Same Sex Marriage!

[Kass]

caseOrange said:

i didn't know being doubly taxed was a benefit.

Re-read that. They aren't doubly taxed. They can't file jointly which often saves money on deductions (homes, investments, etc.) and they are denied other federal benefits I mentioned earlier. This mandate by the federal government also interferes with the state tax structure by dictating how people can file and collect refunds.

i don't know about immigrants from Iceland, but i've never heard of immigrants from anywhere else having to re-marry once they got to the States.

Only if you're homosexual are you subjected to this and you CANNOT get a homosexual marriage recognized by the federal government from any country thanks to Bill Clinton signing the first Defense of Marriage act. This is also a dubious act since we have pacts with almost all countries to recognize legal contracts (including marriage) from their countries. To make that exception without altering the pacts with the countries borders on illegal or might very well be lillegal.

I've known people who were deported on this technicality. In one case, his spouse went with him to Iceland since they do recognize homosexual marriage.

The other is currently fighting to stay in the US. She might finally be able to get the work Visa, but the 20,000 additional Visas for people with master's degrees that were supposed to be available March 8 are on indefinite hold because the INS can't get its act together. She was working but had to take an indefinite leave of absence because ot the visa issue.

It's more than likely she'll have to go back to the UK and her partner can't go because of family and work obligations.

This happens regardless if it concerns gay relationships or not. Most of my family are vultures, as far as i'm concerned, and i've watched them battle each other tooth and nail for a dead relatives possessions. However, to challenge a will, they must show that the person who wrote the will was either under duress or not of sound mental faculties when they wrote the will.

Heterosexual spouses almost always win in those cases, unless you're Anna Nicole Smith and obviously a gold digger. Gay partners almost never win. There's no fairness or parity there.

Once they get their alternative visa, they can move right in. And no, it doesn't come with all the bells and whistles of a hetero marriage, but it's not like they're barred from doing it.

Since September 11, those alternate visa applications are extremely limited and most are denied simply because there are so few visas and so many more applicants. Also, if your sponsor is the same sex, not a blood relative and you have the smae address, it raises flags and the applications are often subjected to more rigorous scrutiny and far more bureaucratic machinations to even get considered.

[MarkusB]

Now this is what I call Solid read'in!

Cheers!

[caseOrange]

Which leads me back to my initial post. Maybe i should clarify what i was trying to contribute to this thread.

From all appearances on the news, one would think that there are only three opposing forces controlling the ebb and flow of this issue:
A: The Religious Right who speak of morals and oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, and who, because they can afford good lobbyists, have found the ear of the Republican Party.
B: The Republicans who speak of sexual "norms", but who mainly oppose gay marriage because they need the Religious Right during elections to bring in the Mid-Western and Southern votes.
C: The Democrats who speak of health care and equality, but who only support gay marriage because it's the "liberal" thing to do and because it pisses off Republicans. (And i'm not trying to pigeonhole you, Kass, or anybody else who agrees with these things as either a Democrat or a Republican--it's just a statement of what i see as the obvious).

When gay marriage makes the news, these are the opinions we are hearing and are left to judge from only these three viewpoints. My point was that i thought the real reasons that gay marriage was such a hard sell to our lawmakers was:

1) The difficulty in convincing the rest of the world to follow our lead (or Iceland's lead...however) if we legalized it so that a gay marriage here would also be legal elsewhere (which the story of your friend so poignantly expressed the present-day difficulties of); and,

2) That the subjects of sodomy and the consummation of marriage were a little too sticky for our legislators to bring into the public discourse. They might also get laughed into oblivion if the public realized it was something this simple that was causing all the fuss.

That's all.

i think that unless gay marriage is legalized, all those things you mentioned (employee health care, SS benefits, being recognized as immediate family during emergencies) should be included within a civil union; or if not, some other type of marriage "contract" that would provide for these things.

i've spent way too much time on this topic. "Kobol's Last Gleaming Pt. 1" is 2 days away, and to tell the truth, that's about the most important thing on my mind right now.

Cheers!
;D

[Kass]

I know you'd don't want to talk anymore about this, but I'll address a couple of points for those who do.

caseOrange said:

From all appearances on the news, one would think that there are only three opposing forces controlling the ebb and flow of this issue:
A: The Religious Right who speak of morals and oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, and who, because they can afford good lobbyists, have found the ear of the Republican Party.
B: The Republicans who speak of sexual "norms", but who mainly oppose gay marriage because they need the Religious Right during elections to bring in the Mid-Western and Southern votes.

Sadly, the national Republicans in power *are* the religious right. This is what really makes more Libertarian, moderate voters like myself so angry with them. I really don't like their religious approach to governance.

While I diagree with them, they do actually oppose homosexuality and gay marriage based on their code of morality, not as a convenience, and some skewed beliefs about homosexuals. I wish they'd stick to their guns on something more important like whether or not the thousands of dollars I pay into social security a year will be squandered out of the General Fund in the next decade or if I can have it back to invest on my own.

C: The Democrats who speak of health care and equality, but who only support gay marriage because it's the "liberal" thing to do and because it pisses off Republicans. (And i'm not trying to pigeonhole you, Kass, or anybody else who agrees with these things as either a Democrat or a Republican--it's just a statement of what i see as the obvious).

I'll agree this is the case with the liberal wing of the party, but the conservative wing is more likely to oppose gay marriage because of religious convictions. Your point is one of my major complaints about most current Democrats. They design their opinions based on them being the opposite of Republicans and not based on being what is right. Not being Republican and not being Bush aren't good enough. The must do better than that. It's also why many Dems have scattered voting records.

(With the exception of the voting on things like the initial Patriot Act and other similar matters after Sept. 11, which all politicians were voting on out of fear, paranoia and anger.)

When gay marriage makes the news, these are the opinions we are hearing and are left to judge from only these three viewpoints.

A person could actually make an informed decision on their own by researching the issue and not letting the media spoon feed them what they want us to hear. The major media are all hopelessly skewed. It's only a matter of which side they are skewed towards.

1) The difficulty in convincing the rest of the world to follow our lead (or Iceland's lead...however) if we legalized it so that a gay marriage here would also be legal elsewhere (which the story of your friend so poignantly expressed the present-day difficulties of); and,

We've set no lead whatsoever in leveling the playing field here. We've actually gone backwards. I'd hope more egalitarian governments like some Canadian territories, Iceland and other European nations aren't looking to the US on this matter. It sucks that people who come here are told, "We don't care if you are legally married elsewhere. You're not here and oh by the way, you can't see your partner in the hospital if he gets sick. Glad you decided to make the USA, home of the free, your home."

2) That the subjects of sodomy and the consummation of marriage were a little too sticky for our legislators to bring into the public discourse. They might also get laughed into oblivion if the public realized it was something this simple that was causing all the fuss.

Most politicians would like to pretend sex doesn't happen, let alone discuss it in an open and forthright manner. Even our own elected man-slut, Bill Clinton, tried to pretend that oral sex isn't really sex. makes you wonder if he told Chelsea she won't get pregnant having sex standing up. Bush probably told his girls to stick an aspirin between their knees.

i think that unless gay marriage is legalized, all those things you mentioned (employee health care, SS benefits, being recognized as immediate family during emergencies) should be included within a civil union; or if not, some other type of marriage "contract" that would provide for these things.

Me too, but that is unlikely. This country has already proven "separate but equal" is anything but equal.

[caseOrange]

OK...you drew me out of my temporary hibernation.

Kass said:

Sadly, the national Republicans in power *are* the religious right.

i have to take issue with this. i think the Religious Right is a totally separate entity than the Republican Party. They vote along religious lines, and it doesn't matter what party is running a candidate. IMO, if someone ran for President who had no political affiliation, but who told them that Moses told him to post the 10 Commandments everywhere and Jesus told him to post the Sermon on the Mount everywhere, they would vote for him. (i say "him" because the far-RR would never back or nominate a female candidate for President).

i think the RR have the Republicans in their back pocket, not the other way around.

Kass said:

I really don't like their religious approach to governance.

Again, i think this is because they have to appease the RR. IMHO, politicians of any party only care about 3 things: money, power, and leverage. All they need us for is to help provide these things. Taxes = money, votes = power, support = leverage. Personally, i don't think any of them give a sh!t when it comes to religious values vs. the bottom line.

This i think is the defining difference between the RR and the Republican Party. Not that i don't think there are leaders within the RR who lust after these things. i just think that the overwhelming majority are driven by religious zeal more than anything. They only aspire to gain money, power and leverage in order to influence congressmen and state legislators.

Kass said:

I'll agree this is the case with the liberal wing of the party, but the conservative wing is more likely to oppose gay marriage because of religious convictions.

Again, i think there are more convicts than convictions among politicians of either side. This, i think, proves more that the RR has a lot of influence than it does that those politicians have any kind of moral standards.

Kass said:

It's also why many Dems have scattered voting records.

This, believe it or not, is one area where i give a little leeway to our elected leaders. Just because they are listed as having voted for a bill that goes under a certain heading doesn't mean that that's what they were voting for.

For example: there could be a bill floating through Congress called the "Cure All Cancer" bill that says that a cure has been found that is affordable and easy to distribute nationwide, so everyone with cancer can be cured within the next year. Sounds like a great bill--who would oppose it?

Well, that's only provision #1 of the "Cure All Cancer" bill. Going down the list of other provisions, we see that #93 is a federal grant of $200,000 for Sen. John Doe's brother, Billy Bob Doe, to build a drainage ditch on his 150 acre ranch in Oregon. And most congressmen hate Billy Bob because he insulted some of them at the last shindig at his house, so this all but guarantees that the bill will die.

Why did the senator insert this provision into this great bill, knowing that it would doom the bill? Maybe because health insurance companies and doctors decided they would lose too much money if cancer were cured, and they just happen to have Sen. John Doe in their pocket. A few martini lunches and a hefty campaign contribution later, and provision #93 becomes reality.

Kass said:

We've set no lead whatsoever in leveling the playing field here.

That's what i meant by saying "if" it was legalized.

Kass said:

...having sex standing up.

Is that possible?

[MarkusB]

Funny how this has become left vrs the right.

[Kass]

Not really. The votes fall along party lines almost exclusively on this issue. A check of votes on issues like the Defense of Marriage Act proves it.

As for who owns whicch, the RR or the Republicans beign top dog, the effect is the same. A backward moving culture and a stripping away of personal liberties. it is too bad many politicians vote to appease people and not vote for what is right, Dems or Reps.

I just hope and pray they don't actually amend the constitution on this issue. Then we're screwed for a very long time.

Night.

P.S. Yes, sex standing up is possible if you do it right.

[MarkusB]

Kass said:

it is too bad many politicians vote to appease people and not vote for what is right, Dems or Reps.

Well that's their job isn't it? and isn't it the people's job to lobby the politicians if they have an issue?

I'm a Canuck and appreciate some aspects of your gov't compared to ours. What you speak about with the Politicians just making a call with out the publics say or approval, this happens here all the time and believe me it's not pretty. More along the lines of a "friendly dictatorship" if you speak up agains the party leader ( as a member of the party)you could get "back benched" Nice eh?

I was in Vegas during the election and got to see first hand how some of the freedoms that you guy take for granted. We cannot vote on "issues" here. We vote for a party. that party has an elected representive that speaks on the peoples behalf. but really has no pull at all. It's kind of messed when you come to think of it.

Sorry for all the spelling boobs... i'm really tired

[caseOrange]

Kass said:

P.S. Yes, sex standing up is possible if you do it right.

You mean, like both standing straight up, or one at an angle? Sorry to ask again, but we've been going back and forth on this thread about gay marriage, and you brought up something that's more interesting to me. i just want to know before i try something hazardous with my girlfriend. No need to go into too much detail.
;D

[Trak101]

Much depends on the relative hights of the individuals involved. If there is a significant hight difference, 'adjustments' and/or 'accomodations' may be necessary.