.
Tom in no way was my post meant to demean your lifestyle. I was pointing out that if grandfathered in long term relationships such as yours would make many eligible for SS benefits. My neighbors are like you and your partner. They have a six year old son and one stays home with him while the other works.
That said there are many dishonest people such as the case I mentioned before where the system will be manipulated to serve their own situation. What caught him up was that he dropped his real wife to add his live in and we denied claims for the wife.
There is much more to this than meets the eye. I know many don’t see the value of the civil union but at least it would put a system in place to go forward from there.
If all were as monogamous as you this discussion would be moot. Unfortunately there will be those ready to claim multiple wives/ husbands or some other ridiculous thing and then the financial problem will begin and the court challenges will be endless.
TomI wish you and your partner all the best. I have been neighbors to gay men all my life and have witnessed your plight for some time now. Its about time that rights were given to those the lead alternative lifestyles. You should receive the same benefits as I do as a married hetro. Its criminal that those politicians hold up a bible or say that if you have rights then all these other minority groups will suddenly be entitled to the same rights. I believe as we just saw with Alexa’s law that if the proper provisions are placed in it then it will accomplish the goal without opening the flood gates. Good luck my friend and I am pulling for you.
So, because there are people that abuse the system, we should deny benefits from a whole segment of the population, even though there is no evidence that gay folks are the ones abusing the system?
I thought that fairness was the American way.
The objection to gay marriage are made by people that do not or choose not to understand gay people. They are just like the rest of us, except the choice of their partners.
In relative terms, gay marriage is a small point. The gay population amounts to 5-10 percent of the population. Perhaps those so vehemently opposed to gay marriage so concentrate on the high rate of divorce affecting heterosexual marriages.
I just reallydon;t care about what happens to the social security or insurance companies, or pension plans. Monogomaous, non monogomous, yadyadaya.
Those are all smokescreens and excuses. I think we need to have a rational discussion about what unions the state SHOULD sanction. THe financial cost is irrevelant. The one important discussion that I can see is whether or not it logically and rationally detrimantal to the state or it’s citizens. So far it has not been found to be so to my satisfaction. I may be changing my mind to “for allowing” because I must say, I have heard few logical reasons to not sanction and allow gay marriages performed by the state or the churches that decide to do so. I would object, of course, if churches were forced to do so, but they are not forced to perform any marriages now.
This issue is inheirently heated! As I have researched this subject it is interesting to note that while certainly there is discrimintation in our culture. The real affect is for the most part not economical as research shows that the economic resurces of the Gay Community is above the average. That in reality the discrimination is not in the ability to earn money or the ability to receieve an education. The obvious difference is that for the most part there is not an “identifier” that clasifies someone as “gay” as there is concerning “race” or “gender”. If businesses want to add benefits for “same sex” unions that is certainly there perogative, but to mandate acceptance should be handled carefully.
Pastor Mike
Thank you for an enlightened response, LJ.
“but to mandate acceptance should be handled carefully.”
“Acceptance” is mandated based on race, creed, religion or national origin, so why allow discrimination based on sexual orientation?
And don’t quote from the Bible – this is by design a secular country.
WS -
Words are powerful and you are right i meant “acceptance” in a legislative sense – certainly we should not “mistreat” anyone because of “race, creed, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation”. Again, I really appreciate how the military has handled the situation – “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” – Do we really need to know the “sleeping arrangements” of anyone?
Pastor Mike
Why deny the same rights that everyone can enjoy to a small portion of the population?
There is no good reason.
Decades ago, it was illegal in some places for blacks and whites to marry. Now, those laws have are gone because people have come to realize that it makes no difference, black or white.
I the same way, people will come to realize that it makes no difference, straight or gay.
As a 36-year married heterosexual I cannot help but wonder why some people are so insecure in their marriages that they panic when they consider the possibility of people who are different being given equal consideration.
I have to say something about polygamists.
All i have to say is if any one man wants to marry more than one woman, and put up with the crap that comes with it… by all means, let him!
Actually 1996 the voters of Georgia narrowly legalized interracil marriage
Pastor Mike,
The myth that gay and lesbian Americans have more income than non-gay Americans is just that: A myth. Take a look at the studies described and linked to fromhttp://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr296_052600
For my own family, I can tell you this: We are far from “high income” in any sense of the word. My partner is a public school teacher. I stayed home and raised our daughter. Tell me how that puts us in the upper income brackets of this nation.
I await your answer.
Interesting observations Tom. I would have guess that based on HOUSEHOLD income (as opposed to INDIVIDUAL income) gay households might have a slight edge. The reason is that I would expect statistically fewer single-income households. You, in that case, would seem to be in a small minority in that you are a ’stay-at-home.’
That was a part of my point above in regards to Social Security. In dual-income households (either gay or straight) the spousal benefit is usually a moot point; both members collect on their own. (Tha changes if there is a very large disparity in incomes within the couple).
Whatever the actual numbers are; I still cannot see any reason to discriminate. Allow both gay and straight to enter into “Unions” (Caeser) and leave “Marriage” (God) to the church.
In fact, I seem to recall reading such words from a great ‘Teacher’ about rendering unto Caeser and unto God …
Kudos to Tom for so eloquently pointing out that he’s an average person just like everyone else. It just so happens that he’s gay. big effin deal…one must be horribly insecure in their own lives to not allow others to enjoy the same rights as they have.
Tom,You and your partner have raised your daughter through her teen years and into college, and are not sitting in a corner somewhere blibbering. That’s a real accomplishment; probably the worst test nature has devised for a couple!I wish you well in your relationship, and hope that someday you two can walk down the street holding hands like any other married couple, and nobody gets offended. I pray that day comes soon.
Nathan,If some anti-abortionist crusader wants to marry his mule, and the mule is over 18 and gives his/her informed consent, who are you to say it’s not true love!
Regarding polygamy and polyandry; it’s always seemed to me to be an avenue to insanity or abuse, but if the people involved can make it work, and some people thrive on that kind of instability, why should the state make it illegal?
Jed, it would give a whole new meaning to a “piece of ass.”
Gay civil union sounds more like an off-shoot of social class shenanigans.You have one type of people that in order to survive both parents have to work and are in debt up to the gills with barely any avenues of getting any kind of a break.Then you have people like Tom trying to live the lie of the old traditional American dream bullcrap, a husband at work, wife at home, children going to college, white picket fence and living in the perfect world scenarios.They try to use the excuse of painting themselves as viable citizens when the bottom line is they are asking for special rights.Two forms of governance of the masses, one is called Government, where laws of the land are made to serve the society as the whole and the other is called Social Darwinism, the unwritten laws of different class societies.Laws of Government may give in but Social Darwinism will never change.Gays has been frowned on for thousands of years and will be for many more thousands years in certain circles of societies.Face the facts; Gay lifestyle will never be welcome in society.
Wiseman – when I grew up I was told the same thing about blacks.
“They try to use the excuse of painting themselves as viable citizens when the bottom line is they are asking for special rights.”
What “special right” are they asking for? Seems to me, they are just asking for the same rights we all have.
Who are you to judge?
Publican,”Jed, it would give a whole new meaning to a “piece of ass.”"
Why buy a piece of ass when you can marry the whole mule? I suppose our crusader would have to convert in order for the marriage to be recognized by the mule’s church, but he’s already more than half-ass.
But….what if two boy mules wanted to have a union?
Donkey,
They should call the Teamsters.
Wiseman,
That was the most incoherent attempt at a smear-job I’ve ever seen on these boards. The typical smear-jobs are usually better written, make more sense, and are at least internally consistent. Your post…well, it reads like you vomited out your hatred for your gay and lesbian neighbors into the thread. That’s very sad for you.
Another attack by the homosexual agenda in their war to destroy the institution of marriage.
Parkay,C’mon, people who, in this day and age, actually want to get married are destroying marriage?You need to look to your own house to see who’s destroying marriage!
Parkay,In case you hadn’t heard, this blog is for discussion. If You have something to say, say it. Don’t just repeat your minister’s lies.
Parkay – how many years have YOU been in a monogamous marriage?
“the homosexual agenda”
Tom or Farm Grrl, could you please fax me a copy of the homosexual agenda? I have often heard of it but have never actually seen it.
Does it start with “coffee at 7:00 AM?”
Ok Tom, from now on I will tell you a lie and pamper to your comfort zone of what you want to hear instead of for what it really is.
So, Wiseman, just what ARE the special rights that gay folks want?
Still waiting……
“Now all we need is equal treatment for polygamists!”
It might suprise you but I agree. If consenting adults choose to live in such an arrangement I do not think that government should dictate that they cannot. Although I think it is stupid myself.
“Having been in the insurance industry I have seen this kind of thing first hand. Anyone can list someone as a common law spouse and frequently this is a friend who wants med ins or dental ins. When we started requiring a certificate issued by the state that they were indeed common law the number of these union went down. Because if you got this certificate you then had to go through the divorce process when you separated.”
I don’t believe health insurance should be based upon one’s marital status. It should simply be applied individually. In other words, your employer would say “this is your price for 1 person and you can get 2 for this price”. Who the other person is- whether it is your wife, mother, live in lover or the lady down the street should not matter to the insurance company a bit. Only children under 18 should come under another person’s policy.
“I think you can make a case, mom, that polygamy is harmful to society.
When men take more than one wife that means other men will have no wives, for instance.
Also, polygamy as it is practised in the US among fundy Mormons is extremely patriarchal: fifty year old mean with a harem of 15 year old “wives.”"
First of all polygamy can work in either way. A woman can also have more than 1 husband and it would probably never be widely practiced anyway. Secondly ALL marriage should be regulated to ADULTS over the age of 18. I DO NOT support these teenage marriages that seem to happen down south here at times. I do not think that 12 year olds should be getting married. Marriage is a legal CONTRACT and minors cannot even sign a contract for a damn cell phone! Why the hell people think it is OK for minors to sign a marriage contract is beyond me.
The civil rights of a homosexual person is no more violated then any other man’s privileges in comparison.Every class of people are predators trying to take advantages of whatever they can.Also WSClark, read Kev’s comments, he has answer some of your question.
I read them already, Wise. My question is simple – why should gay people be denied the right to marry the partner of their choice?
Homosexuals are not predators, as you suggest. They are just normal human beings with a different sexual orientation than yours.
Why should they suffer discrimination because some people have a bias?
Jed,Everybody DOES have equal treatment under the law.Only MARRIED people enjoy the special priviliges afforded to that status. Not two siblings living together, not nuns in a convent, not G.I.’s in a barracks. The law is specific about who qualifies for specific priviliges (not rights) afforded to those who meet the criteria. If you don’t like the law, change it.Sexuality is not a protected class from discrimination. In other words, people are FREE to discriminate based on it, as well as any other of a person’s behavior. If you don’t like the way a person behaves, you don’t have to hire, sell to, rent to, or conduct business with.You are NOT free to avoid business based on race, creed, color, gender or religion. Those categories are protected from discrimination, presumably because people cannot help who they are. They can, however, determine how they behave. Even if sexuality is a tendancy, we are still free to react according to how people behave. You have the right to behave how you want. But you cannot make people like it, accept it, or change the law to make our tax dollars support your lifestyle. The only inroads you’ve made are through activist judges, and we’re on to you. Put it up for a vote, and you will always lose.Don’t give me that tripe about racial discrimination of the past. We’ve all learned from that People are not accountable for the color of their skin, or the religion that their parents brought them up into. But people who reject societal norms, and behave against the tide, cannot expect priviliges designed for others to be bestowed on them.Other than against the protected classes, discrimination in itself is not wrong. The word means “to choose,” and we are still free enough to choose not to subsidize your behavior.As to your ridiculous comments about confiscating guns or denying bail to conservatives, you just show how ignorant you are of the law. Get off the board, and go study law.
People are born either straight or gay. Why discriminate because some is different than you?
“They can, however, determine how they behave.”
Being gay is not a behavior, it is an orientation.
WSClark, being gay is, as you say, an orientation, or in my words, a tendancy.Acting gay is behavior. Having a sexual propensity towards children, towards relatives, etc, are also tendancies.Behaving in such a manner is considered immoral and illegal.As a country we have removed the illegal status of homosexual behavior. Many still consider it immoral. Removing it from the list of what is illegal does not make it right, or worthy of entitlements bestowed on others. That would take a change in policy expanding publicly-granted benefits to those who the benefits were not written for. There does not seem to be a majority of voters willing to do that. First, because of the morality issue, and second, because the “bank” (Social Security, et al) is going broke as it is, without more “claimants.”If two men living together were eligible for spousal benefits, then why not two siblings living together? Why not an adult son and his widowed mother? Because they don’t fit the specially-designated class of being married. We as a country bestowed those benefits to encourage that lifestyle. Not to award cash to any two people who line up to claim the money.There may be a time when our country expands it’s benefit programs to homosexual couples. But it won’t be soon.
ARGH!! Two people who love each other, who want to make a life together but happen to be the same sex is NOT the same. Why do we keep getting these ridiculous “slippery slope” arguements? Relatives are already prohibited from getting married. Why would that change just because gays are allowed full rights? And saying that we can’t afford to give people their full civil rights is just crass and low.
“Acting gay is behavior. Having a sexual propensity towards children, towards relatives, etc, are also tendancies.”
Bullshit. Either people are born straight, gay or bi – it is not a behavior choice.
To equate gays with pedophiles is to completely distort sexual orientation.
150 years ago, the mainstream considered “Negroes” to be less than human – do you still think that way?
WS, people may well be born straight or gay. They may also be born pedophiles, to use your example. This doesn’t “distort” sexual orientation, it defines it. You accept gay behavior as acceptable. Fine. I don’t. But remember that it is a behavior, not a condition, as the “Negroes” you mentioned in your last paragraph, and that I’ve already said are protected by virtue of their race. Behavior cannot be protected. Behavior is what we DO, not who we are. If there were, for instance, a “pedophile gene,” would we arrest everyone who had it? Of course not! It’s behavior, not birth, that causes how other people treat us.Until the last 30 years or so, ALL sex outside of marriage has been considered wrong, and usually illegal. Removing the restriction of illegality does not make it acceptable, right, or worthy of marital benefits. That would take a change in law. Put it up for a vote.
“Put it up for a vote.”
If we had voted on segregation, we would still be a segregated society.
A pedophile and a gay man are two distinctly different people. Why is it that you choose to be so hateful towards people that are born differently than you?
It is not a behavioral issue – it is a matter of orientation. If society dictated, could you change your orientation (assumed) from heterosexual to homosexual?
I know that I could not change to homosexual, under any duress, why should a homosexual be required to change his or her orientation?
A pedophile may be born with the predisposition to prey on children in order to abuse them.How is anyone being hurt or victimized if two gay adults want to get married?Comparing the two is just plain ignorant.
“Beastiality might be a far reach, now that the science is in on people being born loving animals.The only argument those radical right wing Christians have to stand on is that animals are not people, so the beastiality crowd might have a ways to go before they get their equal treatment too.”Ummm…spending a little too much time with your dad’s goats, Nathan?
WS, I’m not asking anybody to change. I don’t care, and the current set of laws doesn’t care what they do. I’m not trying to be hateful (I have both friends and relatives that are gay.) I’m just trying to explain to this board why things are the way they are. Things that some claim are “rights” are not rights, but a special class of benefits afforded to a specific group. I don’t like going down the road of analogies such as pedophile, nuns in a convent, beastiality, or such, but sometimes it does help, if only to explain the difference between a propesity and a behavior. Our church teaches us to “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” We have nothing but empathy for those who have such tendancies, but we view acting on them as sinful. But this discussion is not about faith, it is about entitlements. I’m frankly tired of the argument that Social Security, for example, is some kind of a civil right. It’s a govt-run program with specific entitlement categories. Gays don’t fit in. Any more than those who play with G.I. Joe dolls are entitled to VA Benefits. Sorry, pal.
“Things that some claim are “rights” are not rights, but a special class of benefits afforded to a specific group.”
What is a special class of benefits when it comes to granting the same rights to gays as are enjoyed by straight people?
It is the same right – gay or straight.
WS, I better close for tonight. You keep calling these entitlements as “rights,” I’ve tried to explain that they are not.You keep arguing that gay couples should be afforded true, legal, marital status, and I’ve explained in length that under current law, they are not.Let’ both re-read this tomorrow, and see if we have anything to add. Good night.
“and I’ve explained in length that under current law, they are not.”
Current law in 1860 allowed one group of people to own another.
We have to be able to better than that.
One more example I thought of this evening. The Earned Income Credit, is a benefit afforded to those who qualify when filing their taxes. If you don’t already know about it, the credit entitles those low-income families who qualify for it, to receive a tax credit towards their tax filing. Often it can mean a refund, even to those who owe no taxes, and have paid no taxes.If someone (or couple, i.e. married filing jointly) did not meet the criteria, they cannot claim such a credit. “Why should they get a credit, and I don’t?” would be the rally cry. Do I not have a “right” to an Earned Income Credit? Of course not! Read the tax code! If you don’t like the criteria, work to get the law changed.Right now, the battle is on about gay couples trying to be considered married, very often to qualify for benefits that were not, and are not, designed for them. We’re talking about benefits, not rights.
WS in words even you might understand and Marty was just to nice to say, SS is a EARNED benefit. You don’t get it because you are a special color, sex, or anything else. You have to earn it.
Part of your problem might be that this is 2007 and you think current law is what was law in 1860.
So getting SS benefits because you were MARRIED to someone is a right that is only extended to straight people?
My mother NEVER worked – yet she was entitled to SS benefits because my father earned them.
Why is it different for straight people?
WS, you and I have made our points pretty clearly. I’m anxious to see the replies tomorrow. My arguements against all this rhetoric are:1. Discrimination, except against protected classes is not wrong.2. Gays want their union and behavior included as a protected class.3. Protected classes are for conditions of birth, not behavior.4. Social Security and other programs are benefits enacted into law, not anybody’s “right.”5. Any of this can be changed by law. Put it up to a popular vote and get the laws you don’t like changed. Don’t hold your breath, however, there are many reasons why your proposals will not pass.
I have to say that I feel sorry for you, Marty. What is it about gays that you find threatening?
They are not trying to recruit you, Marty. I doubt that they are interested. They harm no one and should be given the same respect as anyone else.
“My mother NEVER worked – yet she was entitled to SS benefits because my father earned them.
Why is it different for straight people?”??? I don’t understand your question. You’re referring to the spousal benefit of SS, where a non-working spouse (husband or wife) who didn’t earn enough credits towards SS still is entitled to a spousal benefit by SS. The entitlement is equal to at least 1/2 of what the working spouse earned.The spousal credit is a very powerful financial incentive that was designed to compensate the “stay-at-home-mom,” for raising her children for the social good. Later, it included both husband and wife. This is precisely the benefit most coveted by gay people. Since there is no natural children to raise, what need is there to provide an financial benefit for such a choice? Sorry, but in the eyes of SS, gays are singles. Just like single straights, single loners, and widows, divorcees, etc, they all contribute towards our country’s SS system. But not all benefits are equal.
And what about gay folks like Tom and his partner that have raised a young lady that is now in college?
Their marriage has exceeded in years that of most heterosexual couples, so why shouldn’t they receive benefits afforded straight couples?
“They are not trying to recruit you, Marty. I doubt that they are interested.”Ha! On that we agree! I’m sure they’re not interested in me, and I’ve never been approached by a recruiter! LOLI’m not threatened, nor do I dislike gay people. I do. I like their arts, comedy, friendship, style, etc. But I don’t think that our country can afford to pay benefits such as spousal benefits to them, for no real need. (Once again) I’m defining benefit programs, not “rights,” as you have asserted.Whenever, in life, you don’t meet the criteria of the defined benefits, it is pointless to argue that you should. Your efforts should be to change the criteria. But poll after poll, vote after vote, court decision after court decision, have shown that the gay request to receive equal status as married has been soundly defeated. Argue all you want, but use the right words. Change “right” into “benefit.” Quit harping that ALL discrimination is wrong. And though legal, quit arguing that gay behavior is “normal.” It is not.
“And though legal, quit arguing that gay behavior is “normal.” It is not.”
If gays are born gay, then the behavior is normal by definition.
If being gay is a choice, explain when you choose each day to heterosexual.
Oh, marty,You are so full of it. Your arguments boil down to:A. I don’t like gay people.B. Gay people are gay by choice.C. We should discriminate against gay people because we have in the past.You really need to educate yourself BEFORE you form your opinions, or at least think through your arguments. All you’ve done so far is parrot other bigots.
As a heterosexual, I choose NOT to exercise such desires outside of my marriage. I chose NOT to live with my wife prior to our marriage. If I were to just answer the “call of nature,” or my natural tendancies, I would have other affairs. I do not. I choose to operate within societal norms.As a society, we’ve loosened the “norms,” so that gays can operate freely, too. Fine, go out, have a good time. Behavior is not normal by definition. Normal and acceptable are defined by law. I hate to use it, but the pedophile example comes back to mind. If that’s how he/she is born, then is that behavior “normal by definition”? Of course not!WS, I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you tonight. But once again, I think we’ve both articulated our positions. I think we’ve consumed enough space on the WeBlog server for now. Somebody’ else’s turn. Regards.
Jed, you are the one parroting others.A. I already said I like gays.B. Those who “feel” gay act gay by choice. They could be celibate, nothing else. No matter, they are free to do what they want. We’ve removed the laws against that behavior.C. We should feel free to discriminate against any behavior that we feel is wrong. We are not wrong to feel that gay behavior is wrong. You can’t make us feel that it is, or change our beliefs, or our moral code. We are free to believe that. Since “gayness” is not a protected class, anymore than nose-pickers (a behavior) we can freely discriminate, and choose not to grant them benefits. (the word is benefit, not right.)I doubt if you have two master’s degrees, so let’s keep education out of it. Do I parrot the others, or do they parrot me? Hmm?
Marty,Two master’s degrees? What college gives degrees in bigotry?
Please let me fix a typo. I meant to say, “they could be celibate, IF nothing else.”
Marty,Two master’s degrees? What college gives degrees in bigotry?If your “A” were true, and you actually knew any gay people, you would not be making your “B” and “C” statements. You’d already know they make no sense.
Okay Marty,
The state certainly can decide who it bestows “priviledges” as you call them. I have in the past been against the state allowing gay marriages. I am leaning into the “allow gay marriages camp”I have two questions. While I agree the state has the power and authority to regulate whom should be married, why should they excercse that power? How is allowing gay marriages logically and rationally detrimantal to the state or it’s citizens? If it is not, then I am coming to believe that they should NOT excerise their authority, and allow such marriages.
Should heterosexual people also be celibate?
Why should only straight people be allowed to have sex?
big·ot (b?g’?t) Pronunciation Keyn. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.Jed, since you called me a bigot twice, I thought I’d provide the definition, above.I have shown no intolerance, simply a strength of my convictions and beliefs. Notice that sexuality is not included in the definition, unless you include it in the term of “group.”You have shown your true colors when, unable to articulate, or argue a point as WS has, simply resort to name-calling.
Looking from this advanced age, I do think that heterosexual people should be celibate outside marriage. However, that should not be a matter of law, and as a younger man, I disagreed :-)
Marty, normal is defined by society, not by law. So when enough people decide that gay marriage is ok and they pass a law…will it then be ‘normal’ to you?
It was normal and lawful back in older days for 18 year olds to marry 12 year olds.
what society deems normal is where our laws come from. Not the other way around. And sometimes our constitution says we will protect the ‘abnormal’ too.
So…LJ…if someone loses their spouse you think it’s prudent for them to wait till marriage?
I have yet to know of a single person who has as an adult.
“or argue a point as WS has, simply resort to name-calling.”
Please post the name I have called you, Marty, or please apologize.
I have reviewed my posts and I have not called you any names.
I misunderstood your comment, Marty. So now I have to apologize.
Sorry, my bad.
Sincerely.
WS, since you asked, YES, I feel that straight people should also be celibate outside of marriage. Without wanting to start another long thread, we have too many WIC, too many children without fathers, too many broken homes, too many single mothers, etc, etc. All of this also takes a toll on our country’s assistance programs, and on our moral strength. Sex and children outside of marriage is wrong (IMHO) and while we as a charitable country want to help those in need, we should not endorse, condone, or approve of such behavior.LittleJohn,as long as the state IS in the business of granting marriages, and as long as our current laws provide for specific benefits associated with such status, then we have a valid reason to define who qualifies for what. In a representative, democratic society, we elect those in power who enact laws. Those laws often give away our tax dollars. And our Social Security dollars (technically not a tax.) We have a right to voice our opinion, exercise our political action, and vote according to our beliefs. My whole point here is that despite all the name-calling, this is about grabbing for benefits by those for whom the benefits were not designed.
Political Mom-
I just see a lot of damage done to individuals both emotionally and physically because they have entered into a sexual relationship.It is not a sate issue, or one that I even “condem” people form, i just think is celibacy is beneficial for a myriad of reasons. NOt judging anybody, not my business.
We have a right to voice our opinion, exercise our political action, and vote according to our beliefs. .
I certainly believe that, and support you doing so
Posted by: Marty | May 11, 2007 at 11:58 PM
My whole point here is that despite all the name-calling, this is about grabbing for benefits by those for whom the benefits were not designed
I don;t think they are “grabbing” for benefits. THey want equal priviledges for all.
I agree, the state, and the people through their elected officials, have the right to regulate marriages. Once again, I ask:Why should they excercise that right? The essence of that question is why Iam moving towards the “allow gay marriages. ” I have yet to hear a logical argument to disallow those marriages. The financial aspect is not a red herring, but it is not a reason either. it is an effect. The question still is, it it right or not? The cost of doing right should not be a consideration
Welcome and hello, PoliticalMom! Yes, if the laws are changed, then I’ll go along with it. I’ll know that I was out-voted, and in a democracy, I’ll support that. I will keep my views of morality, just as I have when anti-gay laws were rescinded. As I said earlier, gay behavior is no longer against the law, and people are free to do what they want. That doesn’t make me believe, according to my moral code, that it is not wrong. But it is legal, so be it.If the country ever elevates the status of gay unions to true marriage, and thus affords the same benefits, I cannot but “salute and obey.” As an advisor, I would help people clarify any entitlements to which they are afforded.However, until then, as long as I get a vote, or as long as I can financially support a candidate, I will in accordance with my beliefs.
Ack. Started this too late. I am going to bed. Night
Sorry, Marty, but I do not understand the objection to gays. They are just reacting according to their urges just like anyone else.
Why condemn them because their orientation is different from yours?
Vote to extend rights to all people.
LittleJohn, I don’t think it is a Red Herring, I think it is the crux of issue. There are plenty of churches who have gay ceremonies. They are free to rent a hall, invite guests, go on a cruise, and call themselves husband/wife/whatever.Going back to my first post, this IS about gaining benefits, which gays often charge as “rights.” It’s always about the money. Spousal benefits. A claim to an inheritance. A stay-at-home “retirement” check. Joint filing status. Common-law property. Auto insurance discounts. The list goes on and on. The common thread? The word “married.” Until they get that, they will never be happy with “civil union,” or any status less than full marriage. The laws and rules have been written for hundreds of years. One word, i.e. “married,” puts them in the claimant class they want.
What happened to “fudgepacker or muff diver”? Both would seem more appropriate..
driabyor, those slurs have fallen to a point of unacceptability. (Even by me!)An interesting side note, especially in terms of Mr Imus’s recent debacle…The word most hated by gays is “fagxxt.” Not a very nice word, indeed.Yet, listen to the Arlo Guthrie classic (1970 or so) Alice’s Restaurant. More recently, listen to Dire Straits (straights?) sing “Money for Nothin’ (I want my MTV…) and in each case you’ll hear that particular f-word.Speaking of words, the gays have one for heteros. They call us “breeders,” especially in regard to children on airplanes, in restaurants, etc. Do you realize airlines no longer offer pre-boarding to families with small children? Hmm, I wonder why? My guess is that today’s me-centered society, blended by gays, singles, yuppies, etc, no longer feel compelled to offer such a common courtesy to “those breeders.” Just a guess.
well Marty, since heteros have sex in vast numbers outside of marriage, as compared to those who abstain- then that is the ‘norm’ and that means you are not normal.
:D
Marty,”I have shown no intolerance, simply a strength of my convictions and beliefs.”
Now that’s a line I heard often back in my time in the civil rights movement, used by some of the worst racists imaginable. It’s amazing how much of that old rhetoric I hear being recycled by the RR gay-haters.Yeah, I once heard a gay person use the term “breeders,” but he was also an unpleasant person that most of the gay community didn’t put up with. More than half of my gay and lesbian friends have children of their own, so I rather doubt the term is in anything like the universal usage you imply (another tactic of the bigot; take an isolated incident and generalize it, and then blame gays for not getting preferential treatment on airplanes).Now I know you don’t think of yourself as a bigot; nobody does. Yet somehow there seems to be quite a few out there. You really ought to take a long look at your own rhetoric in the light of cold reality, and maybe, if you’re half as educated as you say you are, and have the capacity to be halfway honest with yourself, just maybe, you’ll see the bigotry written there.
Since when did airlines stop pre-boarding kids? I flew to St Louis two weeks ago, and I can guarantee you the families with kids, and anyone else who had a need, were pre-boarded.
Anyway…
Marty, I’m always fascinated when people use that old tautological argument that “since discrimination against gay people is not against the law, gay people aren’t being discriminated against.” That’s exactly the argument that radical-conservatives use to justify their horrible treatment of gay and lesbian Americans on a pretty much regular basis.
One thing you said that struck me as insanely funny was this:
“People are not accountable for the color of their skin, or the religion that their parents brought them up into.”
Since when is religion a condition of birth? Religion is a CHOICE, and one of the most fundamental choices each of us makes in our lives. To say it’s a condition of birth is utterly ridiculous. Even the Bible says that belief in Christ and God are choices.
Something else that you said wasn’t so funny at all, but was really just sad:
“If I were to just answer the “call of nature,” or my natural tendancies, I would have other affairs.”
Is it really in your “natural tendencies” to sleep around? Does your wife know this about you? Do you have to pray daily to keep your “natural tendencies” in check? Wear a chastity belt, perhaps? Marty, *MY* “natural tendencies” are to love and cherish my partner, and to honor the commitment I made to him many years ago. I’m sorry that you think the “natural tendency” for people is to just go rutting around with anyone who appears sexually available. It must be a very unhappy little world you live in.
To me, the problem is that the government forces us to enroll in and contribute to a retirement plan (social security) that does not meet the needs of many people. The example of a gay couple not getting the other’s benefits when one dies as an example.
If we were free to make our own arrangements for retirement, each person, couple, or family could make whatever arrangements suit their needs. We would be free from government coercively forcing something on us for “social good,” as one poster above remarked.
Anonymous –People not taking responsibility or were financially incapable of planning disability/retirement is one of the main reasons of the social security act.
Anon,I realize this is a difficult concept to grasp, but when your employer pays barely enough to survive on, there’s not much left to save for retirement.
I read an interesting article in this month’s Discovery magazine about research on the “gay” gene. The one thing they do know is that environment has nothing to do with sexual preference..it is most likely genetically predisposed, but probably not in the way that many think. A good read.
See today’s AP story. (reported by Fox, but it comes from AP)
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May14/0,4670,GayMarriage,00.html