Gender Equality in Marriage Contracts: Geographical Disparities

How many times are you going to ask the same question and how many times do I need to provide the same answer?

 

Two brothers would in fact be of the same sex.

 

"Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman."

Therefore a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman would NOT be allowed legally in the eyes of the state.

 

So no one is being discriminated against in regards to being able to legally marry now. Thank you

 

that you think this has any relevance to same sex marriage, is a strawman. As you know perfectly well.

 

You using your definition of legally or the dictionaries? Or "Allowed". Does that mean no one stops them from doing so or do you mean allowed to do so AND given a whole litany of government tax breaks and governmental entitlements for doing so. Using the dictionaries definitions for both words you are wrong. Nothing prevented them from marrying. There is no punishment in the law for doing so because there is no "prohibition" or "ban" of gay marriage. Marriage existed long before any government or religion glommed onto it as a good idea and would continue without them.

 

Im not aware of anyone currently being denied a marriage license but the fact remains that discrimination against such a couple is written into the law. That's probably why they don't even attempt to get a marriage license because the ban is clearly stated in the law while there was never any ban of gay marriage written into the law. And you people call it equality because as long as gays aren't effected, purposeful discrimination is perfectly fine with you.

 

Asked and answered already. Do try to keep up please

 

As I said...no one is being discriminated against.

 

this is a demonstrated falsehood.

strawman

 

I prefer to stick with the dictionary definitions.

 

What you prefer doesn't change the fact that gay couples couldn't legally marry at one point in the US. Now, thankfully, they can...

 

??? You don't know that there aren't two brothers out there who would benefit from the tax breaks of marriage, who don't even consider the possibility because the law prohibits it.
Single mother and grandmother down the street from me raising the kids together for over a decade once some what jokingly mentioned how easy a marriage would make everything between them as the grandmother was going through the process of adopting, they both were creating corresponding wills conveying all property to each other, setting up joint tenancy ownership of their home etc. AND JUST RECENTLY the grandmother inherited a sizeable estate from her mother that puts them over the estate tax exemption level. If her daughter was instead a gay lover, they could marry and be exempt from the estate tax. But since its her daughter, she cannot. Purposeful discrimination written into the law of 50 states for the benefit of gays.

 

Of course by "legally" you mean rewarded with tax breaks and governmental entitlements, as opposed to being allowed to do so with no law prohibiting them from doing so or punishing them after the fact for doing so. Using the dictionary definition, no they were never prohibited by the law for doing so.

 

but you have been thoroughly proven wrong on this. All 50 states prohibited same sex couples from marrying at one time. I gave you a list of numerous state constitutional amendments, which did so.

 

This is your argument? Brothers marrying? A mother and grandmother marrying? You have issues.

 

As well as being able to make financial and legal decisions for each other. So, you agree gay couples were legally prevented from doing so prior to allowing them to legally marry.

 

Not a one of them that prohibited other forms of marriage.

pro·hib·it·ed
/prəˈhibitid,prō-/
adjective
adjective: prohibited

1. that has been forbidden; banned.

That's why, with or without the governments endorsement, gays continued to marry. We have a local Church right here in conservative central Tx that has been marrying them for a decade.

 

I think it's a matter of semantics. Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. We say gays can't marry, not because we are depriving them of some sort of a right, but because they don't fit the definition of the word. They can have civil unions and enjoy pretty much all the rights and benefits that come with marriage.

 

I’m prejudiced against gay marriage like I am against polygamy.

Sorry if that makes you cry.

 

Nope...... using dictionary definitions for words.

 

Kentucky judge said it well

 

Civil Union vs. Marriage
Couples who are legally married enjoy many more benefits than those who are engaged in a civil union. When comparing a civil union vs. marriage, marriages have the following advantages:

• Tax benefits on both the state and federal level. Tax benefits aren’t available to civil union couples.
• Only marriages are recognized in all states. Civil unions won’t be recognized in states, which haven’t adopted them.
• Married couples are granted immigration benefits when petitioning for a spouse who isn’t a citizen.
• Life insurance, social security, and medical benefits are only available to married couples.

 

Luckily for gay couples who can now also be legally married like hetero couples, your opinion doesn't matter much.

 

Yes, I think people should be treated equally under the law. EVEN if they are not gay.