I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.
I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise
I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.
I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.
If you have a question about what I wrote, go ahead an ask and not make things up.
Here is a start: a mother and a grown child are two consenting adults, are you saying that they should be able for have a nationally recognized civil union? My response, yes.
How do you feel about my response, Jerry from SD who likes to overly interpret what people write?
Instead of focusing on gays only, we should go ahead and allow every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. Focusing on gay marriage is like going back to Loving v. Virginia and allowing whites to only marry blacks but not any other race. That's bigoted. If we need to set some reasonable limits, that's fine, but the limit of '2' isn't reasonable. A minimum age is reasonable. Being of sound mind is reasonable. Completing pre-marital counseling is reasonable. Pre-marital blood tests and sharing the results with your partner is reasonable. The limit of '2' is arbitrary and unfounded.
Last edited by Jerry; 03-29-13 at 11:21 AM.
What the ‘government’ provides to and for marriage is an effective contract between two people if the marriage is registered with the government by following the government’s process and rules. It is assumed by most that married people have done this. We have. What we got was from the state was a contract between us and also defined how others (private companies, governments, individuals selling us a house, etc.) deal with us. We could do the same without a government marriage contract by finding a lawyer that would develop a contract for us that would do the same. It would cost thousands and if we were honest we would have to inform many, like our banks, that we aren’t married via an effective state contract; but, rather our own contract and here it is. It would be at least a 50 page document and would cost thousands. It was great that we could take advantage of what the government is providing us at such a low cost to everyone. Why a same sex couple can’t use the same government process that they pay for via their taxes isn’t logical or fair.
Mine is a 6 page document that cost $100; it's a living and final will, establishes a medical proxy and a power of attorney. It lays everything out. I guess if I had property or a business there would be a couple more pages and a little higher price tag to prepare it, but if I have property and/or a business then that little extra isn't going be an obstacle.
Please tell us where you're getting your information from.
A living will is a good idea for everyone, whether you are married, living with a partner, or single.
What a living can't give unmarried gay partners is access to each others Social Security, insurance from work, and etc.
That's where marriage comes in.
I don't see any non-religious reason to deny gay people the right to marry. Especially when you consider the 1st Amendment, looks like a slam dunk to me.
Denying committed gay people the right to marry is intolerant, and based on religious ideas.
That's the way I see it, and I've been happily (Most of the time) married to my female wife for about 20 years. I see no reason to deny anyone the same rights that I have. Of course the fact that I'm a Secular Humanist has a lot to do with my attitude, I don't have some guy in the sky telling me what I should or shouldn't do.
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll