GAY MARRIAGE--all that important??

[Flower]

This is more of a question than a statement--I'm honestly not so sure how I feel about the necessity of gays to be "married."

 

Don't get me wrong--I'm all for total equality of benefits and services -- for giving gay couples who qualify ALL of the trappings and benefits of str8 marriages--but we really have most of that in many states--for instance, California has one of the best domestic partner laws around--but if we had all the benefits, would we need the "label?" Is it more the symbolism than actual equality?

 

Is this akin to the woman suing to be able to play on a men's baseball team when there are all kinds of woman's teams around?

 

I'm not so sure that it is the benefits of "marriage" that is at issue with the RR but "their" label--which they seem to feel is reserved to the str8 children of god--do we NEED the label or are we saying "I want it cause you have it and I don't?"

 

I really don't have a problem with reserving some things for women, some for men and some for Str8 couples and some for domestic partners--am I missing something? Is there really a benefit to the label marriage IF the PROPER domestic partner law gave us ALL the trappings and benefits and recognition of their marriages?

 

I'm searching for some thoughts here--not trying to stir up trouble or an argument;)

[+ deej]

It's a good question, Flower, but doug69 pretty much nailed it in another thread.

 

"Separate but equal" doesn't mean equal at all. It means "you're almost equal, but not really". It didn't work with blacks in the 60's (and before) and it isn't working with us now.

 

If we continue with "separate but equal" what's next? Do we have separate water fountains and restrooms for gays? What the hell are the bi's gonna do? Do we get special seating at the back of busses?

 

We're equal or we aren't. They're trying to make it a semantic issue, but the reality is we're equal or we're not. There's no need for semantics if we're really equal.

[Flower]

Well actually, It was Flower that brought up the Supreme Sourt finding that separate but equal schools were not equal -- in the thread about the gay school in NY, but hey--who's counting but maybe Sunshine mentioned it also.

 

Regardless, you are approaching it from the stand point that "they won't give it to us," whereas my question really is, are we sure we want it?

 

It seems that gay men seem to think they have to take everything hetero and apply it in lock-step form to gay livestyles--why? If the BEST seats are at the back of the bus, then why insist on the front just because they say we can't have the front? Seems a little knee-jerk to me.

[Rick Munroe]

> Seems a little knee-jerk to me.

 

I much prefer a slippery wet hand jerk (or better yet, a warm mouth). }(

[bigguyinpasadena]

I am in the same quandry as Flower on this one.While I want,and can find no logical reason not to grant,full and equal rights for ALL citizens of this country-I do not want us to be expected to fall into a pattern of "normalancy".I am QUEER-and not just in the way I have sex.I feel I see things in "A different light"and I have grown to bless the powers that have given me this gift.

If gay marrige,and full tax, representational,and legal benifits are granted(in practice as well as in word)Will we be further cast into the mainstream that we are just more of a markiting niche?

Will the outsiders(myself included)who shun the traditional "good boy"behavior be made to feel more unwelcome in the gay world than I already do?

Will behavior inside a gay marrige be expected to fall in to the same paremiters as heterosexual marrige.It will be a field day for the lawers if they are(just my opinion on that one-I have only my life experience to go on regarding the behavior of gay couples-not facts)Or will we be seen as "separate-but -equal"amd not expected to abide by the same laws and public mores that bind(and I mean that litteraly)heterosexual couples.I am not they,and they are not me-I lke it that way.FULL rights-no more second class citizenship for ALL gays-not just the ones who want to Marry!

[guyinsf]

Of course gay marriage isn't all that important to many gay men or women, but it is important to others. I assume that "traditional marriage" isn't all that important to some heterosexuals, too. Just because some of us aren't interested in formalizing our relationships in the same way many heterosexuals do (or, for that matter, even being in a relationship that's equivalent) doesn't mean that it isn't important for others who do want that.

 

As far as I am concerned, I don't understand why gay men or women want the right to be in the military, but that's based on my feelings about the military generally. As much as it doesn't appeal to me personally, however, I do think it's important that we get equal treatment IN ALL THINGS. Otherwise we are actually just getting "special rights," and those rights are always less special than the real deal.

[+ deej]

Exactly.

 

YOU may not want it (and that's good because you can't have it anyway), but someone else might.

 

There's probably an element in some gay men that make them want it precisely because they can't have it. Once that's gone, it'll be interesting to see (over time) how many gay marriages actually happen. But until it's available, we're still 2nd-class citizens.

[Flower]

>.....Just because some of us aren't interested

>in formalizing our relationships in the same way many

>heterosexuals do (or, for that matter, even being in a

>relationship that's equivalent) doesn't mean that it isn't

>important for others who do want that.

>*****

> however, I do think it's

>important that we get equal treatment IN ALL THINGS.

>Otherwise we are actually just getting "special rights," and

>those rights are always less special than the real deal.

 

 

Good post and I fully agree.

 

On the issue of wanting something just cause you can't have it, however, the statement made by the Vatican this AM certainly makes me wanna say fuck you to whoever wrote it and fight for the right to marry Mary or Dick :+ despite that fact I have NO interest in getting married myself (been there -- done that

 

So disregard my original post!! LOL--jk

VATICAN CITY (Reuters)

"The Holy See urged Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills that would recognize gay marriage in a strongly worded document approved by Pope John Paul (news - web sites) -- causing anger among gay rights activists across Europe.

 

'Marriage exists solely between a man and a woman...Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," said the 12-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

'Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior...but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.'

 

The document also denounced gay couples adopting children: "Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children.'"

x(

[woodlawn]

Whenever the topic of the transitory nature of gay relationships comes up (as it did recently on this board), someone mentions that it's due to the many obstacles government places in the way of such relationships. It's said that if gay men are about promiscuity and partying it's because the straight world won't let them be about commitment and domesticity.

 

What happens if and when the obstacles disappear? Is this a case of "be careful what you wish for"?

[Guest Merlin]

To put this in prospective, marriage was for many centuries regarded as agreement between the parties to be married, combined with a single act of consumation-no priest, no minister, no marriage license. That was the common law rule and it is still in force in some states. A "common law marriage" is not just two people living together. It is, in the states recognizing it, a marriage in every sense of the word. But it is obviously subject to abuses, such as a man who, after a child is conceived, claims there was no agreement, leaving the mother with a "she says, he says" dispute. So, primarily to protect children, about 150 years ago the states started licensing marriages, and most states now require the license and subsequent wedding for a legal marriage. The point is, that legal marriage, as we know it is not a "right", but a limitation on the freedom of the parties. Gays now, in every state, have the freedom to have a wedding, exchange vows, have a cake, a reception, and a honeymoon, and live together happily ever after. So the real question is, should the state intervene to limit and regulate that freedom? If it does, then the state will have to provide for divorces, and criminal prosecution of bigamy (If it does not enforce the marriage by prosecuting bigamies, the the marriage is just an idle ceremony). What purpose of the state is served by regulating gay marriages? Should not the State have some compelling reason to meddle?

[Guest fukamarine]

Is it all that important to me? In a word "YES"

 

Why is this so?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I am not a religious person. I classify myself as an atheist.

 

I am living in a committed relationship with another male.

I want the same rights as a hetro couple in a similar relationship with regards to tax benefits, pension rights, inheritance rights and to ensure that a hospital clerk cannot refuse either one of us to be involved in visitation and/or decision making should one of us become seriously ill.

 

Is that too much to ask for? I don't think so!

 

And as a Canadian, I think I have that. It's not written in stone yet, but we are told that it will be by the end of this year.

 

What concerns me the most at the moment is that despicable hypociate, known to his friends as "Your Holiness" who is appealing to the world leaders who are Catholic, to block the rights of gays to marry.

 

My Prime Minister is Catholic and it is widely reported that the Canadian Catholic Church has already made threats to him that if he supports the right of gays to marry, he will be excommunicated.

 

Time will tell. There are very few things that could get me to take up arms as a protest. This might just be one of them.

 

fukamarine

[woodlawn]

>The point is, that legal marriage, as we know it is

>not a "right", but a limitation on the freedom of the parties.

 

Not true. As others posting in this thread have already pointed out, marriage confers a bundle of legal rights on the parties to the marriage that are either not available outside marriage at all or not available without going through a series of cumbersome and often expensive legal procedures. If you and your partner aren't married, how do you take advantage of the marital exemption from federal estate tax in planning your estates? If you and your partner aren't married, how do you get the benefit of community property laws if you live in a community property state such as Florida or California? The answer to both questions is, you can't.

 

>What purpose of the state is served by

>regulating gay marriages? Should not the State have some

>compelling reason to meddle?

 

You sound as if the states are seeking to force marriage on gay men against their will, when the truth is exactly the opposite -- gay men want the option of marriage in order to take advantage of the legal rights our society confers only on married couples.

[Doug69]

>I am in the same quandry as Flower on this one.While I

>want,and can find no logical reason not to grant,full and

>equal rights for ALL citizens of this country-I do not want us

>to be expected to fall into a pattern of "normalancy".I am

>QUEER-and not just in the way I have sex.I feel I see things

>in "A different light"and I have grown to bless the powers

>that have given me this gift.

 

It is a rather remkarkable proposition to say that you oppose granting a certain legal right equally and to all citizens -- all because you don't wish to exercise that particular right.

 

I'm not looking to enlist in the military any time soon, or to become a school teacher, or to adopt children - but the grotesque injustice of denying such opportunities to other gay people merely because they are gay sickens me all the same, and is no less unjust or dangerous simply because I, or you, wouldn't take advantage of those rights.

 

If the law treats gay people unequally by denying them certain rights based on their sexual orientation, it profoundly affect every single gay person, regardless of whether you want to exercise that particular right or not. There are serious consequences to allowing the law to relegate you to a class of people who do not have the same rights as everyone else in the society.

 

This definitely applies to marriage. You want to stay single or be promiscuous or live in gay enclaves or spend your time at piano bars singing show tunes or decorating with your friends or doing whatever else it is you do that you think is such a special gift of being gay . . . great, go ahead. Nobody should stop you.

 

But your freedom to do those things and your right to be treated as an equal citizen is significantly bolstered and secured if the law treats gay people equally in every area, not just in those areas that you, for your life, happen to think are important.

[trilingual]

Furthermore, there are TWO components to marriage (in most cases): a civil, or legal, one and a religious one. The two things aren't one and the same. Unfortunately, in the U.S. (and in some of the other English-speaking countries) we've allowed the two to become confused in the popular mind because we've permitted and encouraged ministers of religion to act as agents of the state in performing marriage ceremonies. In such situations, the minister is actually accomplishing two things: s/he is performing a religious ceremony AND a ceremony that unites a couple legally. Understandably, where such a situation is the cultural norm, as it is in the English-speaking countries, people get a little confused.

 

The picture is clearer in "civil law" countries, like France or Italy or most other European and Latin-American nations, because in those countries there is no such confusion. There, you get married twice: once civilly at city hall, or before a judge, or some such, and then (optionally) in a religious ceremony with a minister. The ceremony that counts, for legal purposes like divorce, inheritance, immigration rights, etc. is the civil ceremony. Of course, for adherents of religions that consider marriage a sacrament, a civil ceremony has no religious value. For example, Catholics who only have a civil wedding but not a religious one are considered to be unmarried and living in sin by the Church. However, if they get divorced civilly, never having had a religious marriage, they can still marry a new partner and have a religious wedding because in the eyes of the Church the divorcées were never married. Conversely, in most "civil law" countries, getting married in church confers no legal rights whatsoever. The state doesn't regard the couple as married unless they go through a civil ceremony. (There is an exception, in that many "civil law" countries recognize an equivalent of "common law" marriages where a couple that hasn't had a civil wedding has lived openly together for some period of time and held themselves out publicly as being a couple, or have had children together.)

 

If the English-speaking countries would adopt the same system, it would be an enormous help in clearing up the confusion about marriage being religious in nature. That's a big impediment to making advances in this arena. In "civil law" countries, there may be a debate about the appopriateness of allowing same-sex couples to marry, but there's no confusion between the civil and religious aspects of marriage. That's one reason why the Catholic Church's statement on gay marriage will carry less political weight in "civil law" countries, which include almost all countries that are mostly Catholic. People who live in those countries understand that it's an "apples and oranges" situation, and that the Church is free to marry and recognize as married anyone it chooses under its rules, but that has nothing to do with whether or not someone who lives in such a country is married in the eyes of the state. Furthermore, people in those countries also understand that they're free to marry civilly and never have to deal with a religious ceremony at all, if they're not interested in one, and still have full legal rights as a married couple.

 

To me, the Church's statement is intentionally deceptive (and evil) because it tries to confuse people in its campaign against gay people in general and same-sex marriages in particular. The Church knows perfectly well that it doesn't have to perform, bless or recognize same-sex unions anywhere, and will not be required to do that in any country where such unions are legalized. Even if such unions are legalized, as in Holland, there is absolutely no change in the status quo from the standpoint of the Church, because such marriages are contracted civilly and are therefore meaningless from a religious standpoint. A gay couple who marry civilly in Holland are just as unmarried, in the eyes of the Church, as they were before the civil ceremony, because from a religious standpoint ANY civil marriage between parties of ANY sex is a nullity. So what's the issue? Can you spell H-O-M-O-P-H-O-B-I-A? It's sad that this Pope will end up rotting in hell for having put his hand and authority to a teaching that actively promotes bigotry and hatred against some of G-d's children, but that's one of the downsides of being part of a faith that believes so strongly in rewards and punishments in the afterlife! }(

 

Of course, some faiths DO permit same-sex marriages, and a same-sex couple living in a "civil law" country like Holland could not only marry civilly, but also religiously if they belong to a religion that performs such ceremonies. If and when same-sex marriages are legalized in English-speaking countries, such marriages can be done civilly before a justice of the peace or judge or some similar authority, OR by a minister of a faith that permits such marriages, and such a ceremony will be legally valid.

[bigguyinpasadena]

Doug,at no point in my post did I state opposition to the IDEA that gay men SHOULD,as citizens,enjoy every right that heterosexuals enjoy(or are burdened with as the case may be)

But I do not want to be further ostrasized from the community-straight or gay-for

not being a cheerleader for gay marrige.

 

"This definitely applies to marriage. You want to stay single or be promiscuous or live in gay enclaves or spend your time at piano bars singing show tunes or decorating with your friends or doing whatever else it is you do that you think is such a special gift of being gay . . . great, go ahead. Nobody should stop you. "

What a stupid response.Implying that anyone who might not want to embrace getting hitched is a sterotypical fag,while those wanting to make such a commitment are what????All Lumberjacks and Quarterbacks?

This assanine remark of yours has just proven to me what a jerk you are.Go fuck yourself long and hard.I refuse to participate in this discussion with you-you are not worthy of licking the soles of my shoes.Now go out and "marry"Andrew Sulivan-you two can spend nights peeking from behind your tightly closed curtains tsk tsk'ing those of us who do not find this type of bondage enjoyable.

[TotallyOz]

Hey Big, I am not getting involved in the discussion between the two of you. But, the licking the soles of your shoes remark kind of got me excited. Are they heavy black leather boots perchance? (my favorites)

[Doug69]

>Doug,at no point in my post did I state opposition to the

>IDEA that gay men SHOULD,as citizens,enjoy every right that

>heterosexuals enjoy(or are burdened with as the case may be)

>But I do not want to be further ostrasized from the

>community-straight or gay-for

>not being a cheerleader for gay marrige.

 

What does it mean to say that you "don't want to be further ostrasised from the community for not being a cheerleader for gay marriage? How would allowing other gay people who DO want to marry to do so result in your being ostrasized?

 

You came here and expressed your uncertainty about whether you thougth gay marriage was a good idea. Other people answered and said why they thought it was a good idea. How does that you make you "ostrasized"?

 

I made it quite clear that if you want to spend your life being promiscuous or single or sexless or unmarried or in bondage or whatever else you want, I have no desire to stop you. So why do you want to stop me from being married?

 

> What a stupid response.Implying that anyone who might not

>want to embrace getting hitched is a sterotypical fag,while

>those wanting to make such a commitment are what????All

>Lumberjacks and Quarterbacks?

 

No, you are distorting what I said. Please don't do that. You said that you wanted to preserve your ability to do the things that you think make being gay special. I don't know what those things are. So I listed the alternatives to marriage that I have heard other gay people say they want to pursue, and then ADDED: "or whatever else it is you want to do."

 

I wasn't condemning those who choose not to get married, or to be promiscuous or to live in a sling or anything else, and if you read any condemnation in what I wrote it wasn't because it was there, but because you are obviously defensive about it.

 

Whatever you choose for your life is your business. You should have that right. Please don't try to force everyone else who is gay to be excluded from the institution of marriage all because you don't want to join that institution and fear being alone.

 

>This assanine remark of yours has just proven to me what a

>jerk you are.Go fuck yourself long and hard.I refuse to

>participate in this discussion with you-you are not worthy of

>licking the soles of my shoes.

 

My, it looks like you have lost control of yourself. If you breathe deeply, it may help to calm you down some.

 

Now go out and "marry"Andrew

>Sulivan-you two can spend nights peeking from behind your

>tightly closed curtains tsk tsk'ing those of us who do not

>find this type of bondage enjoyable.

 

You are hallucinating. The only one trying to "tsk-tsk" in disapproval of others is YOU.

 

Nothing that I advocate would prevent you from living your life however you choose. But what you advocate - opposition to gay marriage - would prevent others from living their life they way THEY choose. You are the only one seeking to control other people's choices based upon YOUR disapproval of what they choose.

 

You are very selfishly trying to deny your fellow gay citizens the right to choose FOR THEMSELVES whether to get married, all because YOU don't want marriage in your life. That is extremely self-centered and judgmental of you, and I trust that most other gay people will reject this sort of selfishenss and demand of full equality for themselves under the law.

[VaHawk]

>What happens if and when the obstacles disappear?

 

They wouldn't have anything left to whine about? They wouldn't have anything else to blame their individual failings on? They'll all be good little "str8" acting boys and girls with their homes in the 'burbs and 2 children one of each gender? They'll all end up boring the living shit out of each other? They'll make a movie of it called the "Stepford Fags"?

 

>Is this a

>case of "be careful what you wish for"?

 

Well, my thoughts exactly! If gays want all the legal rights that come with gay marriage, then they better not start complaining about all the legal responsibilities that come with it also. Be prepared for divorce proceedings, alimony, child support, etc.

 

If gay marriage becomes legal, does it mean that a long time gay couple are now considered common law husband/wife (even if they don't choose to be married under the new law?).

 

I personally don't see any reason for gays to want to take on the extra burdens and see it mostly as Flower said wanting some label just because others are saddled with it. Sounds a little like the proverbial "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" to me. So many companies/state governments offer full domestic partnership rights to gay couples in regards to health/life insurance/annuity and bereavement benefits. So many states allow gay adoption if a couple wants to have children. I really don't see any advantages to acquiring the "label" just disadvantages.

 

I'm not an attorney, but surely one can designate his/her partner with the power of attorney to manage his/her affairs? As far as inheritence of property, etc. can't such things be handled via joint accounts/joint ownership and gifts?

[Flower]

>I'm not an attorney, but surely one can designate his/her

>partner with the power of attorney to manage his/her affairs?

>As far as inheritance of property, etc. can't such things be

>handled via joint accounts/joint ownership and gifts?

Absolutely, Hawk--anyone, "even" 2 gay men, can own property as joint tenants in ANY State and that gives the right of survivorship to the partner out lives the other--and neither family, children, nor the Pope can change that. All other property can be left as the individual wants by an age old instrument called the will. While it is possible to have "will contests" whereby legal heirs might contest the leaving of property to a gay partner, if the estate planning is done right, then there should be no problem--and if it is not done right by an attorney, then the intended designee (gay partner) would have a good legal malpractice case :+

 

Also, all wills should have a "no contest" clause, whereby the heir who attempts to challenge the will, loses everything if he does so and loses--makes it very risky for an heir who recieves something of substance by the will he is contesting.

 

There is more planning required of the gay couple since in most states the "intestate succession" (dying without a will) usually goes by default to legal heirs--spouse, children, and sometimes parents. That's how most property is passed in this country--by default--and it works well for most, but would not for a gay couple.

 

California's domestic partner act allows the gay couple virtually all of the benefits of married ones, and those that are not covered can be with a little legal advise and help (this is NOT my forte, btw--I'm speaking in pretty accurate generalities here).

 

So--do I think we should be able to marry if we want to? I sure do, however, I am uncertain if not being able to is really the detriment it is made out to be.

[Doug69]

>Absolutely, Hawk--anyone, "even" 2 gay men, can own property

>as joint tenants in ANY State and that gives the right of

>survivorship to the partner out lives the other--and neither

>family, children, nor the Pope can change that.

 

All you did was the list the rights which gay people can attain without marriage. What you didn't address (or even mention) were the multiple, critically important legal rights and protections which gay couples can never get because those rights and protections are available only to "married" couples.

 

Nor did you mention the potential for serious harm that can arise by allowing the law to define gay relationships as something different and less than heterosexual relationships.

 

While it is true that certain rights can be attained by gay couples even in the absence of marriage -- they do this by jumping through hoops and spending lots of money on lawyers and proceedings -- there are many crucial rights that gay couples cannot get, no matter what they do, including, most prominently, immigration rights (i.e., not having your partner deported; that strikes me as pretty important, to say the least), adoption rights (i.e., the right to jointly adopt a child or the right to adopt at all), etc.

 

Maybe you don't value these rights very highly because you yourself don't exercise them and don't want to, but many such rights are of great importance to many, many gay people. Without the equal right to marriage, gay people will always, by definition, be second-class citizens.

 

Additionally, although it's true there are some legal ways for gay coupels to get some of these rights, doing so requires a lot of money and other resources. To obtain many of the rights which you claim are so easy form the attain, they have to pay people like you to represent them, get legal advice, draft and legally validate all sorts of documents, etc.

 

Gay couples shouldn't have to spend thousands of dollars (which many don't have) and jump through all sorts of precarious legal hoops in order to get the same rights as "married" couples already have granted to them under the law. Gay couples should also have those rights granted by law, as they are for heterosexual couples.

 

The notion that there can be actual opposition among gay people to making marriage laws equal seems rather bizarre. It's not every day that one sees individuals arguing that they should be denied equal treatment under the law.

[VaHawk]

>Nor did you mention the potential for serious harm that can

>arise by allowing the law to define gay relationships as

>something different and less than heterosexual relationships.

 

Nor do you in your rebuttal. Care to elaborate about what you are eluding to?

 

>While it is true that certain rights can be attained by gay

>couples even in the absence of marriage -- they do this by

>jumping through hoops and spending lots of money on lawyers

>and proceedings

 

And so do heterosexual married couples, so what is your point? Ever heard of prenuptial agreements, divorce hearings in regard to alimony and property settlements, child custody/visitation hearings?

 

-- there are many crucial rights that gay

>couples cannot get, no matter what they do, including,

>most prominently, immigration rights (i.e., not having your

>partner deported; that strikes me as pretty important, to say

>the least),

 

A valid point, as long as you agree that gays have to go thru the same procedures as heterosexuals. That means unannounced visitations by the immigration authorities in the middle of the night to verify that it is indeed a true marriage and not some sham to get citizenship for an alien for personal and/or monetary considerations.

 

adoption rights (i.e., the right to jointly adopt

>a child or the right to adopt at all), etc.

 

I believe that many states allow adoption by gay couples and since this is a state mandate, a federal marriage law really would not apply in this instance.

 

>Maybe you don't value these rights very highly because you

>yourself don't exercise them and don't want to, but many such

>rights are of great importance to many, many gay people.

>Without the equal right to marriage, gay people will always,

>by definition, be second-class citizens.

 

That's just your opinion and should be stated as such, not stated as a fact.

>

>Additionally, although it's true there are some legal ways for

>gay coupels to get some of these rights, doing so requires a

>lot of money and other resources. To obtain many of the

>rights which you claim are so easy form the attain, they have

>to pay people like you to represent them, get legal advice,

>draft and legally validate all sorts of documents, etc.

 

And so do heterosexual people! Do you think that these people don't have to pay attorneys and go thru all kinds of procedures and screenings to adopt a child, or draft a will to ensure that their property goes to who they want, or designate living wills, or designate power of attorney?

>

>The notion that there can be actual opposition among gay

>people to making marriage laws equal seems rather bizarre.

>It's not every day that one sees individuals arguing that they

>should be denied equal treatment under the law.

 

I don't believe anyone is opposed to gay marriages having the same rights as heterosexual marriages, but some of us don't see it as the panacea that you do and recognize that there are liablilites along with the assets. To demand that all gays cede what they currently have under the law to accomodate those wishing to engage in marriage is a very moot point. But what is definitely not debatable is to naively believe that all gay people agree that we all have to be ruled by the restrictions that come with legal marriage.

 

I'd be interested in a poll of heterosexuals to see whether they would rather have what gays currently enjoy in their relationships versus what they are required to do by law in their relationships.

[+ deej]

>While it is true that certain rights can be attained by gay

>couples even in the absence of marriage -- they do this by

>jumping through hoops and spending lots of money on lawyers

>and proceedings -- there are many crucial rights that gay

>couples cannot get, no matter what they do, including,

>most prominently, immigration rights (i.e., not having your

>partner deported; that strikes me as pretty important, to say

>the least), adoption rights (i.e., the right to jointly adopt

>a child or the right to adopt at all), etc.

 

Right, some benefits can be bought at considerable expense. But not all.

 

You forgot to mention tax benefits which accrue without extra effort or expense for married couples. Last time I ran the numbers, my BF and I would have had a MUCH lower tax burden if we could file taxes as "married, filing jointly". (I should run the numbers again ... I'm willing to bet the difference is even bigger now.)

 

It's a benefit gay men can't get. Period.

 

There are fixed-income senior citizens in Florida who marry a 2nd time late in life solely to get the financial benefit.

 

We can't do that. Not only are we less equal, we're paying extra for it.

[Flower]

Well, actually you have some good points, and you are correct, that there are some perks that gay couples presently can't have and others they can't insure without spending money to obtain--and that isn't right.

 

If you read my posts here however, you will see that I say more than once, I belive that we ought to have ALL the same rights and benefits as straight couples--and I most certainly have NEVER "argu(ed) that they (WE) should be denied equal treatment under the law."

 

There are, however, some biological realities that separate gay couples from hetero couples, BUT regardless, I have never argued for anything less than 100% equality--my only question (that's QUESTION mind you--not arguement) was if we were to get total equality, is it important to take the str8 labels also? For instance, I'd prefer to be introduced as "this is my partner" rather than "this is my husband" and certainly NOT "this is my wife. }(

 

If I had ALL of the benefits, I would not feel cheated or second class one bit being a domestic partnership rather than a "marriage"--the label isn't important to me, and as one poster here pointed out, could actually be a legal burden rather than benefit.

[trilingual]

>For instance, I'd prefer to be introduced as "this is

>my partner" rather than "this is my husband" and certainly

>NOT "this is my wife. }(

 

I don't think the law anywhere regulates what parties to a marriage call each other. It's up to them. If they want to refer to themselves as "partners," "other halves," or just plain old "spouses," it's strictly up to them!

[Guest]

If I had all the benefits, of course, the label would not be important. I've mentioned in other strings that I'm concerned regarding my partner being deported if he cannot get asylum (ironically for gay persecution). I'm a member of a gay immigrant partner support group, and I can tell you that there are lots of gay men in my situation. Actually, if a consular official learns that a U.S. visa applicant has a gay partner in the U.S., the foreign partner will be denied a visa because he is considered a risk for overstaying his visa.

There is currently a bill in the House of Representatives currently co-sponsored by about 135 Congressmen, called the Permanent Partners Immigration Act which would grant immigration benefits to Permanent Partners of either sex. A version is also being proposed in the Senate. Perhaps some readers of this message board could write to to their Senators or Congressmen to express their support for this bill. (I sent Senator Feinstein a petition with over a dozen signatures; Senator Boxer already supports the bill). According to the leaders of our group, it is believed President Bush would sign it if Congress passed it.

Another benefit no one has mentioned so far is inheritance rights. If I'm not mistaken, spouses do not have to pay inheritance taxes when their spouse dies.