Same Sex Marriage

It hasn't been mentioned I don't think, but the United States Supreme Court is set to hear two interesting cases revolving around same-sex marriage.

The first is United States vs Windsor It concerns a woman named Edie Windsor who lived with and was registered as domestic partners with another lady named Thea Spyer since 1993 (and they had actually been together more than 40 years.) In 2007, Spyer contracted MS. They went to Canada and got married that year, and later Spyer passed away in 2009. New York, where they live, recognized their marriage, but the US Federal Government did not. Because Windsor had no spousal rights, she ended up having to pay $363,053 in estate taxes. Had she been married to a man, her tax bill would have been $0!!

The second is Hollingsworth vs Perry which said it was unconstitutional for voters California to pass Prop 8 banning gay marriage after the state supreme court had legalized it. They won in lower courts, with the rulings being limited only to California, but Prop 8 supporters have made it bigger. They wrote in the petition to the high court, “The 9th Circuit’s sweeping dismissal of the important societal interests served the traditional definition of marriage is tantamount to a judicial death sentence for traditional marriage laws throughout this Circuit.”

The first (US v W) looks like a winner, and it's only fair that someone you've shared so much of your life with be granted full inheritance rights. It could be dealt with with other laws regarding inheritance though, and a win, while important, is really only a baby-step towards recognition of same-sex marriage.
The other (H v Perry) has the potential to make same-sex marriage legal throughout the whole United States in one fell swoop. The question is, are the justices prepared to make that giant step? Some advocates are nervous that this is too much too soon, and a defeat could set the movement back several years.

It's going to be an interesting year.

I personally don't think marriage should be "owned" by the Church, and therefore anyone should be able to marry, legally, another consenting adult. I struggle to see why any gay couple would want to get married in church, but I understand that being Gay and being religious are not mutually exclusive, and therefore that option should be available to them, if their chosen church is inclusive enough to accept an openly gay couple into their congregation. equally, for the non-religious who want to get married in church, gay or straight, the church really should be equally as open to allowing a marriage in the premises, but like i said, i don't think marriage should be owned by the church, so why not have a non-religous ceremony in church for people who just want the setting. treat it as a business opportunity. Even if passed this law will not open the floodgates to throusands of gay couples queing up to be married in church, but it would be nice to have the option for those who wish to be recognised in front of whatever god they follow. I would suspect that most gay couples would like to be married, have the title, the ceremony, but not the religous side, as generally they hold incompatible views with the church anyway.

As for the (IMO) rather sinister turn the thread has taken with regard to gay couples and children, i'm not sure what the insinuation is, but it feels like some are suggesting danger to the child, or a failure in moral values, or possibility of being forced to be gay. this simply is not the case, i don't believe any gay couple would present any more of a danger to their children than a "normal" parent, nor would they force them to be something they are not, what with them being accepting of the fact that gay or straight is not a lifestyle choice. where do you draw the line. Gay couple should not have kids. straight couples who are biologically unable to have children? Women who can't breast feed? (can't withdraw this from the children, how will they turn out?) Women who choose not to breastfeed? Women who are single but choose to articially inseminate (or just go and get some from the source)? Couples where the woman works and the man is the primary care giver? Couples where the women tragically dies during childbirth or in the childs's early years? should they have their kids taken away.

I can see no sound reason for a gay couple not to bring up a child, whether they are involved in the process (sperm/egg donations) or if they adopt someone who by definition dearly needs a family and home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This would be all very well if one had to 'join' a church in order to marry there. Many atheists marry in churches because they want a church wedding, if only because the surroundings are nicer. I don't think this is in any sense hypocritical or problematic.

---

Athiests marrying in a church because it is a nice venue. And you don't think that hypocritical?

Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

He no doubt thinks his is 'normal', whatever that means, and therefore the only true way.

---

I think what is normal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

What does same-sex marriage have to do with this? Gay people getting married has nothing to do with women choosing to be single mothers. You should also be aware that your definition of 'family values' contrasts greatly from mine.

---

I don't care what same sex marriage has to do with it, as in this instance I was referring to the fact that you were enquiring what do we do with unwanted children. Well, prevention is better than cure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

So many vague notions from you, so little in the way of genuine thought or content — and so much in the way of bland, conformist notions of societal norms. How do you define 'family values'?

---

Plenty of thought thanks, I just don't think like you. You are gay, so that's a natural perspective for you. The trouble you have understanding my viewpoint is clearly not exclusive.

You are so keen to make your view correct, that there is no room for anyone elses, because it will always be wrong in your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Athiests marrying in a church because it is a nice venue. And you don't think that hypocritical?

Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it.

---

Reality actually. Ex Mrs Knockie MkI and I got married in Church. It was a lovely, serene building which was a great place to get all our friends nd family together to witness our Marriage and a superb backdrop for Photo. Do I see any hypocriscy because I or my Partner weren't of the 'faith'. None whatsoever. I don't believe in all that nonsense so why should I not get Married in what I considered was the most sutiable building.

Now, someone that DOESN'T believe in God NOT getting Married in Church when they want to is hypocritical but this is way of topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why be so intolerant of any diversion from this? To some degree, this is why I brought your children into the discussion. I believe fundamentally that children need to be taught that there are ways of doing things other than one very restrictive, very prescriptive norm. Indeed, the word 'normal' I find, in some ways, quite problematic.

---

The problem here is you are suggesting to SGWilko that he is not bringing his kids up properly. And I'm quite sure he is doing a fine job. If I was a father, I'd be quite angry at this underlying suggestion that you are making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Because, my parents, both their parents, all the way back to great great great grampy wilko with the gammy leg, that is what was passed down as normal.

Worked for us.

Again, I won't stop you or the next bloke from having a civil ceremony - do what you like. I, however, do not agree with it.

To me, learning from my folks, has taught me what I know.

That is why I have reservations with same sex adoption - not because I think they are bad people, but because of my upbringing. Also, having been bullied, I know that other kids - wether they understand what and why they are doing - can be down right evil.

And no, it would not be your fault, but I suspect you would feel bad if you found yourself in that position.

Seriously - I'm not having a pop. I don't think I'm better than you. I just see things differently and, perhaps, struggle to convey my opinions well on screen.

---

You really can't argue with that.

People come from different backgrounds, different cultures - what they know is different to you and you different to them.

I agree with SGWilko, and as it happens agree with him on Same-Sex Adoption as well. I think Straight couples should be given preference. You can call that bigoted if you want, BDunnell, but in reality it isn't - its a free-will opinion of mine - and it is not like I'm enforcing that opinion as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Name any word you don't feel I should have used. Nowhere have I sworn or threatened. My language has been temperate throughout.

As it happens, I am perfectly happy to find myself in disagreement with the two people whose comments particularly provoked my ire. That those who are not particularly analytical of mind have a problem with the very simple issue of gay marriage comes as no surprise.

---

I am one of those and you've already made it clear that your provocation stems from your misperception of me being both a racist and a bigot. So, it doesn't take much from me to irritate you.

And you have been quite unreasonable. As above, bringing up past discussions which are irrelevant, questioning SGWilko's parenthood and your below-the-belt university jibe at me, amongst others.