You have not taken the time to register to this awesome forum, or you are not signed in. Registering benefits you in many ways that you will find once you have done so. This registration is NOT the same registration you may have gone through on the front page of dreamindemon.com as the forum acts independently.
Some confusion on Social Groups and Social Forums, so here are some helpful links. First off, here are all the Social Groups. These Social Groups can be turned into Social Forums. Any Bold Member can make a Social Group, but there are certain requirements for turning one into a Social Forum. You can read about those right here.
Three ThingsPolitics, Religion and Money. Forum for discussing topics that usually always end up in a flaming heap. Read this before posting!
Maybe it's because I live in Washington, a liberal state that's court ruled much differently. Maybe it's because, living in the lesbian capital of the world, I realize that these are people engaged in healthy, normal relationships who deserve, if not the same title as straight couples, at least the same benefits. Perhaps it's because, when my lesbian co-worker's partner of 15 years was dying of a terminal illness, I was witness to just how much extra despair the legal gymnastics added to an already dire situation.
I'm not sure what it is, exactly, but Michigan's Supreme Court ruling AGAINST domestic-partnership programs for public sector employees bugs the SHIT out of me. This ruling doesn't just say, "We won't force you to provide benefits," it's saying, "We won't allow you to provide benefits". In fact, its a ruling based on a ban of gay marriage voted for by god knows how many hundreds of thousands of Michigan residents.
Michigan residents: Are gay relationships such a threat to the bullshit "sanctity of marriage" you speak of that you must do one better and strip these people of the benefits provided to them by domestic-partnership policies? Are you so ignorant as to believe that, if these people aren't allowed benefits, maybe they'll just...go straight? Cease their parades? Do you think that, so long as you deny these people the same circumstances that you take for granted, they'll allow you to forget they exist? Will one of you people explain it to me? Because, I just don't see the logic.
Goddamn religious people. You suppress the liberty of others in an attempt to protect and honor your cherished institution of heterosexual marriage...The same institution you SHIT on by turning around and getting a divorce. Sometimes, I wish hell existed, just so you jackasses who oppose domestic-partnerships but turn around and get divorced or cheat on your spouses can fucking burn there.
Last edited by Athena; May 7th, 2008 at 05:15 PM.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Athena For This Useful Post:
This is just more of the same. People trying to legislate morality. People forcing their will on others.
All people deserve the same protection under the law. Denying homosexual couples these benefits is the same as granting special benefits to heterosexual couples.
Since when does being born with a trait we have no control over give us the right for special treatment?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rotten Apple For This Useful Post:
Michigan residents: Are gay relationships such a threat to the bullshit "sanctity of marriage" you speak of that you must do one better and strip these people of the benefits provided to them by domestic-partnership policies? Are you so ignorant as to believe that, if these people aren't allowed benefits, maybe they'll just...go straight? Cease their parades? Do you think that, so long as you deny these people the same circumstances that you take for granted, they'll allow you to forget they exist? Will one of you people explain it to me? Because, I just don't see the logic.
Goddamn religious people. You suppress the liberty of others in an attempt to protect and honor your cherished institution of heterosexual marriage...The same institution you SHIT on by turning around and getting a divorce. Sometimes, I wish hell existed, just so you jackasses who oppose domestic-partnerships but turn around and get divorced or cheat on your spouses can fucking burn there.
Athena, that is my favorite post of yours EVER. It just rocks from beginning to end, but the last two paragraphs are amazing, and I just thought they bore repeating.
The Following User Says Thank You to impqueen For This Useful Post:
Athena, that is my favorite post of yours EVER. It just rocks from beginning to end, but the last two paragraphs are amazing, and I just thought they bore repeating.
Gosh, Imp...That means a hell of a lot, lady. Thanks again. :o
Dakota, I'm a little old for that AND I have a pretty awesome dad who might take issue, but if you ever want to drag your peeps out this way, I'd gladly pretend. Mom died a few years ago and relations with step mom are strained, so there's definitely some room in my life for a surrogate. The sentiment is appreciated. :heart:
It just burns me, gals. I think it primarily stems from the first hand experience I've had with witnessing the difficulty measures like this cause for homosexual couples. Until just recently, I had a fantastic coworker, Ardith, whose "wife", Aileen, was dying. She required kidney dialysis and was not a transplant candidate. They were lovely people. My boyfriend and I were invited to a party at their house, once. We were the only straight couple there, and we had an absolutely fantastic time. Ardith and Aileen were intelligent, generous, unstanding individuals who loved each other dearly.
Ardith would tell me about the legal accommodations automatically granted to married couples that they had to make manually. These designations of legal power and finance were complicated and rather expensive to establish, aside from being far from foolproof. Luckily, Aileen's family was supportive of their relationship and treated Ardith like family. I can only imagine how frustrating and absolutely heartbreaking it would have been for Ardith had Aileen's family retained sole decision-making power over the health of Aileen, which happens plenty often in these relations.
I just...don't...understand. Why would we do this to people? How could the majority of voters in any given state truely believe that homosexuals deserve less than they do, simply because of their sexuality? What GOOD does it do to deny them rights? In most situations, I can at least grasp the opposing viewpoint. In this case, all I can see is stuborn ignorance.
I'm not sure what it is, exactly, but Michigan's Supreme Court ruling AGAINST domestic-partnership programs for public sector employees bugs the SHIT out of me. This ruling doesn't just say, "We won't force you to provide benefits," it's saying, "We won't allow you to provide benefits". In fact, its a ruling based on a ban of gay marriage voted for by god knows how many hundreds of thousands of Michigan residents.
The question of religion does not enter into the discussion of gay marriage. We have separation of church and state guaranteed us by the Constitution. The first amendment begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” which means Congress shall not establish/create a religion or stop you from practicing your religion.
How does this effect marriage? Simply this, the state cannot recognize marriage as a religious union. If it were to do so what would stop it from passing a law that the product of said marriage (children) must be raised Jewish, or Catholic, or Hindu. All marriages in the United States are civil unions. It doesn’t matter if you are Methodist, Presbyterian, atheist or agnostic you have the right to get married guaranteed by the ninth amendment which states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Marriage is a civil contract between two parties for the purpose of forming a partnership to unite finances, provide for children, establish a power of attorney, resolve inheritance, and a number of other things. The contract once entered into, with regard to the law, can only be dissolved by the state. Once the contract is dissolved it is no longer binding. That is why it doesn’t matter if a religion doesn’t recognize a marriage if it is not performed by the church or the parties are of different faiths, and refuses to acknowledge a divorce if the parties were married before god.
I would argue that a law denying two persons of the same gender from entering into a contract in effect renders ALL contracts between two parties of the same gender null and void. Further if two like individuals cannot enter into a contract then can two corporations enter into a contract.
The fourteenth amendment states “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I would really like to this amendment applied to this issue before the courts.
Nice points, D.A., and, although I generally agree with you, a couple of points:
1.) While religion does not enter into the conversation regarding the government's interest in and regulation of marriage, it absolutely (and unfortunately) plays into the voting populace's reasons for voting to ban gay marriage and strip domestic-partnerships of their benefits. The interest in preserving the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman is driven, largely, by religious doctrine.
2.) Technically, this is a legal dispute over a definition, not over equal rights. As any gay marriage opponent will tell you, gays have equal rights. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gay men are allowed to marry women, as defined by law and straight men are not allowed to marry other men, as defined by law. See? Equal.
My issue is that, what is equal by law is not equal in spirit. Well, actually, I've got lots of issues. Let's start off with the fact that the government has no business regulating what was established as a religious ceremony to begin with. But, if they're going to and they insist on defining marriage as they do, they've DEFINITELY got no business banning "similar" unions. This, in my opinion, oversteps the intent of legislation upholding the status quo and only acts to restrict the liberties of consenting adults...spitefully so, might I add.
The Following User Says Thank You to Athena For This Useful Post:
May 7th, 2008, 05:06 PM
Okay...Now, THIS is just fucked up.
Linear Mode
