I don't understand why gays want to marry

There is a wide variety of two consenting adults who can and do raise children in a stable home. If you want special treatment for those who happen to be homosexual, youll need some justification for doing so. Otherwise its unconstitutional discrimination

 

EVERYONE is limited to spouses of the opposite sex. Everyone limited to the opposite sex, except for the homosexuals, would be unequal treatment.

 

why can a man marry a women, but a women not do the same... sexist?

many same sex married couples in this country "legally", you can no longer say everyone

 

That's simply BS; and surely what you say does not equate to being equal in the sense of 'fairness'. Most people know that, but I will never expect YOU to accept it.

 

Yes... you do have it right. Great point.

 

Same-gender couples raising children do not seek any special treatment under the law. They seek the identical treatment under the law that opposite-gender receive today.

 

Yeah, its just the homosexuals who do. More children being raised by single parents and grandparents of the "Same gender" than homosexuals of the same gender. But the homosexuals want and several courts have granted special rights for homosexuals because they are homosexuals in need of "respect" from society and "dignity" for themselves.

 

You and no one else has actually proven what you say. I can see that some people feel as you do... but "legally" what you're saying simply is not true.

 

The problem that isn't being acknowledged is that overwhelmingly the laws which are linked to marriage which create denial of equal protection under the law have nothing per se to do with children. They deal with the merged financial assets and liabilities of the couple. Joint tax filing status, joint bankruptcy, and Social Security benefits for a spouse have nothing to do with children at all.

These do not apply to a single person raising a child or a grandparent raising a child as there are no merged financial assets or liabilities.

Additionally homosexuality isn't the issue either as homosexuality is a behavior and not a relationship where merged assets and liabilities based upon a personal relationship are necessitated. There are no marriage laws based upon sexual behavior. They are based upon gender and whether they include same-gender marriage or exclude same-gender marriage is the only issue being addressed under the law.

When it comes to the law those that oppose same-gender marriage are clearly out of touch with the entire issue. The simply don't get it and they do advocate violation of the US Constitution which prohibits denial of equal protection under the law. Their so-called arguments are merely irrational rants without substance.

 

I agree wholeheartedly!

 

Not the issue, and not what's being advocated.

What needs to be shown is whether or not there are sound legal arguments for or against denying any particular group on its own merits. Having shown to the court's satisfaction that same-sex couples are being illegally discriminated against in no way obligates gay people to form a monolithic opinion about the status of other groups.

 

???? Its what has been advocated for and put in place in 6 states.

 

nonsense. the gender restriction has been removed in those 6 states. you don't have to be homosexual to marry someone of the same sex. just like you don't have to be heterosexual to marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

Well, if they're not going to bother to do that, what makes you think they'll bother to get married?

 

So it's all about symbolism? Government marriage isn't a right, anyway, but an illegitimate privilege.

 

I don't know that that's true, but even if it is, all it requires is for the state to enforce all private contracts under whatever name. It still doesn't explain why homosexual couples or, for that matter, heterosexual couples that don't want to have children would want to enter into such a contract.

So then it isn't for economic reasons; it's for symbolism and assimilationism. You have to pick one or the other because those are the only two possibilities.

 

Yet it's not convenient in that it limits the choice and flexibility of the people entering the contract. Hospitals, banks, and all other private entities should set their own rules, which I'm sure they'd make as convenient for themselvse as possible.

 

Medical care isn't a right and Medicare should be abolished. Medical care is an economic good and obeys the same economic laws as a trinket shop. The fact that you subjectively find one more important than the other has nothing to do with it.

Why can't they be bundled into one in a private contract? Nor would the contract have to be called marriage at any rate.

I'm an antistatist; I don't think you need a state to enforce contracts. But that's beside the point. Even if you did, there's a difference between the state enforcing whatever contracts under whatever names private parties choose to make and the state designing a privileging one very specific form of contract above others. That's social engineering.

You mean in terms of property sharing? But, of course, there are many instances of property sharing arrangements with no romantic or sexual connotations involved, as with roommates, close family members, or live-in caregivers. Why don't they get married?

 

Obstinance. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you again.

You take the position that discrimination doesn't affect people economically?

No, it isn't about symbolism. As for "assimilationism", thanks for illustrating that you'd prefer to keep us marginalized, as if we aren't all a part of the same society.

 

well that and some hospitals will deny you entrance unless your family... IE married

 

it's about equal rights, you can deny it to everyone, but you can't just deny a minority based on race or sex

there are 1000's of legally married same sex couple already married in our country, why can they marry, but not others?

 

I don't understand why any man wants to marry. But, they do. And if gays marry, it will be inevitable many will divorce. Then the judges have a dilemma. How will they know who to favor in the divorce is it's two men or two women. Will one have to wear a sign saying, "I'm the woman, Judge."

 

Would these civil unions confer all the same rights to same sex couples as marriage does to the rest of us? Inheritance, all the tax stuff like the higher real estate profit allowance, hospital visitation, and the ability to confer landed immigrant status to a foreign spouse? If so they I doubt many would have a problem with it. I wouldn't, but I'm not gay. I would object to what is currently conferred with every same sex marriage law currently allowed in the US because none of them provide all of this.

 

This is a part of the crux of the issue that is unfolding.

Under the federal DOMA law the States did not have to recognize the same-gender marriages in other States but DOMA has been declared unconstitutional. After review of the evidence the Obama adminstration withdrew it's appeal acknowledging that there is overwhelming evidence that DOMA is unconstitutional.

The House Republicans have appealed after the Obama adminstration withdrew. The law firm for the Republicans withdrew after reading the Federal Court's ruling and the evidence presented so I don't know who they've got now to represent their case.

When the dust settles on the federal DOMA law it will be struck down as unconstitutional and every informed person knows that. There's just too much evidence showing it's unconstitutional.

When the federal DOMA falls then the States will have to accept the legal status of marriage for same-gender couples under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution. If they accept the legal institution of marriage for same-gender couples married in other states, which they will have to do, then they will have to allow same-gender marriage in their own state or they'll be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The legal prohibitions against same-gender marriage that originated in the 1970's was a house of cards where the removal of one card causes the entire house to collapse. That card has basically been removed and we're just watching the "house" collapse.

 

Its still BS no matter hom many times you repeat it. It originates from the first time each state enacted marriage laws. Just one example from 1872 California-

Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage...