In Defense of the Marriage

[Jerrek]

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02042...n_w/135571.asp

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Ohio lawmakers took the last step Tuesday to approve the Defense of Marriage Act and the bill is now headed to Gov. Bob Taft for his signature.

The bill declares gay marriage against the strong public policy of the state and denies legal marital benefits to unmarried couples, heterosexual or homosexual.

This would be the 38th state that passed a Defense of the Marriage act, or equivalent. At this point, Ohio would no longer be bound by treaties to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions that are not between a man and a woman.

At least they allowed the people to choose. In Canada, the courts made our laws, and it seems a similar thing happened in Massachusettes. We'll see.

It also seems the vast majority of Americans do not want the traditional meaning of a marriage to be changed, and I am among them. Marriage is for ONE man, with ONE woman.

Hopefully, the other 12 states will follow soon.

[luftys]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

It also seems the vast majority of Americans do not want the traditional meaning of a marriage to be changed, and I am among them. Marriage is for ONE man, with ONE woman.

Iam the same Marriage is for 1man to 1 lady
But saying that you can not help who you love,love is the same for a man and a man,or a woman and woman,if that wat some people want good luck

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

It also seems the vast majority of Americans do not want the traditional meaning of a marriage to be changed, and I am among them. Marriage is for ONE man, with ONE woman.

I don't always agree with Jerrek but I'm 100% with him on that.

[SMHarman]

Do you get gay and straight pair bonding in the rest of the animal world?

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Do you get gay and straight pair bonding in the rest of the animal world?

Yes you do, homosexual activity is very prevalent in the animal kingdom, but that fact has been glossed over for many years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...407524-9262812

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02042...n_w/135571.asp
This would be the 38th state that passed a Defense of the Marriage act, or equivalent. At this point, Ohio would no longer be bound by treaties to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions that are not between a man and a woman.

At least they allowed the people to choose. In Canada, the courts made our laws, and it seems a similar thing happened in Massachusettes. We'll see.

It also seems the vast majority of Americans do not want the traditional meaning of a marriage to be changed, and I am among them. Marriage is for ONE man, with ONE woman.

Hopefully, the other 12 states will follow soon.

But this is just discrimnation ? Leagl rights are being denied to these people because of there sexual orientation.

Are they saying that if you are in a same sex marrage then you suddenly stop being married when step into Ohio (and suddenly become married as soon as the step out ?)

So basically they are saying you are going to be trated as if you are hetrosexual regardless of your personal preference's.

IMHO Same sex relationships are here to stay, there is nothing that can be done to change that fact. The sooner governments/people accept that the better.

p.s. they don't have to like it, just accept that people will love people of the same sex and stop discrimination.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Yes you do, homosexual activity is very prevalent in the animal kingdom, but that fact has been glossed over for many years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...407524-9262812

This isnt so much about homosexual activity as marriage, ie. pairing off for life.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

This isnt so much about homosexual activity as marriage, ie. pairing off for life.

I realised that, but it was a thought I had when reading the IP.

As us humans are just "doing it like the do on the discover channel" then it truly is natures way and a same sex couple should be allowed to show their commitment through marriage in the same way as a heterosexual couple.

the one I have issues with at the moment is giving the same rights to unmarried heterosexual couples. If you want the rights get married. Of course then the government bleats that nobody gets married, yet they have taken away many of the economic benefits and legal rights and given them to unmarried couples also.

[caledoniangold]

It also seems the vast majority of Americans do not want the traditional meaning of a marriage to be changed, and I am among them. Marriage is for ONE man, with ONE woman.

Is this not 2004? Canada a liberal country?
CG

[philip.j.fry]

I just don't get it, why is it that people don't want gay couples and unmarried couples to have the same rights as a heterosexual marrid couple? What does it possibly achieve to deny these rights? Could anyone explain it for me?

My view is that if two people love each other, and want to make a long term commitment to each other then it should not matter about gender or whether there is an actual marriage ceremony.

In the governments eyes, marriage is an economic union, i.e two people get married and in return the government gives certain privilidges to that couple. Fine in theory, but IMO is made a mockery of in practise. Why should a couple who have been together a short time and got married quickly be more deserving than an unmarried couple who have been together for years? Why should a heterosexual couple, who only got married for the economic benefits and basically live seperate lives be afforded more rights than a homosexual couple who love each other very much?

This isn't that it is like this in all situations, it's just meant to highlight the dispaity that can exist and why I think it's wrong.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

the one I have issues with at the moment is giving the same rights to unmarried heterosexual couples. If you want the rights get married. Of course then the government bleats that nobody gets married, yet they have taken away many of the economic benefits and legal rights and given them to unmarried couples also.

Sorta on topic See my above post as to why I think unmarried couples should have the same rights. A major problem with marriage is the lack of choice in this country if you don't belong to any religion. I'm not too happy about some of the restrictions placed on registry office marriages.

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by caledoniangold

Is this not 2004? Canada a liberal country?
CG

Not the part that contains Jerrek

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I just don't get it, why is it that people don't want gay couples and unmarried couples to have the same rights as a heterosexual marrid couple? What does it possibly achieve to deny these rights? Could anyone explain it for me?

One word Religion The main religions of the world do not approve of the union of 2 people of the same sex and since marrage is a religious ceremony...

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

My view is that if two people love each other, and want to make a long term commitment to each other then it should not matter about gender or whether there is an actual marriage ceremony.

True.

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

In the governments eyes, marriage is an economic union, i.e two people get married and in return the government gives certain privilidges to that couple. Fine in theory, but IMO is made a mockery of in practise. Why should a couple who have been together a short time and got married quickly be more deserving than an unmarried couple who have been together for years? Why should a heterosexual couple, who only got married for the economic benefits and basically live seperate lives be afforded more rights than a homosexual couple who love each other very much?

Because married couples are more likely to pay bills/taxes on time and are less likely to do things that the government doesn't like, basically they are more stable (although they obviously haven't seen some of the couples that I know). As for the econmic benefits Labour and the conservatives have worked diligently to remove most of them so, although you are better off married, its no where near as big an advantage as it used to be. As for why the hetrosexual married couple should get more right than the homosexual couple, that's discrimination...

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I just don't get it, why is it that people don't want gay couples and unmarried couples to have the same rights as a heterosexual marrid couple? What does it possibly achieve to deny these rights? Could anyone explain it for me?

My view is that if two people love each other, and want to make a long term commitment to each other then it should not matter about gender or whether there is an actual marriage ceremony.

In the governments eyes, marriage is an economic union, i.e two people get married and in return the government gives certain privilidges to that couple. Fine in theory, but IMO is made a mockery of in practise. Why should a couple who have been together a short time and got married quickly be more deserving than an unmarried couple who have been together for years? Why should a heterosexual couple, who only got married for the economic benefits and basically live seperate lives be afforded more rights than a homosexual couple who love each other very much?

This isn't that it is like this in all situations, it's just meant to highlight the dispaity that can exist and why I think it's wrong.

In the eyes of the gay community i'm sure many long term couples are described as "married". That commitment is seen and apreciated. Similarly a unmarried straight couple in a long term relationship are often referred to as marred and some even use the terms husband and wife, as they feel the term 'partner' should only be used in the business sense, and significant other, girlfriend / boyfriend sound stupid after 40.

So this really is about the economic benefits of marriage, and the legal recognition such as rights of access / consultation in hospital. Both can only be decided by a government.

In the UK this really comes down to inheretence - should a same sex couple be able to pass assets between each other tax free, most other married tax benefits have been withdrawn. In the US of course a married filing jointly tax return exists, and medical, which most doctors and nurses will happily ignore the legal reality and treat the partners equally, however it would still not be possible for them to sign a DNR or similar documents with legal authority.

I think there are greater things to worry about about in the world than this. Perhaps getting the Christians , Jews and Muslims to kiss and make up would be a start.

Originally Posted by Scarlett

One word Religion The main religions of the world do not approve of the union of 2 people of the same sex and since marrage is a religious ceremony...

Or a civil ceremony devoid of religious reference, creating a legally binding contract, which is where the gay marriage would fit in.

I think it would be sensible to try and keep religion out of this thread (yet look what I wrote 3 paras up!) as getting religions to accept homosexuality is another matter, even though in the UK the Church and State both have the same Head, blurring the matter.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Scarlett

One word Religion The main religions of the world do not approve of the union of 2 people of the same sex and since marrage is a religious ceremony...

Aren't we talking about civil marriage here?

The whole thing gets even more ridiculous if economic benefits were to be given out for engaging in a religious ceremony.

I think same sex couples should have the same (economic) rights. If a religion wishes to exclude same sex couples from their marriage that's fine (but silly), but civil marriage and the associated benefits should be open to all