There is still a difference there….you legally could, I cannot. You may consider it a minor difference, but it’s still a difference.

NDT, I tend towards conservatism on most issues except this one. I look around me at many of my friends and family counting the number of times they have all been married and remarried (I have one Aunt on her 5th husband…the neighbors I mentioned he’s on his 3rd she’s on her 2nd) and then look at the two of us, quietly living our lives together for, well, it’s 26 years on May 8th and we met 27 years ago Oct. 8th, and I shake my head. I’m not actually asking for marriage; I just think that as a tax paying citizen of this country we should have many of the same rights as married couples. We’ve already done as many of the things we can, but keep in mind that they can easily be overturned in some courts. Shoot, in GA, Oxendine actually had rules for insurance saying only family members could be listed on your insurance as a beneficiary. He’s even denied insurance companies (even before the ban on same sex marriage) from offering insurance to DP’s or discounts on car insurance saying that it would treat gay and lesbian couples better than married couples with children though how I’m not too sure…I’ll check this out.

Maggie, as of January 1st…there are no common law marriages in GA.

1) I’m not a liberal.

2) I have a child

3) I’ve already gotten a lawyer and it pissed me off to have to pay for something that the couple next door get for free.

4) I might have been conceived in a petri dish or with a turkey baster and raised by lesbian mothers for all you know. Though technically that would still, I guess, be considered heterosex…or at least sexual reproduction.

I love how you point fingers and name call immediately without actually asking. And, if I lived in some states in this country those legal documents are null and void. Unless VA changed its laws and let’s not forget the FL case just within the past year. So, I suggest asking, learning, and then state….intelligenly if possible.

Neither will the other groups I’ve mentioned. They’re abnormal (and thank you for understanding that I’m not using it in a negative way) and cannot take advantage of it. I can’t either with my roommate, but that’s a moral and religious decision I make. My faith is as much a part of my identity as, well, your choice of bedmates is yours.

“Tolerant nature of western civilization?” Ultimately, I don’t want to be tolerated and actually find that phrase a little condescending. I want to know that my partner can make decisions about my life if I’m incapable…I want him next to me in the hospital when my time comes….I want to make sure he gets the house without any taxes etc because we’re not married.

And yes, it is the ‘tolerant nature of Western Civilization’ that has set up the processes you can take advantage of to help insure those things. You can’t legislate acceptance, no matter how hard you wish it to be true. Tolerance is allowing you to live your life w/o government crushing you. Tolerance is allowing you to succeed, without government taking your success (Venezuela). Tolerance allowing you to live your life, without being seen as mentally ill (Cuba, China, other socialist countries) or having a wall dropped on you (Iran, Afganistan).

I’m not asking for anything special.

Except a set of privileges extended to two people eligible for marriage, as defined by the laws of the state.

No, because the former are still capable of producing children and the latter are biologically damaged, presumably through no fault of their own.

And, I find it kind of sad that you label a relationship as inferior based solely on the capability of having children.

It amuses me how gay-sex marriage liberals always try to downplay, denigrate, and ignore the importance of procreation and childrearing to society, and the vital role marriage plays in that — especially when you consider that these gay-sex liberals wouldn’t exist without it.

I want to know that my partner can make decisions about my life if I’m incapable…I want him next to me in the hospital when my time comes….I want to make sure he gets the house without any taxes etc because we’re not married.

Lovely; another example of a gay who’s too lazy to find a lawyer, but who can whine all day about how he would actually be responsible if he had marriage.

Really? I think that’s kind of sad then. I always believed that marriage, now in this day and time, is based on love and committment. I know het couples that do not want children and 2 couples that can’t have children; are they inferior as well? And, I find it kind of sad that you label a relationship as inferior based solely on the capability of having children.

Livewire….”abnormal?” I understand how you’re using it in this sentence. Not according to the norm, but you HAVE the choice of marrying but you don’t. I don’t have that choice, and I never had that choice and never will. “Tolerant nature of western civilization?” Ultimately, I don’t want to be tolerated and actually find that phrase a little condescending. I want to know that my partner can make decisions about my life if I’m incapable…I want him next to me in the hospital when my time comes….I want to make sure he gets the house without any taxes etc because we’re not married. I’m not asking for anything special.

There are approximately 1400 federal statutory rights associated with marriage. Those rights due not accrue to any same sex couples that marry in states that permit marriage. Of course this is due to DOMA. Therefore, I do not have problems with state Supreme Courts rendering decisions on the issue of marriage (they do all the time as to str8 couples) Until Loving v. VA, interracial marriage was banned in most states. Courts have consistently ruled on the issue from everything from child support to alimony to custody to everything in between.

I don’t have a problem with individual states deciding differently. California to me was a weirder situation since the Governator talked out of both sides of his mouth (he said the Legislature and not the courts should decide the issue…well, lo and behold the Legislature voted two times to allow same sex marriages and he vetoed that twice…so much for “the will of the people” and then when the Court decided the issue he suddenly supported that decision and said constitutional rights shouldn’t be left up to the Legislature or put up for a vote by the people or some other illogical arguments that he came up with that left one wondering how many ways can a politician lie to us)

Quite frankly, if the federal government by the Legislature repealed the parts of DOMA that denied federal statutory rights (those 1400 or so mentioned above) to me the whole issue would go away and if the legislation were created that if a state had same sex marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships then you get those 1400 federal statutory rights, it would make more sense and the issue would be closer to being resolved. Of course, if a state didn’t have same sex marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships, then the federal legislation could be well you get the federal rights but not the state statutory rights in your states. My guess is at least this way rights like Social Security benefits, joint federal tax benefits could be solved easier that way.

Of course, I have always believed DOMA is unconstitutional due to the full faith and credit clause and we know why Clinton pushed it in 1996 so he help get re elected….but that’s another story.

In time, and in its own way, I do believe more and more states will
have marriage equality as each state decides it. Some will, some won’t. But as long as its left to the states and the mess of DOMA is corrected, I think it would end up being ok.

Of course, its just my opinion….Marriage is a civil law issue and I don’t discuss it based on religion and if a church wants to not marry a same sex couple….well that is their right..the civil marriage license is a license granted by a state/locality and not by a church…so there is always the Justice of the Peace or Magistrate to perform the ceremony.

Personally, I think that NDT has it in a nutshell. I see nothing in his comments that shows a sense of inferiority. On the contrary I see a person who is not afraid of his relationships with others, and who has his priorities right. I also think that he has raised issues that do need to be addressed, but the left-liberals of society refuse to acknowledge certain facts.

Thinking about the lack of coherent reasons for allowing gay marriage, or even for not allowing gay marriage, there is one thing that has not been raised:

“common law marriage”

The common law “wife or husband” are usually not married. They have not taken wedding vows. The other name for a common law marriage is “de-facto”. Usually this means that the person has few if any rights, especially in relation to property, and including the right to parent any children from the relationship.

If the left-liberal gays were seeking the same status as the common law couple, because their status in common law was being denied, then there might be a good reason to mount a challenge. However, I suspect that this is not the issue for them – the real issue is to “undermine the institution of marriage” which has been practised for thousands of years. This is how most straight people see the issue.

Actually, it’s a refusal to condemn child molestation or exploitation that is truly dangerous. For some reason, gay-sex leftists like yourself are incapable of admitting that gay people are doing such things and even less capable of stating that those gay people are wrong.

One would think that, if you truly believed gays weren’t inferior and abnormal, that you would be condemning these gays and their behavior. Instead, you’ve done everything but, and now are attacking me as wrong for insisting that you state publicly that this behavior is wrong. What that makes patently obvious is that your identity is so tied up in your sexual orientation that you aren’t capable of admitting that other gays are doing something wrong because that would mean that YOU are doing something wrong.

I do so love when gay-sex liberals like yourself try to insist that homosexual sex produces children just like heterosexual sex does, then insist that other people need “therapy” because they refuse to buy into that.

Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different. Your problem is that, as a gay-sex liberal, your self-worth is so tied up in your sexual orientation that admitting that difference is saying that you are inferior.

The primary goal and reason for marriage in society is to build a stable and successful platform for childrearing, because a) normal heterosexual coupling produces children, b) those children have to be cared for, and c) society benefits and is perpetuated by both a) and b).

In that context, homosexual relationships are clearly inferior. Indeed, for you to have a homosexual relationship in the first place is completely dependent on heterosexuality, since it’s what produced both you and your sexual partners. Your childish attempt to insist that the two are “the same” is a demonstration of the degree of delusion that rules the minds of the gay left.

First, let me congratulate you on being together and monogamous for 27 years. That’s impressive and should be cheered.

Now as to abnormal… Yes, you are. As am I, with my living with a woman whom I care for but have no plans to marry. As is the polyamourous trio I know of, and the staff of the House of Shadowfind. None of us, whether by qualification or by choice, can take advantage of the institution of ‘marriage’.
It is a statement of the tolerant nature of western civilization that there are legal frameworks in place for us to gain some of the benefits and privileges. It is a testimony to the strength of Federalism that it varies on how the people vote, from basic benefits for non-standard couples in AL to the full civil unions in CA.

Actually, I think heliotrope would affirm that I am quite nicely integrated into society. I have religious faith of my own, I do my job well and without affirmative action, I have a relationship that’s quite satisfying, and I understand the importance of affirming and encouraging heterosexual marriage ahead of every other type of relationship.

Given that most other gay people think I’m abnormal and need “therapy” for having such beliefs and carrying out such behavior, it should be quite obvious that gay people are not capable of functioning in normal society. We simply can’t have people like yourself, Little Boot, who aren’t able to criticize or condemn child molestation and exploitation because the individuals involved are gay. There has to be a commitment to a set of principles other than sexual orientation in order for society to function normally, and you and yours have not demonstrated any ability to operate in that fashion.

LOL…..if you consider marriage “Victorian” and worthless, Little Boot, why the heck do you want to be a part of it?

Short answer: you don’t. You’re just shrieking and crying for it, like the toddler who doesn’t want a toy until the other kids are playing with it. You have nothing but contempt for the basic values and responsibility of marriage, and thus should be kept away from it lest you dilute and destroy it completely. The reason gay-sex liberals like yourself are bad for marriage is because you have absolutely no intention of living by its rules; you merely want the benefits, and refuse every bit of the responsibility.