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.
As for insurance, marriage doesn't guarantee that either. Your spouse can still be denied, or an outrageous premium applied, despite your being married. Your spouse having a pre-existing condition being a prime example. Your marriage license doesn't have any magic pixy dust to force the insurance company to cover most pre-existing conditions. The only exception I can think of is pregnancy, or if there's a carry-over clause honored with a prior policy. Usually COBRA will facilitate carry-over clauses.
I don't relate to people on either side who give religious views any weight on the topic of legal marriage. Religion is separate from the law and as such cannot be part of our considerations of what the law should be. If your relationship is not otherwise harmful, then you should be able to attain a marriage license from the State, because marriage is about commerce and the state needs a compelling reason to deny your right to engage in commerce. I think having a high likelihood of failing is a compelling reason to deny you any kind of license. Even with a small business license you can only operate in the red for a couple years before the government pulls the plug; and if you demonstrate that you are likely to fail again, you may not be issued another license until you improve your situation.
Last edited by Jerry; 03-29-13 at 04:51 PM.
[QUOTE=Jerry;1061628356]SS, no, but the SS program shouldn't exist in the first place, so that's not a point that matters. You should be providing for your own retirement and that you absolutely can give to anyone you want, married or no.
I agree that people should try to provide for their own retirement, but most retired Americans depend on Social Security for a good bit of their income. That is a fact now, and I see no reason to think that it won't be a fact in the future.
The US Supreme Court considers Secular Humanism a religion, fyi, because it's an established philosophical outlook with common basic rules shared by all Secular Humanists. It's a non-deistic religion, like Buddhism. In that way, your view here is a religious one, so walk softly when condemning religious beliefs.
Yes and no.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes."
That is an important distinction which you can read about here: Secular Humanism is a Religion
Just trying to be clear here. It appears to me that you and I pretty much agree on this issue.
Have a good day
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
We have marriage. We have to have some form of protection for legal kinship between two unrelated or not closely enough related people. We don't need to take it away just because some idiots don't want to share the term with couples they don't feel deserve it.
No compromise. I will continue to support same sex marriage being completely legally recognized throughout the US and nothing less. It will happen.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.