PDA

View Full Version : 16 pt advantage for traditional marriage



luvmylabs23139
05-07-2012, 10:20 AM
Thank god I moved to a state with common sense. Final polls today show NC will amend our state constitution to state marriage is between a man and a woman. Hopefully the polls hold and this stands tommorrow!!! So glad I left CT in the dust years ago!

HPL
05-07-2012, 11:40 AM
The kind of unimportant, divisive, actual non-issue of which the focusing on will keep the Republicans out of the whitehouse. Listen to Newt's position on these third rail, silly issues.

mudminnow
05-07-2012, 02:26 PM
I don't know if it will keep them out of the white house but it is pretty pointless I think. I wish the state would just stay out of marriage and leave it up to churches or whatever folks do when they don't believe in God. Marriage is historically between a man and a woman and was invented for a man and a woman. It is also not a promise between individuals but a covenant with God. How I look at it is if it doesn't involve two individuals and god you might as well just have a big promise ceremony. I dont care if these promisers got a tax break also. I just think government needs to get out of the bedroom

ARay11
05-07-2012, 03:33 PM
Thank god I moved to a state with common sense. Final polls today show NC will amend our state constitution to state marriage is between a man and a woman. Hopefully the polls hold and this stands tommorrow!!! So glad I left CT in the dust years ago!

Why does it matter to the states?

mudminnow
05-07-2012, 03:45 PM
Why does it matter to the states?

The real question is why does it matter to the federal government?

Gerry Clinchy
05-07-2012, 08:43 PM
The real question is why does it matter to the federal government?

It certainly does matter from a legal point of view ... regarding income taxes, social security benefits, and inheritance laws, etc. That would apply for the states as well. For employers, it relates to various benefits such as health insurance and pensions.


You can have a "civil union" between man and woman in front of a justice of the peace or judge, right? Even if they are not married in a church, they are recognized as "married". I think the word "marriage" has a religious connotation; and by using it in a law, it conjures up the idea that the government is making a religious decision (pro or con).

So, the only solution is to recognize two partners (regardless of sex) as part of a civil union ... call it that, not marriage. Let the individual churches & religions decide what they will recognize or not as "marriage". Govt should not be making a religious decision.

Now, the govt probably has to take a stand that such a civil union is only between two individuals. Wouldn't it wreak havoc if there were two or three spouses that were eligible to collect on a deceased spouse's contributions? Not to mention SS payments to minor children of such a deceased. I'm sure the actuarial bases of SS (etc) were based on just two individuals in a "marriage" (though with SS a spouse can collect SS on a divorced spouse's account if they were married for 10 years or more; so it would be possible that a multi-divorced person might have such a multiple situation; but not as common as it would be if a person could have multiple spouses simultaneously). So maybe there is some need for govt to specify that there is a specific # of individuals who can head the household unit for all the govt-related ramifications associated with a household unit.

As long as a "civil union" has the same rules as a church-based "marriage", the rest is just semantics of what word we use to describe the household unit.

This seems so simple to me. Once you get the religious connation out of the equation, the solution becomes very simple.

Now if gay couples INSIST that the word "marriage" MUST be used, then I question their agenda. Why must the word be "marriage"? Simply to chastise some religious group(s) for not acknowledging their lifestyle?

Down East Labs 217
05-08-2012, 05:36 AM
It certainly does matter from a legal point of view ... regarding income taxes, social security benefits, and inheritance laws, etc. That would apply for the states as well. For employers, it relates to various benefits such as health insurance and pensions.


You can have a "civil union" between man and woman in front of a justice of the peace or judge, right? Even if they are not married in a church, they are recognized as "married". I think the word "marriage" has a religious connotation; and by using it in a law, it conjures up the idea that the government is making a religious decision (pro or con).

So, the only solution is to recognize two partners (regardless of sex) as part of a civil union ... call it that, not marriage. Let the individual churches & religions decide what they will recognize or not as "marriage". Govt should not be making a religious decision.

Now, the govt probably has to take a stand that such a civil union is only between two individuals. Wouldn't it wreak havoc if there were two or three spouses that were eligible to collect on a deceased spouse's contributions? Not to mention SS payments to minor children of such a deceased. I'm sure the actuarial bases of SS (etc) were based on just two individuals in a "marriage" (though with SS a spouse can collect SS on a divorced spouse's account if they were married for 10 years or more; so it would be possible that a multi-divorced person might have such a multiple situation; but not as common as it would be if a person could have multiple spouses simultaneously). So maybe there is some need for govt to specify that there is a specific # of individuals who can head the household unit for all the govt-related ramifications associated with a household unit.

As long as a "civil union" has the same rules as a church-based "marriage", the rest is just semantics of what word we use to describe the household unit.

This seems so simple to me. Once you get the religious connation out of the equation, the solution becomes very simple.

Now if gay couples INSIST that the word "marriage" MUST be used, then I question their agenda. Why must the word be "marriage"? Simply to chastise some religious group(s) for not acknowledging their lifestyle?

Well wrote, and I could not agree more.

Richard

Matt McKenzie
05-08-2012, 05:50 AM
The kind of unimportant, divisive, actual non-issue of which the focusing on will keep the Republicans out of the whitehouse. Listen to Newt's position on these third rail, silly issues.

Absolutely. I wish the Republican party would focus on the issues that really matter to all of us.

Ken Bora
05-08-2012, 07:45 AM
Well wrote, and I could not agree more.

Richard



x2 :D


.

Ken Bora
05-08-2012, 07:51 AM
:p
Thank god I moved to a state with common sense!...........

http://webbdroppings.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/did-i-stutter.jpg?w=604


thank who???? :p :rolleyes:


.

Buzz
05-08-2012, 07:55 AM
It certainly does matter from a legal point of view ... regarding income taxes, social security benefits, and inheritance laws, etc. That would apply for the states as well. For employers, it relates to various benefits such as health insurance and pensions.


You can have a "civil union" between man and woman in front of a justice of the peace or judge, right? Even if they are not married in a church, they are recognized as "married". I think the word "marriage" has a religious connotation; and by using it in a law, it conjures up the idea that the government is making a religious decision (pro or con).

So, the only solution is to recognize two partners (regardless of sex) as part of a civil union ... call it that, not marriage. Let the individual churches & religions decide what they will recognize or not as "marriage". Govt should not be making a religious decision.

Now, the govt probably has to take a stand that such a civil union is only between two individuals. Wouldn't it wreak havoc if there were two or three spouses that were eligible to collect on a deceased spouse's contributions? Not to mention SS payments to minor children of such a deceased. I'm sure the actuarial bases of SS (etc) were based on just two individuals in a "marriage" (though with SS a spouse can collect SS on a divorced spouse's account if they were married for 10 years or more; so it would be possible that a multi-divorced person might have such a multiple situation; but not as common as it would be if a person could have multiple spouses simultaneously). So maybe there is some need for govt to specify that there is a specific # of individuals who can head the household unit for all the govt-related ramifications associated with a household unit.

As long as a "civil union" has the same rules as a church-based "marriage", the rest is just semantics of what word we use to describe the household unit.

This seems so simple to me. Once you get the religious connation out of the equation, the solution becomes very simple.

Now if gay couples INSIST that the word "marriage" MUST be used, then I question their agenda. Why must the word be "marriage"? Simply to chastise some religious group(s) for not acknowledging their lifestyle?

I pretty much agree with this. The question then becomes, should a man and woman that enter into a civil union before a judge be able to say they are married?

HPL
05-08-2012, 08:24 AM
:p

http://webbdroppings.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/did-i-stutter.jpg?w=604


thank who???? :p :rolleyes:


.
I love that one!!

mudminnow
05-08-2012, 08:58 AM
It certainly does matter from a legal point of view ... regarding income taxes, social security benefits, and inheritance laws, etc. That would apply for the states as well. For employers, it relates to various benefits such as health insurance and pensions.


You can have a "civil union" between man and woman in front of a justice of the peace or judge, right? Even if they are not married in a church, they are recognized as "married". I think the word "marriage" has a religious connotation; and by using it in a law, it conjures up the idea that the government is making a religious decision (pro or con).

So, the only solution is to recognize two partners (regardless of sex) as part of a civil union ... call it that, not marriage. Let the individual churches & religions decide what they will recognize or not as "marriage". Govt should not be making a religious decision.

Now, the govt probably has to take a stand that such a civil union is only between two individuals. Wouldn't it wreak havoc if there were two or three spouses that were eligible to collect on a deceased spouse's contributions? Not to mention SS payments to minor children of such a deceased. I'm sure the actuarial bases of SS (etc) were based on just two individuals in a "marriage" (though with SS a spouse can collect SS on a divorced spouse's account if they were married for 10 years or more; so it would be possible that a multi-divorced person might have such a multiple situation; but not as common as it would be if a person could have multiple spouses simultaneously). So maybe there is some need for govt to specify that there is a specific # of individuals who can head the household unit for all the govt-related ramifications associated with a household unit.

As long as a "civil union" has the same rules as a church-based "marriage", the rest is just semantics of what word we use to describe the household unit.

This seems so simple to me. Once you get the religious connation out of the equation, the solution becomes very simple.

Now if gay couples INSIST that the word "marriage" MUST be used, then I question their agenda. Why must the word be "marriage"? Simply to chastise some religious group(s) for not acknowledging their lifestyle?

I agree with you on this. But i think it is sad that the government has made so many programs that it is impossible to get it out of marraige. The best way would be flat taxes across the board, let the families fight it out for inheritance, and social security won't have anything to pay out in a few years anyway.

Also Jesus said those things with the understood fact that we are all screwed up. Yes love homosexuals, but don't say that it is right. Yes love murderers, but don't say murder is right. As a favorite theologian of mine says " If you are pure and perfect, you are probably a pain in the neck. But if you know you are screwed up you are probably pleasant to be around because you know your need for forgiveness and have been shown how to love".

luvmylabs23139
05-08-2012, 08:59 AM
NO civil unions either. Constitutional ammendment. Whatever side you fall on the issue at least in NC it has been put on the ballet for the people to decide. NO backroom deals between legislators to say you vote for this I'll vote for that.
If you eliminate this vote there are a lot more reasons for dems to go to the polls today than Republicans. Romney has the nomination for Pres and Obama has it on the Dem side.
DEm gov not running for reelection.
Rep nom basically unopposed but dems have a ton of scrambling noms.
WE are a swing state and stuck with the Dem convention.
If the dems can't get the vote out for this its looking good for Obumma to lose NC!!

Cody Covey
05-08-2012, 11:26 AM
It certainly does matter from a legal point of view ... regarding income taxes, social security benefits, and inheritance laws, etc. That would apply for the states as well. For employers, it relates to various benefits such as health insurance and pensions.


You can have a "civil union" between man and woman in front of a justice of the peace or judge, right? Even if they are not married in a church, they are recognized as "married". I think the word "marriage" has a religious connotation; and by using it in a law, it conjures up the idea that the government is making a religious decision (pro or con).

So, the only solution is to recognize two partners (regardless of sex) as part of a civil union ... call it that, not marriage. Let the individual churches & religions decide what they will recognize or not as "marriage". Govt should not be making a religious decision.

Now, the govt probably has to take a stand that such a civil union is only between two individuals. Wouldn't it wreak havoc if there were two or three spouses that were eligible to collect on a deceased spouse's contributions? Not to mention SS payments to minor children of such a deceased. I'm sure the actuarial bases of SS (etc) were based on just two individuals in a "marriage" (though with SS a spouse can collect SS on a divorced spouse's account if they were married for 10 years or more; so it would be possible that a multi-divorced person might have such a multiple situation; but not as common as it would be if a person could have multiple spouses simultaneously). So maybe there is some need for govt to specify that there is a specific # of individuals who can head the household unit for all the govt-related ramifications associated with a household unit.

As long as a "civil union" has the same rules as a church-based "marriage", the rest is just semantics of what word we use to describe the household unit.

This seems so simple to me. Once you get the religious connation out of the equation, the solution becomes very simple.

Now if gay couples INSIST that the word "marriage" MUST be used, then I question their agenda. Why must the word be "marriage"? Simply to chastise some religious group(s) for not acknowledging their lifestyle?

Look to Washington State for that. I agree with this whole post but your last paragraph has come true here in WA. We first had a law that allowed for some benefits for gay couples. Then we had everything but marriage law that was all benefits it just wasn't called marriage. That still wasn't good enough for them they NEEDED marriage for some reason even though they had ALL benefits given to married couples via a civil union.

I was in the camp of give them the benefits and shut them up but after this I see that the benefits aren't really their aim.

ARay11
05-08-2012, 04:05 PM
Our core laws came down on a couple of tablets a long time ago. So if the state says murder is wrong, are they making a religious judgement?

We pick and choose God's rules we like and those get to be "laws" of "man".
We love separation of Church and state when it suits us.
But when disaster strikes, we say our prayers.

Gerry Clinchy
05-08-2012, 07:33 PM
Look to Washington State for that. I agree with this whole post but your last paragraph has come true here in WA. We first had a law that allowed for some benefits for gay couples. Then we had everything but marriage law that was all benefits it just wasn't called marriage. That still wasn't good enough for them they NEEDED marriage for some reason even though they had ALL benefits given to married couples via a civil union.

I was in the camp of give them the benefits and shut them up but after this I see that the benefits aren't really their aim.

Cody, that is why I added the last paragraph. If the agenda is to force their beliefs on me (or anyone else), that is no more correct than any religious group trying to do that. Contraception is certainly legal, but that doesn't mean anyone should force a Roman Catholic to use it if they believe it is counter to their religious beliefs. Pornography is legal, but nobody should force me to view it, if I believe it is demeaning.


The question then becomes, should a man and woman that enter into a civil union before a judge be able to say they are married?

Does it matter? It's the hang-up again with the word "marriage". Courts also recognize "common law marriage" when two people have lived together over a significant period and fulfill certain other criteria.

If we can turn "illegal aliens" into "undocumented immigrants", to suit our sensibilities, we can certainly find a secular term to describe "domestic partnerships". If things haven't changed, you still end up with a marriage certificate to validate your status, so the govt recognizes unions of the church in a legal way, but the govt is not allowed to interfere with practice of religion.

Gerry Clinchy
05-09-2012, 03:26 PM
The suspense is over

Obama backs gay marriage, answering speculation on 'evolving' position

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/

ARay11
05-09-2012, 03:32 PM
ROFLMAO.....There ya have it folks... It ain't FLIP FLOPPIN it's EVOLVING.

troy schwab
05-09-2012, 03:43 PM
ROFLMAO.....There ya have it folks... It ain't FLIP FLOPPIN it's EVOLVING.

I was thinking the same thing!!!!! You shake your etch a sketch hard enough...... it evolves.......ROFL

Jim Danis
05-09-2012, 03:51 PM
It certainly does matter from a legal point of view ... regarding income taxes, social security benefits, and inheritance laws, etc. That would apply for the states as well. For employers, it relates to various benefits such as health insurance and pensions.


You can have a "civil union" between man and woman in front of a justice of the peace or judge, right? Even if they are not married in a church, they are recognized as "married". I think the word "marriage" has a religious connotation; and by using it in a law, it conjures up the idea that the government is making a religious decision (pro or con).

So, the only solution is to recognize two partners (regardless of sex) as part of a civil union ... call it that, not marriage. Let the individual churches & religions decide what they will recognize or not as "marriage". Govt should not be making a religious decision.

Now, the govt probably has to take a stand that such a civil union is only between two individuals. Wouldn't it wreak havoc if there were two or three spouses that were eligible to collect on a deceased spouse's contributions? Not to mention SS payments to minor children of such a deceased. I'm sure the actuarial bases of SS (etc) were based on just two individuals in a "marriage" (though with SS a spouse can collect SS on a divorced spouse's account if they were married for 10 years or more; so it would be possible that a multi-divorced person might have such a multiple situation; but not as common as it would be if a person could have multiple spouses simultaneously). So maybe there is some need for govt to specify that there is a specific # of individuals who can head the household unit for all the govt-related ramifications associated with a household unit.

As long as a "civil union" has the same rules as a church-based "marriage", the rest is just semantics of what word we use to describe the household unit.

This seems so simple to me. Once you get the religious connation out of the equation, the solution becomes very simple.

Now if gay couples INSIST that the word "marriage" MUST be used, then I question their agenda. Why must the word be "marriage"? Simply to chastise some religious group(s) for not acknowledging their lifestyle?

Very well written. Although I do have to say that I voted for the amendment. I do firmly believe that MARRIAGE should be between 1 man and 1 woman. Civil Unions for others are fine also.

luvmylabs23139
05-09-2012, 04:16 PM
Very well written. Although I do have to say that I voted for the amendment. I do firmly believe that MARRIAGE should be between 1 man and 1 woman. Civil Unions for others are fine also.


Civil unions are now also only between a man and a woman.

22 point victory!

Gerry Clinchy
05-09-2012, 07:54 PM
Well, I guess Obama has the final word ... he used to think civil unions were sufficient, but now he thinks there has to be true "marriage". I didn't see an explanation of why this would be so.

If civil unions give the same rights, what is the difference except the words used? I can't "evolve" as Obama did because I see nothing to evolve from or to when benefits/rights of civil unions = benefits/rights of marriage.

My perception is that we are very conscious of offending Muslims and atheists, though not real worried about offending Christians. I don't think Muslims believe in gay marriage. Maybe some of them should stand up and say they are offended? I'd say the Latino community is mostly Christian that would not be much in favor of it. Exit poll I saw reported for NC, also indicated that the black population voted mostly against gay marriage as well.

BonMallari
05-13-2012, 11:06 AM
absolutely loved the quote by Senator Rand Paul

"...could the President's stance on same sex marriage be any gayer.."