Same-sex marriage ban wins OK

[ed-swckf]

here is an interesting question... every knows of common law marriages, right? I lived w/ a guy for 3 years. was my roomate. how would something like that be considered? are common law marriages all that common these days? I honestly don't know. do they get any legal considerations? Is there any confusion w/ someone being a roomate. How would same sex marriages change things?

Honest question, I don't know the answers... just asking.

MrH

well only about 15 states even recognise common law marriage and i think about 5 of those states stoped recognising them from particular dates. But it doesn't just happen by living with a person, you have to actual live as a couple, call each other husband or wife, check the married box on forms and file joint tax returns etc. Something to remember about common law marriages is when you are in one you are then subject to divorce. Same sex common law marriages are not recognised at the moment.

Same sex marriages would change things because all states recognise marriage. If you are married by common law in a state that allows this and then move to another state, that new state technically has to recognise that marriage. So technically if one state allows a same sex marriage, then when they move to other states those states will have to recognise that marriage.

Common law marriages are pretty uncommon by all accounts and only started in my native land because some people lived in places in which there was no one to marry them officially.

 

[Cryozombie]

Lets look at that question then.

How does it hurt YOU at all if one man murders another? How does it hurt YOU if one man steals from another? How does it hurt YOU if a man rapes a woman? how does it hurt YOU if some guy starts smoking crack.

MrH

All of that Depends, an example is theft, look at the % of markup on retail goods that is designed to cover anticipated theft, same with insurance rates, we all pay that. Besides, the difference between those examples and the gay marriage example is that Two men/women marrying has no effect on anyone but themselves... The others are "crimes" with unwilling victims... so if you are the victim it can effect you directly.

Crack? It doesnt hurt me if someone smokes crack, which is why I dont support the war on drugs.

 

[mrhnau]

I read the thread, my statement stands.

Did not say it would answer your statements, just that its been discussed quite a bit. Pretty much to the point of agreeing to disagree and thats ok...

MrH

 

[ed-swckf]

All of that Depends, an example is theft, look at the % of markup on retail goods that is designed to cover anticipated theft, same with insurance rates, we all pay that. Besides, the difference between those examples and the gay marriage example is that Two men/women marrying has no effect on anyone but themselves... The others are "crimes" with unwilling victims... so if you are the victim it can effect you directly.

Crack? It doesnt hurt me if someone smokes crack, which is why I dont support the war on drugs.

Why don't you support the war on drugs when it will effect you financially when goods are stolen to feed habbits. Are you happy paying for the anticipated theft mark up that hurts you finacially?

 

[mrhnau]

Depends who is murdered. If that man is my brother, my father my friend or my son, or me, it could hurt me deeply. Rape, same thing. Theft can hurt ME financially, even if I am not the one being stolen from, (look at the % of markup on retail goods that is designed to cover anticipated theft, same with insurance rates) The difference between those examples and the gay marriage example is that Two men/women marrying has no effect on anyone but themselves... The others are "crimes" with unwilling victims.

Crack? It doesnt hurt me if someone smokes crack, which is why I dont support the war on drugs.

point taken regarding "crimes" with victims. This is why I added polygamy and child marriages. Care to respond to those? Are you endorsing such activities? When enough people start doing them, would you endorse it then?

MrH

 

[Cryozombie]

Why don't you support the war on drugs when it will effect you financially when goods are stolen to feed habbits. Are you happy paying for the anticipated theft mark up that hurts you finacially?

Irrelevant, THEFT is THEFT if it is done to support buying drugs or not. The Crime would be the THEFT.

 

[Cryozombie]

point taken regarding "crimes" with victims. This is why I added polygamy and child marriages. Care to respond to those? Are you endorsing such activities? When enough people start doing them, would you endorse it then?

MrH

Well, let me ask... if those people agree to those types of marriages, are they wrong? If 2,3, or 6 men or women CHOOSE to share a common spouse, should YOU be able to tell them they cannot?

As far as "child marriages" go, the age for this varies from state to state, country to country, so it is difficult to define.

 

[ed-swckf]

Irrelevant, THEFT is THEFT if it is done to support buying drugs or not. The Crime would be the THEFT.

Yes the crime would be theft, but the point is the majority of shoplifting is done to support habbits. If you are against theft why are you not supporting an inititive that would hopefully stop this theft that effects you financially? Its actually very relevent.

 

[Cryozombie]

but the point is the majority of shoplifting is done to support habbits.

Really?

Care to cite reliable sources for this? I worked retail for YEARS in both Management AND Loss Prevention... and from experience Id disagree with that statement.

But lets suppose for a moment you are correct... if drugs were not illegal, they might be affordable, and therefore require less theft to obtain, no?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Y'all are tangenting, and badly.

Same gender marriages have NOTHING to do with crime, bestiality, child abuse or drugs. Well, no more and no less than opposite gender marriages do.

If you are worried about child molestation, lets abolish the Catholic Church (Seems there have been more Priests accused of molestation than gay men)

If you are worried about theft, lets abolish the police (seems I've seen a few articles about them abusing things)

Etc.

The argument that "Well you can pick" is nice.
Interestingly enough, until recently if I decided to pick a non-white woman as a partner, both of us would get some serious grief. In fact, in some parts of the US, we still would. Laws were on the books, in some places until the late 1970's against such unions. Now, I can pick whichever hue I like.

There were laws on the books denying the union of 2 people from differing religions. Goddess help the Jew who wanted to marry a Gentile.

Thankfully, we have moved beyond that level of stupidity.

I see nothing different between 2 men wanting to marry, than I do a black and a white, or a Jew and a Christian wanting to marry.


Then again, maybe we should return marriage back to it's roots.
- Your parents made the arrangements, not you.
- You married to solidify family unions, and political alliances. Not for Love.
- Women get no say in the matter. In fact, Lets make women property again.
- While we're at it, lets return to stoning those who commit adultery, and have sex outside of marriage.

Church Law and Civil Law are 2 different things. The Church has been making laws for 2,000 years.

 

[Cryozombie]

Then again, maybe we should return marriage back to it's roots.

- Women get no say in the matter.

That works for me. But only if I can pick her.

 

[Sarah]

This is what we have in New Zealand:

Civil Unions

The Civil Union Bill proposes a new type of relationship model for New Zealand. It will grant registered civil union couples recognition and relationship rights which are equal to those granted through marriage. For the first time ever, it will enable same-sex couples access to full legal equality. Thousands of different-sex and same-sex couples are waiting for an alternative to marriage that will provide them with protections and security under the law.
Two countries, the Netherlands and Belgium, have legislated for same-sex marriages, and other jurisdictions are moving towards this, or are being required to do so by their Courts. The New Zealand government has decided not to take this approach.
Many other governments have decided to introduce civil unions or civil partnerships. The New Zealand government has introduced two bills - the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill (sometimes known as the Omnibus Bill).
The Civil Union Bill establishes a new form of legal relationship that will enable same-sex and different sex couples to solemnise and register their relationship. Although the Bill is a government Bill in the name of the Associate Minister of Justice Hon David Benson-Pope, it will be a conscience vote in Parliament. The intention is that civil unions will be a new legal entity, designed for the needs of couples in the 21st century.
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill amends hundreds of individual Acts and regulations to recognise civil unions and de facto relationships, so that neutral laws on relationships apply (unless there are grounds for justified discrimination under the BOR Act). This bill is also a Government Bill, and will also be a conscience vote.
What will change?

• A greater level of consistency in the way New Zealand laws treat people in different forms of relationship will be achieved;
• A new legal relationship, civil union, will be established that recognises the diversity of relationships and enables loving and committed couples to formalise their relationship without getting married;
• The sense of social injustice experienced by same-sex couples, who are treated as "legal strangers" will be addressed;
• The risk of legal challenge on the basis of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993 will be reduced; and
• New Zealand will join other national and regional states that have legislated for the recognition of same-sex and de facto relationships.

Marriage will not change

• Marriage will continue to be covered by a separate Act and recognised as a separate institution. That Act will not be amended.
• The social, religious and traditional values associated with marriage will remain.

 

[ed-swckf]

Really?

Care to cite reliable sources for this? I worked retail for YEARS in both Management AND Loss Prevention... and from experience Id disagree with that statement.

But lets suppose for a moment you are correct... if drugs were not illegal, they might be affordable, and therefore require less theft to obtain, no?

Yeah really, at least in the UK, i can supply with sources for that http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1904.pdf
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041102/text/41102w14.htm
but its hard as once you arrest someone for shoplifting figures can't easily show that they are also supporting a habbit. You will have to take my word for it more than anything that at least here the majority of shoplifting crime is done by addicts and users. If its different there then excuse me, i don't mean to tell you different, i have never worked in american retail. However it does shock me that you say it is different, i mean all i can think of is employee crime being higher but generally figures record that as a seperate figure from shoplifting.

So exactly why would you disagree with the statement? What makes up the majority of retail crime in your opinion? Or on what sources have you based your opinion?

Yeah drugs might be more affordable but drugs like alcohol play an even bigger role in crime on the whole so personally i would go the other way. However i'm glad you answered my question as to why you weren't for the war on drugs, as there is a **** load of drug related crime that hopefully your way of thinking will eliminate. Personally i despise all drugs and want rid of them all.

 

[Kane]

I knew this thread was going to turn back onto the topic of religion. You know there are people in the world who are against same-sex marriage for reasons other than religion. I know the Bible is a very pushy book, that tells you to do something and says you will go to hell if you do not do it. Does that mean you have to assume everything that goes against the Bible as free-thinking? I guess humans are humans, and most likelly in the end the Bible will end up destroying morality. More people will get annoyed with anything it says an try to go against. To me, I take religion for what it is worth. I think the Bible teaches some good things and some bad things, but for one moment I would never dismiss anything just because its in religion.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the whole idea of two different genders coming together is the whole idea of marriage! I don't know why some people can't figure this out! I understand what smoe of you who are for same-sex marriage are trying to say, but everything can't be your way. At the same time everything can't be the conservatives way which is why this needs to be decided on a centrist fashion! Make a new union, give the same rights as straight couples but call it something different and don't equate the two. Both unions will be considered equal but different. That way everyone will be happy, or at least one group will be as happy as the other and vice versa.

We can apply the same logic to any other situation. Abortion for example can be legal up to 4.5 months as it is the midway in most cases between conception and birth. That way the argument for killing fetus/babies and a woman's right to choose will be balanced.

But of course everyone here wants it there way or the high way, which is why there are so many troubles in the world! No one wants to solve things so that both interest groups are happy and because of this selfish desire (no matter how much you think it will do good) we have more and more conflicts!

 

[Sarah]

Im thinking if you called it a Civil Union like we have here and take away the "marriage" argument, you will still have people that don’t like the idea of gay people being together getting there knickers in a twist over it, they will just come up with some more strange reason why it shouldn’t happen!

 

[arnisador]

Why don't you support the war on drugs when it will effect you financially when goods are stolen to feed habbits. Are you happy paying for the anticipated theft mark up that hurts you finacially?

Thanks to meth, this is a huge problem where we live in rural Indiana.

 

[Flying Crane]

A person can be born black, but they sure as hell aren't born gay.

Actually, based on the numerous conversations I have had with the numerous gay people who I know, I would say people are born gay. Societal norms often force them to live in denial so it sometimes takes years before they can deal with the fact and get some kind of resolution to the issues that go along with this, but my friends tell me that for as long back as they can remember, from the time they were too young to even understand what sex is, they have been attracted to members of the same sex.

I am no expert on homosexuality, but I do live and work in San Francisco, and I know and work with many homosexuals.

 

[Sarah]

Actually, based on the numerous conversations I have had with the numerous gay people who I know, I would say people are born gay. Societal norms often force them to live in denial so it sometimes takes years before they can deal with the fact and get some kind of resolution to the issues that go along with this, but my friends tell me that for as long back as they can remember, from the time they were too young to even understand what sex is, they have been attracted to members of the same sex.

I would think if one had the 'choice' they would choose to be straight, it would make life a whole lot eaiser.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Seperate but Equal was struck down in the US in the 60's.

The religious argument is a crock. I'm sorry, you can argue that the Christian Bible says something, but before anyone gets all pious, let me ask if you yourself truely follow what that book says. If you don't, then please don't pick and choose. (Remember, dealing with women or stuff touched by a women who has her 'monthly friend' can render you unclean. LEVITICUS 15:19-33)

As to the supposed history of "Mariage" Heres some information:
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
The idea of love is a fairly recent addition. As I said, many marriages were pre-arranged, and often between total strangers, sometimes for economic, political or social reasons.

I still think the Canadians have it right.
Give the people the right, allow them the benifits, yet allow the various "churches" to decide for themselves if they wil do the ceremony. If the Catholics won't, maybe the Episcopalians will, etc.

 

[Flying Crane]

I would think if one had the 'choice' they would choose to be straight, it would make life a whole lot eaiser.

damn straight!! (no pun intended. well, ok, pun intended!)

seriously, yeah. why would someone choose to be ridiculed and hated by a huge group of society? people are gay because that is how they are. If you believe in God, then God made them gay.