Marriage and the State

The only thing I have to say on this topic is that the government should have nothing to do with my relationships, period. I plan on having a wedding one day, yes, but I will never get "married", because I think it's preposterous to shell out $60 just so that the government accepts my marriage. And especially as long as same-sex marriages are illegal in my state, I will not be paying them to acknowledge my heterosexual partnership because I see absolutely no difference between our union and the union of two women or two men. Marriage is a religious/spiritual ceremony, separation of church and state was what our country was founded on.

 

Kinky, I don't want to marry you, but how do you feel about muff divers? I can lick my eyebrows in the dark.

 

Larger units will happen, and are happening.

Small broken units where a response to people suddenly having the ability to travel, as people (or many of them) naturally do want to do. Everyone wants to find their own place, has their own taste, etc. But since the internet, family works with more distance, you can go get your job, or move to your dream city, or whatever, and be active in your family's day to day life, and many people are.

Much as I hate facebook (and it didn't do anything, it just made it bigger and stole the market) it's quite amazing. Now I'm waiting for non evil social networking. Something run by people with scruples.

 

The greatest problem I have with same sex unions is that it requires redefining words of our language. A new word would be preferable. As I have to deal with several languages it becomes more difficult to communicate when words are redefined requiring them to be explained when used as they no longer have the same single equivalent word in another language they once did.

 

so because you don't want to explain the redefinition of a word, there must be a new word for homosexuals that want to create a contract???

 

I can live with 'contract'.

All of the languages I deal with, and people Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or Atheist accept the following definition of marriage without any further explanation.

1. To unite in wedlock or matrimony; to join a man and woman for life, and constitute them man and wife according to the laws or customs of a nation. By the laws, ordained clergymen have a right to marry persons within certain limits prescribed.

3. To take for husband or wife. We say, a man marries a woman; or a woman marries a man. The first was the original sense,but both are now well authorized.

 

I went back to the original post to find out what this thread was all about. Sometimes by the time you get to the latter posts it's hard to figure out the topic. Personally I have no issues with same-sex marriages. If someone wants to commit their life to another, what more beautiful way than to document it and announce it publicly. Maybe that's just my opinion, but nobody's forcing a couple (same sex or otherwise) to get married. It's a choice.

I'm not over the top religious, but I have my beliefs. In the spirit of separation of chuch and state, I don't think churches should be required to perform same sex marriages. The debates I've read have never tried to force that point. Rather, the unions are civil ceremonies only, which I'm fine with. If people don't like it, they don't have to participate, but I think it should be available as a civil ceremony option.

As far as marriage in general, I never thought I'd say this, but I think it's great! I was tainted toward it during my college years and threafter. I felt like spoiled goods. Once I found the right guy, I was afraid he'd never ask. I was so happy when he proposed. :love: Ours was a religious ceremony, but not all have religious beliefs. A civil ceremony option should be available.

 

This reflects my feelings on the matter personally. If I love my woman and want to spend the rest of my life with her, what business is that of anyone else's?

Holy crap, that is absolutely batshit. I had no idea government could be so ridiculously rigid and bureaucr.. hey, wait, no, I knew that already, I just didn't know of this specific example.

I feel for ya man, that is beyond stupid, I don't even know how it is in my own country, but hopefully it's not as bad as this.

I wonder, would the state of texas recognize a marriage certificate from another country/state, or would you still have to pay to be legally considered married in the state? I know that if I were to get married in another country, that contract would not be legally binding in my own country, nor would I get the benefits of marriage.

Personally, I never saw any good reason to get married. If I love someone and they love me, that is good enough for me, I don't need to sign a piece of paper to committ, my word is my bond, and my love would know that. I would want to stay with them on my own terms, not because I was obligated by law.

But should something go wrong, in case of injury or whatever, if you are simply living with someone and sharing a child, you have no legal rights to, say, visit them in hospital,and if you ARE married, you get those tax exemptions as previously mentioned. It's for those reasons I've later reconsidered my stance and could now consider marriage. Purely a matter of practicality, to conform to a rigid system that I don't even believe in, but nevertheless that system has the power to make my life very difficult.

 

You know, I forgot about that little detail. I worked with a couple who had just gotten married before they transferred to my store because of the child support issue. She had their son before they were married, so the state started taking child support out of his checks. Yeah, the money would eventually come back to them when the government decided to send it to Shannon, but for two weeks or so they'd have to go without because they were waiting on that check to come back. With three kids and when you both work minimum wage jobs, you tend to live paycheck to paycheck, so getting that money taken out right away to be returned whenever the government felt like it really hurt them. They were going to get married when they could afford a ceremony, but they instead had to opt for a quick meeting at the courthouse before having to be at work that evening. That's not how a wedding should be if you don't want it to be, and it's fucked up that Texas is like that. I guess I'll just have to plan on having a lawyer around with my first child because I'll put a stop to that shit in my life if at all possible. I'm sorry you have to be fucked over by it, that's really fucked up.

 

Constitutionally, yes the state would have to recognize those contracts. Thank goodness for the Interstate Commerce Clause. The states would inevitably try to fight recognizing these marriages, and it would become a Supreme Court case.

 

The greatest problem I have with those against same sex marriages is they can never say out loud what their biggest problem with it is.

You expect anyone to believe its cos you dont want a few extra words added to our always expanding language?

 

While you can obviously not hear my spoken words, allow the text to suffice. I've not said I have anything against same sex couples. Consensual activities between others which have nothing to do with me is their business alone.

On the contrary, I'm all for new words added to the language, which enhance our abilities to communicate more efficiently and clearly with one another. Expanding definitions is not the same as expanding our language. Words, like laws should be defined both clearly and concisely which allows us to communicate with less misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

But there will always be those who are incapable of understanding words and waste time looking for some hidden meaning even when none exists.

 

Okay, I'll say out loud what bothers me about same sex marriages.

To call them marriages is to change thousands years of what the word means.

Since no word exists for same sex couples that want to be publicly recognized by others as being joined together, why not just come up with a new word rather than just force fitting a word that does not apply?

What is it, do same sex couples have no imagination?

I mean why not call it something like joined. Then you could say I'm joined and no one would misunderstand or you could say come to my joining and no one would misunderstand. Or perhaps the word mate and you could say I'm mated or come to my mating ceremony.

When the word marriage is used the immediate picture that comes to mind, for most people from thousands of years of how the word is used, is a man and a women. Whereas words like joining and mating have no such built in "picture" that would lead to such misunderstandings.

 

"marriage" does mean "joined". every word means different things in different settings and contexts.

 

One solution might be the creation of an additional tax on married couples, and work provided insurance only at an additional cost for ones spouse.

 

They may mean the same thing but as I pointed out the connotation of the word marriage, because of previous usage, pulls up a picture of a man and a woman, which the word joined does not.

 

Semantics? Come on, no one is going to believe that excuse anyway

 

Okay.... So not arguing with the posters in this thread who say they don't like changing the definition, there's a simple solution:

Call it gay marriage. Write that on the certificate. Call it gaarriage. I don't care. But give them the same legal benefits and recognition.

Problem solved? Somehow, I don't think so, and I don't think this would please the big opponents of it.

 

Is the motivation behind this simply to acquire the benefits given a man and a woman who are married?

 

To acquire the same benefits (which are many-including legal benefits in regards to estates, say-so over medical choices, and all sorts of misc. benefits, such as being able to apply for family housing at a college/university)

And the same social status and legitimacy, which includes equal respect for their civil union, and family/friends/others understanding them to be in that sort of situation, where they would cause their separation to require a large amount of painful expensive legal work.

So, yes. They want the same benefits as heterosexual couples, because they have the same sort of relationship, excluding the fact that they're incapable of having children in a biologically straightforward manner. (as, indeed, are many heterosexual couples)