Does the Federal Government recognize gay marriages or only a few select states?
A few states have decided to recognize gay marriages. Does the Federal Government recognize those marriages for tax purposes? Do most states recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships? Which "marriage rights" are the most important that haven't been granted under civil unions?
I mean, we all argue about gay marriage but what's the real issue here? Are we just fighting over the use of a word? If we are not just fighting over the use of a word, are we fighting over the principle of the thing? If not just the principle of the thing, are we fighting over money? Which rights are being violated? What exactly is it that same sex couples are not allowed to do but if they were married all of that would go away?
I Googled it and found that...
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Who knows? The other side?
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
I don't feel like doing the research so I'm only going to answer those questions which I know (or think I know) off the top of my head. There's a good chance I'm wrong on some of them, and if so please someone correct me. A few states have decided to recognize gay marriages. Does the Federal Government recognize those marriages for tax purposes? In those states which have legalized gay marriage, all married couples receive the same benefits regardless of their gender. Do most states recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships? Let me preface this by saying there are 6 states that grant (or soon will grant) full marriage rights to homosexuals: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire. As far as civil unions: New Jersey has legalized civil unions for same sex couples that grant rights very close to those given to married couples. I can't think of any others right now, but there might be more. As far as domestic partnerships: Nevada recently passed a bill that would allow domestic partnerships to have essentially the same rights as a marriage. Domestic partnerships in California have nearly the same amount of rights as marriages (I'm not actually sure on the differences). Recently a law was passed in Washington that would make domestic partnerships equal under the law to same sex marriages. Orogen passed a bill making domestic partnerships legal, and with the same rights as marriages. Washington D.C. has domestic partnerships that are essentially equal in rights to marriage. Hawaii, Colorado and Maryland also recognize same sex unions in one form or another, but not with rights equal to those of marriage. So in case you weren't counting 6 states - Gay marriage is legal 1 State - Civil Unions between same sex couples are legal 4 states (and D.C.) - Domestic Partnerships are legal 3 states - Recognize same sex unions in some form That means that there are 36 states in which there is absolutely no recognition of gay marriage. (Okay, I cheated a little and used this wiki ariticle) I mean, we all argue about gay marriage but what's the real issue here? Equality regardless of sexual orientation. Are we just fighting over the use of a word? I don't think so. I think what we are fighting over is whether people who are born differently will be able to enjoy the same rights as everyone else. As far as the civil union thing, I think it's a step in the right direction, but we've tried separate but equal in the U.S. before...it didn't turn out so well. Which rights are being violated? Remember the Declaration of Independence? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What could be more fundamental to happiness then being allowed to marry the person you love? What exactly is it that same sex couples are not allowed to do but if they were married all of that would go away? Depends on the state, but in general I would say it's start a family. Some states have even passed laws making adoption for those who aren't married illegal. This means that gay couples in these states won't be able to really have a family until they are allowed to marry. Can't you understand how demeaning it must be for those people who want a family, but live in a country that won't even recognized their right to that family? Side: I Googled it and found that...
1
point
OK, so don't you agree that it should be easier to make it so that "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" are exactly like marriage? Don't you agree that it should be easier to force the government to stop using the word "marriage" and adopt the words "civil union" instead? Also notice that the right afforded by the constitution is the pursuit of Happiness not happiness. Being allowed to marry the person you love does not constitute happiness. As long as both parties view their relationship as a marriage, who cares what others think. The bottom line here, happiness comes from within not by forcing other people to bend to your will. as far as adoption.... This is tough. Society feels that it knows best when it comes to deciding who gets to adopt and who doesn't. This is a problem not only for gays but for people who are just living together, people who live alone, mixed race couples, etc. But gays can have children through artificial insemination and surrogates and the government has no say in that matter. Gays can have a family and have a right to that family. Side: I Googled it and found that...
2
points
Actually I would be perfectly fine if we just changed everything to civil unions. Then everyone would be equal. I know that it's the pursuit of happiness, and marriage is definitely not guaranteed happiness (my own father divorced his first wife) but it certainly allows people to pursue happiness. Certainly the attitude others have had to take is "who cares what others think", but they shouldn't have to. That's my point. You seem to just be opposed to change for no other reason then because it's change. I'm sorry, but I just can't understand that concept. With what you've said about adoption, I think you've stumbled on a key part of this whole debate. Does the majority have the right to tell the minority how to live? You could argue that children are affected, so in this case, yes they do, except that every study done on the subject shows that those children raised by same sex couples are not hurt by the arrangement. This means laws are not being made on rationality but either religious beliefs or bigotry (do I smell a repeat debate). The supreme court of Alabama actually overturned the initial law as unconstitutional for the reasons I just named, but the people of Alabama passed an amendment (I believe, sketchy on the details) that made it impossible for unmarried people to adopt. This means that the issue won't be solved until homosexuals are given equal marriage rights. Why should gays have to go through so much trouble to have a child when straight couples don't? This is one issue I completely don't understand because allowing gays to adopt would mean less children in foster care. How is this not a good thing? And people wonder why I don't like religion. Side: I Googled it and found that...
|
1
point
I really have no idea because I don't have time to Goggle this stuff plus it doesn't affect me one way or another so I'm not motivated to do the research. I am, however, highly motivated to provide my unsolicited, uninformed, uneducated, unwarranted, unnecessary, unpersuasive, provocative, creative, outspoken argument ;) Side: Who knows? The other side?
|
