Public support solidly for gay marriage

Most of the governments involvement in marriage is financially based, so why would it be any different in regards to same sex marriage?
Any one can create a will, but the family can, and has taken those wills to court, and won based on being legal family. Marriage makes your spouse legal family. Also a will does not prevent you from being taxed on the estate that two partners created together, only marriage can do that.

Anyone can get a restraining order, but they are not the same as domestic violence laws.
I have never heard of a spouse being denied survivor benefits, unless they remarry.

I honestly do not understand people wanting to deny equal rights to all citizens on the US.
I personally think that marriage is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults. I don't think that it is my place to tell any adult how to live as long as they are harming anyone. Polygamy is fine with me to, but has it's own legal issues that would have to be sorted out first.

I live my life, I don't feel the need to force anyone to live the way I think they should.

 

The 30 states that passed amendments to their state constitutions are the ones that redefined marriage.

Gay marriage will be legal in the majority of states before you die Grok.

 

The will must have been flawed or maybe someone was in another's pocket.

I understand your desire, but you are looking to change a long standing custom/right in pursuit of wealth, property and other benefits. Still you would limit participation in that custom/right, for now at least to adults. But that (adult) has been defined at different age thresholds even in our country. Maybe you could be persuaded to include emancipated minors? But what of those, be it due to love or money, who would wish to marry someone or something your rule would prohibit?

Maybe there is another way to those 1400 circumstances? Obamacare didn't change healthcare insurance for those without insurance it changed healthcare for everyone who had private insurance. Why wasn't a program designed instead to address the specific problem for those who needed health insurance instead of impacting the plans of those who already had insurance? I know there is another agenda at work in this particular government move but I digress.

The tail wags the dog. I see this marriage definition issue in the same light. So if there is another way to acquire the cited and partially posted 1400 (I didn't read beyond your posted list and hope I'm not gonna be shocked by a "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" type of moment) could that satisfy the need of those pursuing this change?

 

How did the fluke pass the first time? What makes you believe voters would reject it for the first time? Is it because it is only old folks who have since died off or would not vote again that supported it?

 

Infertile heterosexuals can not reproduce with each other. Whats the point???

In the case of civil marriage....REPRODUCTION doesn't matter at all.

 

Legally, marriage is only about wealth, property, and other benefits. There is no way for the government to quantify love.
The age of consent applies to all legal contracts. And age of consent laws are in place to protect children. If you want to open up the age of consent and allow possible harm to children, I will stand against you every step of the way. We have age restrictions on many government laws. Drivers licenses, voting age, drinking age. But this is the only government law that discriminates based on the gender of participants. Isn't discrimination based on gender in the constitution?

There may be another way, but separate but equal has been shown to not work. Even in NJ that allowed civil unions that were supposed to be equal they never were. Fiscally it makes no sense to have two separate licenses for the same thing.
Think of this, we can change one license, or we can change every document that has a box for marital status, and every law that pertains to marital status. Which would make better financial sense?

 

I may have been unclear, my apology, my question was inspired by your (now emboldened and resized by me for clarity) declaration.

But we can now both agree that it is the heterosexual expression of sexual intercourse that a homosexual can participate in that can result in children? So your declaration makes sense in that light. But this just cannot be done with one's own homosexual partner and expect a child to be conceived.

 

The point is that being homosexual does not mean you are sterile. You can choose to reproduce by the same means that many heterosexuals do.

 

What you see as gender I see as behavior. Discrimination is not a dirty word. You discriminate between the sexes, choosing to behave in a very specific way. So do I. Why does the custom/right of marriage need to be changed? Why not look to another word that can be accepted as a legal term defining a homosexual coupling with 1400 benefits? Again please let me reserve a final look-see cause I really don't know what they are. Btw I do know that a number of married people do file tax forms separately.

I believe that behavior is at the source of our discussion not male or female (at least for me). If either of us saw the other what are the odds that we could correctly guess the other's sexual behavior or care to? I would most certainly recognize you as an American woman with every right and courtesy that status affords you as a woman, plus I would open doors for you .

I am for everyone's right to a free will in this country and abroad. I am sympathetic to the human condition and the need you have for those 1400 circumstances but I am not inclined to support redefining marriage as a means to that end. I am just being honest. I've enjoyed our exchange of views. If you and your mate sat with or near me and were open to share in a conversation I would have no hesitation in sharing time with the both of you on subjects of mutual interest.

I was raised with rules. In the military deviating from certain rules (orders) at particular times can cost someone their life (and unfortunately true even when following orders). I see the value in rules. I am an aspiring Christian and draw on my training in relating to others with the Golden Rule as Christ gave it in my earthly relationships. I suspect I would instantly like you if we met due to your obvious humanity and honesty.

Besides I like wolves WolfsGirl . An acquaintance of mine had one (90% wolf and 10% dog I believe) it was powerful, it was huge. I playfully wrestled with it once, a worthy competitor-didn't completely trust it though. We had an alpha thing going on. Sadly it was not destined for human contact for very long, started looking at his children as something other than children and had to be given to a place that took in creatures of his nature...kinda sad but as a failed attempt at domestication of a wild breed it was the best alternative for the wolf. Do love and see the majesty of God's Creation.

Again thanks for sharing.

 

No I am speaking of discrimination based on gender.
A man can enter into a marriage contract with a woman, but a woman is not allowed to enter into a marriage contract with a woman.
In this country I thought discrimination based on gender was not allowed.

I agree on wolves, beautiful creatures, but not meant to be kept in captivity. I have the next best things, a partner whose last name is wolf, and a husky/shepard mix that looks like a wolf.

We may never see eye to eye on the issue of civil marriage laws, but at least you were civil. Thank you.

 

...but they aren't their own...



Kabuki Joe

 

So the child I gave birth to, using an anonymous sperm donor is not mine?
How about hetero couples who use sperm donors, or surrogates are their children not theirs either?

 

...pedofiles have children too...



Kabuki

 

...so the will of the people doen't really matter and somehow, in certain instances, you don't care...


Kabuki Joe

 

...majority of Californians are brown hispanic and catholic...they keep growing in numbers and will never be accepting of the gay agenda...



Kabuki Joe

 

...is your female partner the sire?...



Kabuki Joe

 

Is a heterosexual person who uses sperm donors the sire?

 

That discrimination is visibly evident at most public restrooms.

Didn't think a domesticated wolf was a good idea.

Imagine your dog to be very pretty. Had a purebred German Shepherd named Sergeant. He was very protective of women and children...if a baby moaned or cooed in their sleep he would bring the child's mother to the crib to check on the baby's status. Most adult human males were considered intruders until proven otherwise and that was his nature not due to training.

Maybe if we could find another word for contracts between homosexuals what you wish for can come to pass?

 

Why not have the government have civil union licenses for everyone, and churches can have marriage. If you want a legally recognized union you go to the state. If you want a "marriage" go to the church, but this will not be recognized by the government. If you want a legally recognized union and a marriage you can do both.

 

...nope, otherwise there would be no need for a donor...



Kabuki Joe

 

Sorry just saw this as I was reviewing the thread. In a biological sense the point is that a man and woman's very specific contribution is needed and lacking that, human conception will not happen. My post is limited to this specifc statement.

 

Exactly. Homosexuals can, and do reproduce using the same methods that some heterosexual couples use.

 

And some married heterosexual couples can not reproduce together yet they are not denied marriage.

 

...I agree with this...but let's get to the real issue, no matter what piece of paper you get, you won't be part of the club...and that's the real issue here, your silly idea that a piece of paper will make everything go away...like all of a sudden the clouds will part and "Buff and Biffy" will say, "hey, let's invite that gay couple over for a BBQ after church on Sunday"...no, it ain't gonna happen, you still be "alternative"...until you guys accept yourselves, no one else will...


Kabuki Joe

 

I'm not gay but I am going to poon a dude in his behymen just to upset conservatives.