Gay Marriage? How about...

[channonc 466]

Ok, I know this topic has been beaten to death, but I have been thinking a lot about this subject and just thought I would throw out some of my thoughts.

I don't understand how "marriage" is a legal term. I think that term refers to a union formed in a religious sense, such as something that you feel has been done with God, in front of God, etc. Not necessarily a Christian term, but a religious one.

So, I guess my thoughts are this... how come all "marriages" aren't considered unions to begin with and not legally referred to as marriage. I mean a straight couple can go down to city hall and sign papers, but I would consider that more of a legal union, than a marriage in the traditional sense.

I am all for gay/lesbian couples having the same legal rights as straight couples as far as benefits, wills, taxes, etc. But all of that is legal stuff, it has nothing to do with religion. So I would consider a gay/lesbian marriage something that was performed in some sort of religious setting, not just a legal one.

So I guess using this logic that has been placed into civil unions vs. gay marriage thing, why doesn't the law address it that way. That legally every couple that is "married" whether straight or gay has a legal civil union which is seperate from an actual marriage meaning, everyone has a civil union, but those who have a religious ceremony also fall into the category of marriage which isn't recognized any differently than civil unions. Why isn't the legal language all the same???

Thoughts??

[CarolinaTiger 0]

if i followed what you were saying, i think it should work just the opposite.

i agree that the term 'marriage' is a 'religious' term. in that sense, then, the gov't doesn't have a say in the matter as to whether or not 2 gays can 'marry'.

the 'civil union' thing can, indeed, be handled by the gov't.

now, this is where i was a little fuzzy on your suggestion.

if a man & woman get married in a church, they are considered by the gov't to be 'civilly unioned', with the rights thereof. if gay couples want the same 'rights thereof', then that's an issue to take up w/ the gov't. that their 'civil union' is called a marriage is not necessarily a gov't. issue, but rather a religious one.

this argument/line of reason is predicated on your view that 'marriage' is a 'church thing'.

THE EASY WAY out of this, for the gov't., is to say they will recognize civil unions for gays, with all the rights a 'married' couple possesses (talking about wills, estates, 'next-of-kin' kind of stuff here).

yet, if a gay couple wants a "church wedding", then their beef isn't w/ the gov't., it's w/ the church. and the gov't certainly isn't gonna tell a church they have to wed gay couples.

SO, i think i agree w/ you, chann...

ct

[Grumps 3,706]

I still have not formed a definite opinion on htis issue, but just let me throw out a radical idea for consideration.

Why should the government recognize marriages or civil unions at all? Maybe everyone should be a single entity as foar as government is concerned. Only one tax filing status. No required benefits by employers for anyone except the employee. No controversy over gay marriages, etc. In other words, instead of broadening the definition of marriage to include others, just eliminate marriage as a legal entity.

I'm still thinking on this one.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

good thinking outside the box, tom...i like that!

[Weagle98 119]

DrTom, How would you handle benefits from employers for spouses?

[Grumps 3,706]

DrTom, How would you handle benefits from employers for spouses?

Let me start by saying that I am married, but some of my thoughts about this started several years ago when I was single.

Weagle, first to answer your question: employers would pay benefits only to their employees, not to their spouses, kids, etc.

Yes, I know that seems scary. But employers could still arrange for employees to purchase insurance benefits for spouses and kids. If you think about it, this is more fair from an employee's point of view:

Suppose that you and I are both employed by Widgets Inc. as engineers, and we both had identical GPA's (from AU of course), rec letters, etc. and were both hired at $50,000 per year to do the same job. If you are single then Widgets Inc. may pay 1/2 of your health insurance, say $150 per month. I, on the other hand, have a wife and five kids, so Widgets Inc. pays 1/2 of my health insurance premium, say $400 per month. (MADE UP NUMBERS, MAY BE OFF-BASE)

In my example, our employee gives me $3000 per year in benefits more than he pays you, even though we were supposedly hired as equals. Should you receive less benefits just because you are single, especially when you consider that I may be out of the office more because some of my kids always need for me to take them to the doctor?

Just something to think about.

[CCTAU 3,536]

I like having sex with my dog. Why can't my dog and I have a civil union. Maybe because it is sick and un-natural. Just because people do it does not make it OK or right. And I darn sure don't have to legalize it just because they feel left out for being what most would consider abnormal.

As far as attempting to accept this, Chan, you may have what might ultimately be the governments decision. But I think if you put it to a vote, it ain't gonna happen!

[CShine 0]

Disregarding the religious angle and looking solely at the government angle, marriage is a legal contract that entitles the couple to specific legal rights, in particular, a legal claim to all assets that either person may currently have or gain in the future. Furthermore, it gives legal authority to make decisions for the other partner, for instance, in life-threatening medical situations, just to name one example. Also, in the event of the death of one spouse, it authorizes the other to continue receiving benefits earned by the other, for example, pensions.

The religious angle can be argued till doomsday, but the legal side of marriage is no small thing.

[rexbo 104]

Furthermore, it gives legal authority to make decisions for the other partner, for instance, in life-threatening medical situations, just to name one example.

This part can easily be handled with a Power of Attorney, marriage isn't required for this.

The reason for Government involvement in marriage is to strengthen the family unit, the basis of our civilized society. Once we lose the basic make up of our family unit; 1 man with 1 woman and children if they so chose, then our entire civilized society has lost its basic building block, and we will begin a long downward spiral of anarchy in all of our relationships with each other and the government. (And our pets, e.g. CCTAU's outrageous example.)

[Weagle98 119]

Interesting point DrTim. I agree that it is unfair, however I also think it is healthy for society to promote a parent staying home for several years to care of a baby. It is almost getting impossible to survive without two incomes as it is, the loss of benifits to a spouse would put even more strain on couples. But I defidently see your point.

As far as the marriage thing, I think the funniest example I have heard is, should the gov. allow sisters to marry? There is no genetic soup there. Also I think this opens up the argument for polygamy. If the government can't put restraints on what defines the couple, what gives the government the right to put restraints on the "couple" as three people. They are all consenting adults aren't they? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The only reason the line is being moved now is because there are a few who are promoting and pushing it through the courts. 5 years from now where are they going to want to move that line to? If you think this is rediculous then think, 5 years ago if gay marriage came up in the courts, what do you think would have been the outcome? Just some thoughts.

Thant being said, I have no problem with granting gay couples the right to go see each other in the hospital, or leaving their belongings to their partner after they pass away. But isn't their another way to do this without using marriage.

[channonc 466]

if i followed what you were saying, i think it should work just the opposite.

i agree that the term 'marriage' is a 'religious' term. in that sense, then, the gov't doesn't have a say in the matter as to whether or not 2 gays can 'marry'.

the 'civil union' thing can, indeed, be handled by the gov't.

now, this is where i was a little fuzzy on your suggestion.

if a man & woman get married in a church, they are considered by the gov't to be 'civilly unioned', with the rights thereof. if gay couples want the same 'rights thereof', then that's an issue to take up w/ the gov't. that their 'civil union' is called a marriage is not necessarily a gov't. issue, but rather a religious one.

this argument/line of reason is predicated on your view that 'marriage' is a 'church thing'.

THE EASY WAY out of this, for the gov't., is to say they will recognize civil unions for gays, with all the rights a 'married' couple possesses (talking about wills, estates, 'next-of-kin' kind of stuff here).

yet, if a gay couple wants a "church wedding", then their beef isn't w/ the gov't., it's w/ the church. and the gov't certainly isn't gonna tell a church they have to wed gay couples.

SO, i think i agree w/ you, chann...

ct

To maybe clear up what I was trying to say... I think the government shouldn't even recognize the word "marriage" b/c that is a religious term.

I think the government should only recognize the legal aspects of "marriage" therefore everyone legally would have a civil union-- regardless of whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. Hope that clears up what I meant.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

To maybe clear up what I was trying to say... I think the government shouldn't even recognize the word "marriage" b/c that is a religious term.

I think the government should only recognize the legal aspects of "marriage" therefore everyone legally would have a civil union-- regardless of whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. Hope that clears up what I meant.

it does, and do the extent that gays have to have the same rights as straights, i agree!

ct

[sevenDs 0]

I don't understand how "marriage" is a legal term.  I think that term refers to a union formed in a religious sense, such as something that you feel has been done with God, in front of God, etc.  Not necessarily a Christian term, but a religious one.

I've thought about this from a similar perspective. I think the religious term is "Holy Matrimony" and "Marriage" although used religiously, became the common term for a "Civil Union."

A marrigae/civil union is a legal contract. If you know much about divorce, then you know the legal aspect of marriage is different from the religious aspect.

Based on that thinking, I believe it will become legally acceptable for homosexuals to get "civilly united." The Church will decide what is recognized by God.

This will probably open a can of worms as CCTAU illustrated. But in his example, the dog would probably have to be of legal age and consenting. And from what I've seen in society, it's not good to base a marriage solely on sex.

[Tiger Al 0]

The Church will decide what is recognized by God.

It's for this reason that I think that civil unions between gays poses absolutely no threat to religion or the 'sanctity of marriage.' Good point, 70's.

[channonc 466]

Agree completely.

Legally there should be absolutely no difference b/w heterosexual married couples and homosexual ones.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

hey!

we're not all agreeing here, are we?

[Tigermike 3,715]

What happens when employers are then required to provide insurance benefits to the civil unioned/married couples? What about insurance benefits?

[Tiger Al 0]

What happens when employers are then required to provide insurance benefits to the civil unioned/married couples? What about insurance benefits?

I don't know about other employers, but everywhere I've ever worked I've had to pay for family coverage myself. I got mine free, or very discounted, but family coverage was paid by me.

[Tigermike 3,715]

What happens when employers are then required to provide insurance benefits to the civil unioned/married couples?  What about insurance benefits?

I don't know about other employers, but everywhere I've ever worked I've had to pay for family coverage myself. I got mine free, or very discounted, but family coverage was paid by me.

Did you pay the entire amount for family coverage or a discounted portion? What about death insurance? I realize we can designate a beneficiary for death benefits but if that is not specified then a husband/wife would automatically receive the benefits.

[channonc 466]

Well, there are already companies offering benefits to same-sex partners. Disney is the one I can think of off hand. I am sure there are many others.

As far as benefits are concerned, its a company's choice whether or not to even offer benefits. Regardless of what your marital status is or your sexual preference. My significant other works for a company that doesn't offer health insurance as a benefit. He was told that is purely his responsibility-- regardless of whether he was single or married.

I guess my answer is, companies are already cutting health benefits as it is-- I don't think it will be much longer before many companies don't even offer that as a benefit b/c of rising health costs-- so I don't think that will really be a debate much longer.

As far as the government requiring employers to provide benefits-- I only see that happening in the health care debate, and it being for everyone. Not just for homosexual couples, but all employees in general.

[Tigermike 3,715]

As far as the government requiring employers to provide benefits-- I only see that happening in the health care debate, and it being for everyone. Not just for homosexual couples, but all employees in general.

And who ends up paying for that? We do as tax payers and consumers.

[Tiger Al 0]

As far as the government requiring employers to provide benefits-- I only see that happening in the health care debate, and it being for everyone. Not just for homosexual couples, but all employees in general.

And who ends up paying for that? We do as tax payers and consumers.

I'm missing the point you're trying to make with this, TM.

[Tigermike 3,715]

As far as the government requiring employers to provide benefits-- I only see that happening in the health care debate, and it being for everyone. Not just for homosexual couples, but all employees in general.

And who ends up paying for that? We do as tax payers and consumers.

I'm missing the point you're trying to make with this, TM.

channonc, brought up the government requiring health care benefits. It is only logical to assume when HC is required for all workers the cost of all goods and services will go up quickly. Compared to the rest of the world the US currently has an extremely low rate of inflation. Where I stand on govt required mandatory health care is not set in stone. I change from week to week and month to month. Sometimes from thought to thought. But it will be expensive and we as taxpayers and consumers will be saddled with the bill. Also like anything the govt gets into there will be abuses.

But to get back the issue of gay marriage, I see this only as a political attempt to legitimize behavior. Let's say the govt does say gay marriage is legal and binding on all. At that point the churches are immediately put in the position of breaking the law by not acknowledging gay marriages. They are placed in the position of being labeled hate mongers (but the gays already think that don't they). Theoretically churches could be prosecuted for terrorism and hate speeches.

[channonc 466]

What happens when employers are then required to provide insurance benefits to the civil unioned/married couples? What about insurance benefits?

I was only writing in response to your questio about the what if senario. I wasn't commenting that this would definately happen.

I see your point about legitimizing behavior, but I do think that seperation of church and state is in play here. What is allowed legally doesn't necessarily have to be accepted behavior. For example, some people believe it is wrong to have sex before marriage-- however, it is still legal, but some people refuse to accept that behavior in their own families.

I guess my point is that LEGALLY these couples should have the same rights as straight couples and have the same protection under the law.

[Tiger Al 0]

channonc, brought up the government requiring health care benefits. It is only logical to assume when HC is required for all workers the cost of all goods and services will go up quickly. Compared to the rest of the world the US currently has an extremely low rate of inflation. Where I stand on govt required mandatory health care is not set in stone. I change from week to week and month to month. Sometimes from thought to thought. But it will be expensive and we as taxpayers and consumers will be saddled with the bill. Also like anything the govt gets into there will be abuses.

I still don't follow how this ties in with civil unions.

But to get back the issue of gay marriage, I see this only as a political attempt to legitimize behavior. Let's say the govt does say gay marriage is legal and binding on all. At that point the churches are immediately put in the position of breaking the law by not acknowledging gay marriages. They are placed in the position of being labeled hate mongers (but the gays already think that don't they). Theoretically churches could be prosecuted for terrorism and hate speeches.

I would suspect that the first amendment would prevent intrusion by the government from dictating what the church recognizes or doesn't based on their religious beliefs. The Catholic church doesn't get any interference from the government when it decides who should receive comunion and who shouldn't. My sister-in-law and her husband cannot receive it right now, although they are legally married.