Kat

Anyone who has been following these issues from the start(as I have)know this has little to do with gays and alot to do with how this country is dealing with this issue.I have never in my life seen any bills so powerful that both local and state government feel like they should pass these bills regardless of how the voters feel.It seems to me it wouldn't matter if 100% of the voters in the United states voted against it,the governers would pass it anyways(as they have been doing).Many,many,people see this less as a gay issue and more of a small group of people...

1.)Refusing to accept the wills of the voters.They not only don't accept it,they scream bloody murder and sue over and over again.Anyone agaist them is labeled a racist and homophobe.They make the voters feel guilty and victimised.

2.)They demand we accept their lifestyle.Never in our countries history has such a group of people demanded that we accept every thing they do from sexual education to having the right to go in what ever locker room they choose depending on what sex they want to be that day.

3.)They constantly complain about equal rights yet sue and threaten to have special rights.

4.)They have the government in their pocket.Anything the gays want the government backs them up full force.Once again show me a group of people in our countries history that has such support.

Wiki:

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[26][27] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[28] This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding;[26] if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.

AHA!!! I KNEW IT....it's the French's fault

2.)They demand we accept their lifestyle.Never in our countries history has such a group of people demanded that we accept every thing they do from sexual education to having the right to go in what ever locker room they choose depending on what sex they want to be that day. =========================
=========================================

Oh yeah??? Ever sit down and talk with an American Indian?? One that has memories and tales from their tribal fathers and mothers?

Kat

Hmmm. I always thought that me being in a locker room protects the girl from seeing me and losing her control.

If she wants to try her luck, she's welcome to take a look, any day she decides to enter my locker room.

What's the big deal?

I said this in a lot less words!

It's not really all that hard. History is pretty clear. Anthropologists have found evidence of marriage ever since the end of the Neolithic period. A study of history, since that time, indicated that 'men' used marriage as a means of gaining wealth as women were highly prized things to have, especially those who were the most furtile and produced the most and healthiest babies.

Later political structures used marriage as a means for taxation, and eventually when the Western world and religion developed side by side, political structures were happy to gain access to well kept registries of the Church, to control the people by mainting class structures, like keeping surfs in perpetual surfdom and again for taxation purposes. Sometime in the 1600's laws began to appear with regards to 'marriage'. Many of these 'common' laws were then brought into early American Politics.

And thus America retained the first laws, related to marriage, regarding inheritance and benefactors for trusts and such things. While this had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with religion - at some point Christians "believed" these laws were supportive of religious beliefs.

So Yellowrose - THAT is how any discussion of marriage, in the U.S., involves the Christian faction, THEY put it there. To some Christians marriage is not only part of American law but IT IS AS PRESCRIBED in the Bible.

The truth is that marriage in the U.S. is a secular contract between the STATE and the parties who are jointly signing the agreement. In Religion, the marriage contract is between God, and the parties making the agreement.

But the greatest majority of Christians in this country, don't seem to believe that.

So when any discussion about the legalities of same-sex marriage is brought up, naturaly religion will be too, or there would be no question to discuss. Legally, according to the Constitution, there would be no reason to deny marriage to any TWO, otherwise legal entities. Of course DOMA "Defense of Marriage Act" began the whole idea that the words in our legal code should be changed AND THAT is what is being challenged.

The American public did not have the opportunity to vote on DOMA it was simply initiated at the top level.

BUT NOW - people are forced to FIGHT for a right that WAS originally guanteed under the law for centuries. And who is the fight with? Christians who would oppose changing the words, as conceptualized under DOMA by a single hand.

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I can tell you the greatest offence was to EVERY AMERICAN who accepted DOMA, because THEY have accepted the heavy handed power of a DICTATORSHIP. I, personally, think it's hypocritical that so many Christians fight to keep a DICTATED law, but still look to the Constitution of a representitive republic to protect their right to worship as they please.
PROTECTION under a Constitutional, representitive republic, can not be a one way street, only a dictatorship works that way.

But you didn't say, "adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts".

Once again?
less words?




It's really hard to say where the Gov became involved.
Little by little?????

It's crazy how, most of the people I know are either divorced or going through divorce. Marriage scares the hell out of me.

In this day and age marriage is useless and unneeded unless,
it has a religious meaning.

One could get the same legal rights through
power of attorney and a will,
except tax-breaks.

Tax-breaks that IMO
are unfair and discriminatory
to single people,

Just as tax-breaks given for children.

Maybe when your 8 year old in undressing alone in her locker room and some cross dressing pervert removes all of his clothes and walks around nude.

My point exactly...why worry about others gatting married when most can't even get it right?

Marriage scares the hell out of me as well. It will be hard finding someone to fill the shoes of the wonderful two husbands I had. Then there is the guy that made me fear it. Not to mention the reality of so many that take it for granted. Or use it for a means.

If gay people want to marry...then there will be equal hell for all. Because if it doen't work out...they will have the same crap to go through as straight people.

Marriage isn't fair. Just ask most women that lose it all. Then just ask any man that has lost it all. I am beginning to talk myself out of liking marriage. Damn.

Kat

I found this:

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
+joint parenting;
+joint adoption;
+joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
+status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
+joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
+dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
+immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
+inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
+joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
+inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
+benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
+spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
+veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
+joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
+wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
+bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
+decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
+crime victims' recovery benefits;
+loss of consortium tort benefits;
+domestic violence protection orders;
+judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
+and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.


I'm for marriage for other reasons too - emotional and societal.

Eight-year-olds don't have locker rooms.

And male cross dressers don't go in ladies' locker rooms.

The church orginally kept registries as means to support taxation for whatever political structure they were working with. If the people could be taxed, there was less chance of taxation falling on the shoulders of the Church. Another reason was specifically "racial". As the Church did not sanction Christian marriage unless both parties were 'Christian' or converted to Christianity, this assured that children of the couple would be Christians as well. ALSO, there was often a "gratuitous" fee involved for the services the Church provided.

It was the state that changed the regulations of marriage, no longer wanting to recognize common law marriage. There were so many situation in which, separations resulted in one persons word over the other, like where the children bastards, who should get what in the separation, who inherits and so on. But since the church and the political structure saw so intertwined at that time, the political hirarchy forced the church to demand that thier followers be married by a priest and in the sight of two other witnesses. So the church declared it a sin to live out of "wedlock". And since the 'state' religion was Christianity, everyone 'married' in a church so as not to be fined (a special tax) for not conforming to the state religion.

This is part of the history of the western world which our founding fathers were fleeing - unfortunately, it seems to be the reason so many Christians feel American law must have also intertwined Christianity into its fabric. A little misconception that feeds a self-serving bias on a huge level.

Why dont the gays call it something other than marriage?You know how fast that bill would be passed if they would just call it something other than marriage?Civil unions is a great example.Gays have all the same benifits as married couples through civil unions.This is legal in nearly every state.I think this is more about the gays wanting to strike a blow to Christianity.