Gender Equality in Marriage Contracts: Geographical Disparities

Well, if you define "legally" as including all the government benefits and tax breaks of a marriage certificate, yes. Defining "legally" as not prohibited by the law, no. Generally "legally" refers to not being prohibited by the law.

 

How many of the worlds major religions think gay marriage is exceptible and normal versus how many think it is a sin and abnormal?

 

I'd consider giving precedence to winning more respect and dignity for gays, over the well being of children a regression of society.

 

So you agree gay couples couldn't legally marry at one time in the US.

 

I'll be sure to let them know that some guy named Rahl on the internet says you aren't married. And tell a few heterosexual couples I know that were never issued a marriage certificate , that consider themselves to be married, that they are not.

 

legal
adjective

1. permitted by law; lawful:

No. They just didn't get the tax breaks and government entitlements one gets with a marriage certificate.

 

but it's not ME who is telling them that. The government said they weren't married.

ok. you are correct. they are not married either.

 

Ah but legally married couples get more than that. Clearly you aren't married. There are legal decision-making benefits, health insurance benefits, leave benefits to name a few.

 

They would probably reply that they didn't give a **** what the government thinks. And one of the heterosexual couples would say that in the eyes of the Lord they are married and that's all that matters, while not giving a **** about what the government thinks.

 

Let me rephrase. NO! They just didn't get the tax breaks, legal decision-making benefits, health insurance benefits, leave benefits and government entitlements one gets with a marriage certificate.

 

and same sex couples were prohibited by law from marrying, as I showed you.

 

and that of course isn't happening here, so your concerns are unwarranted.

 

All things that hetero legally married couples got to enjoy and gay couples didn't prior to legalizing gay marriage.

 

which doesn't have any relevance to the fact that they weren't married.

and what they think is just as meaningless. No license, no marriage.

 

All the public policy/welfare reasons for the state being involved in marriage are long gone. What remains is "who gets to benefit from archaic, discriminatory policies favoring marrieds?"

As such, the state should remove itself from the institution of marriage entirely and function simply as an insurer of the rights of offspring of whomever, married or unmarried. Any discriminatory benefits or detriments for or against married or unmarried people should be outlawed and all categories of "marriage" as the basis of qualifying for any benefit should become suspect classifications.

Until this happens, and it likely never will, have become grudgingly pro gay marriage rights. Until the law changes and becomes more just and enlightened, anyone should be able to "marry" anyone or anything to obtain the discriminatory state, tax and other benefits of marriage.

But make no mistake, it's all about $$ and discriminatory benefit, not and never has been about any "human rights" or "sanctity." Watching the people who have been bent on destroying marriage as an institution for 60+ years suddenly trying to appeal to the human rights and institutional aspects of it when it suits/benefits them or their voting blocs is as annoying in its hypocrisy as it is amusing.

 

right. which means they weren't married.

 

Saying one is married when the marriage is not legally recognized means nothing. They can say they are "married" but what's the point when they get none of the benefits affording legally married couples?

 

Unless, of course, Western Europe becomes Islamified.

 

I have not polled the opinions of the various religious enterprises.

I note the stark disparity between the people of advanced Western democracies vs those of Islamic theocracies and former Soviet Bloc nations

 

That is your prerogative, of course.

 

From a purely legal aspect you are correct, however to many people marriage means more than what any government says.

And come to think of it, I have never been asked to provide my marriage license to the IRS or any employer, so technically I could have been lying all these years and getting "the milk for free."

I think the government should stay out of the marriage business myself.

 

Well of course it does. But know matter how a couple feels about their marriage, if they aren't legally married they might not be able to make legal/medical decisions for each other. They may not be able to take advantage of getting on the other's medical insurance or take advantage of family leave benefits, etc. Gay couples should also be able to have those same benefits.

 

No, Ive asked you many times to show us the law that prohibits them from marrying and you've dodged the challenge every single time. Copy and paste any law from any time in US history that prohibits same sex couples from marrying.

 

It already has happened.

 

If "equality" is the goal, ANY couple should also be able to have those same benefits. Exceptions exclusively for the gays is discrimination by design.