Gay Marriage

Nick Bogaerts said:
Should the penalty for the death of a person with a family be different than that of one without?
Click to expand...

Should the penalty for the death of a person be dependant on the income of the person?

I can see the arguements for and against it. But this is an issue of standing, and who has standing to sue for wrongful death. So who should have standing to sue?
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Maybe, but any damages awarded under it could certainly be seen as a penalty.

Should it be cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one?
Click to expand...


Don't think that is what is being suggested but rather the fact that wrongful death (I think) can only be brought by the next-of-kin and that's one of the rights that marriage usually brings i.e. you become the next of kin for your spouse and vice-a-versa.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Why limit it to those who have married? Why not cohabiting couples?
Click to expand...

Because how much is someone entitled to for the loss of a room mate? Or how do you establish that individuals cohabiting are a couple?

Marriage does make a very clear line of when they are very serious and have long term intentions more so than cohabiting might. But I think I would be confortable with long term cohabitation being possible to grant standing.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Maybe, but any damages awarded under it could certainly be seen as a penalty.

Should it be cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one?
Click to expand...

The point is that, for a civil action, there needs to be someone to bring the suit. In general that someone is limited to a family member or other "dependent party" who has suffered emotional or monetary damages as a result of the death. It's not about whether the death of a single person should be cheaper than a married one, but who's allowed to bring the suit. Without some formal indication of "family" such as marriage, determining who has standing to bring such a suit becomes problematic.

Whether this is the right way to do it or not is certainly a valid argument. But the fact is that it is being done this way and denying that right to a segment of the population simply because of their sexual preference is nothing less than discrimination.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Maybe, but any damages awarded under it could certainly be seen as a penalty.

Should it be cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one?
Click to expand...

Wrong end of the stick, I'm afraid.

It's not (and shouldn't be) any cheaper to cause the wrongful death of a single person than a married one. But it's a question of who has standing to sue. A child of a single person has exactly the same standing as a child of a married one, and the penalty will be identical. However, the unmarried partner can't sue in the same way that a married partner can.

It makes sense that I don't have standing to sue unless I can prove a close relationship to the deceased. Just because you promised to write a book for me doesn't mean that my publishing company can sue your murderer for the loss of income. We need a list of who's allowed to sue. But that doesn't mean we should exclude people from the list for arbitrary reasons.
 
We only have two Presidential candidates that support it, both second-tier Democrats. Oh, and Edwards' wife. Hopefully she can brainwash him, or whatever it is that female spouses do.

Damn :mad: .
 
tsg said:
Whether this is the right way to do it or not is certainly a valid argument. But the fact is that it is being done this way and denying that right to a segment of the population simply because of their sexual preference is nothing less than discrimination.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.
Click to expand...

So you would favor a common law marriage with all the effects of marriage for cohabiting couples? How would divorce in such a situation work? Or is an unmarried individual not entitled to the same legal status and ability to bring civil charges as a married person even though they are cohabiting?

It is hard to redefine an aspect of what rights go to what individuals in such an general fashion.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.
Click to expand...


You don't see why the absence of a contract should prevent one from getting all the benefits one would get if there were a contract?
 
I oppose gay marriage.

Because turning the gay community into a growth market for divorce lawyers would technically be a hate-crime. ;)
 
It's simple.

1. The Government allows Gay Marriage.
2. All the Democrats become Gay.
3. No more Democrats.

Communists must go. The orgasm is NOT the true enemy of civilization you silly totalitarians. Yield to inertia.
 
In that case, I'm definitely in favor of it.


Gays, go forth and marry.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.
Click to expand...

... except that then you have the problem of defining "cohabitating" in a reasonable and clear-cut fashion. Are we "cohabitating" if we share a hotel room on a trip? How about if after the trip, I come back to your place for a one-night stand? How about a one-week stand? How about if we get together one week a year and have done so for ten years? (I think there was a movie about that -- "Same Time, Next Year," with Alan Alda.)

What happens if we stop cohabitating -- I get a Fullbright or something and spend the next ten months in Germany?

Part of the reason why the law on common-law marriage is such a mess is because it's so hard to define when such a marriage begins and ends. The wedding ceremony at least provides a simple bright-line test; if you've had that ceremony, you're married (and you're married as of the point when the ceremony is held).
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Don't get me wrong I am all in favour of equality of gay marriage. Equally, I don't see why the absence of a piece of paper should prevent a cohabiting couple from having exactly the same rights as a married one.
Click to expand...

First, the problem is in the definition of "cohabiting couple". Someone I met in a bar last night who spent the night on my couch probably shouldn't qualify, whereas someone with whom I've spent the past 40 years probably should. But where do you draw the line?

Second, the "piece of paper" says that two people are committed to each other (at least for the time being) and will not only share financial rights, but responsibilities as well. If two people decide they don't want to share those responsibilities, that's fine, nobody's forcing them. But they don't get to take the benefits either. A marriage license is little more than an article of incorporation for private citizens.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be forced into that arrangement regardless of how long they've been together. Nor do I think that there should be a time restriction when two people can enter that arrangement. They should consent to the arrangement and I don't think signing a document that they have done so and will live up to the responsibilities that comes with it is unreasonable.
 
As far as I'm considered, gay marriage is a non-issue. Of course, I'm Canadian so I don't have to deal with it like you Americans do.

Here are the reasons I've heard given against gay marriage:
  • The Bible is against it.
    No argument here, the Bible is pretty homophobic. Of course, I don't care what the Bible says about anything and it shouldn't dictate policy.
  • Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
    According to who? As humans we decide what our words are going to mean and if we want to have the word "marriage" refer to a legally sanctioned partnership between two adults of unspecified genders, what should stop us?
  • Children shouldn't be raised by gay parents.
    This raises a reasonable question; are there any disadvantages to a child if they are raised by gay parents? This question can be and has been addressed scientifically and no negative effects have been found other than the bigotry of others (see the Penn & Teller: ******** episode "Family Values"). Of course, only lesbian couples have been studied in detail (according to that episode) so there is still the question for gay male couples, but thus far there seems to be no validated objection to children being raised by gay parents.
  • What's the purpose of marriage if not to produce children?
    If this question were actually relevant we should be banning out-of-wedlock childbirth and nobody who is sterile should be allowed to marry. Even ignoring this point that marriage cannot simply be about reproduction, there are many other benefits bestowed on a married couple such as tax breaks, special legal treatment in the case of one of them being accused of a crime (at least here in Canada, iirc) and various changes in behaviour of inheritances, none of which have anything to do with children.
    Additionally, many gay couples can have children by way of surrogacy and it won't be that much longer before genetics allow a gay couple to have a child who is genetically entirely their own (with the aid a consenting, compatible surrogate mother in the case of gay male couples).
  • Gay marriage would create unnecessary complications in custody battles and when determining inheritance and power of attorney.
    These situations are extremely complicated as it stands with the forbidding of gay marriage for the simple reason that the existing laws for married couples are being forced not to apply. If we allowed gay marriage custody battles, inheritance issues and questions of spousal power of attorney could simply use the existing legal framework for married couples, ultimately making things a lot simpler.
  • Marriage is a religious institution and allowing gay marriage infringes on religious freedoms.
    Frankly, I don't see the problem here, either. If we accept that marriage is a religious institution then nobody should be able to get married under the law and each church can decide for itself who it wants to allow to marry. If the law still wants to allow something like marriage to take place, it can simply rename the existing process for everybody and there is no more objection here to legally recognized homosexual couples.
    On the other hand, if marriage is considered as a purely secular institution, religious objections should have no bearing on it whatsoever and once again the objection simply vanishes.
  • Allowing gay marriage is like having the law say that being gay or lesbian is okay.
    Right. What's the problem? If you have some objection to gay people or behaviour, that's your business, but it has no place in the legal system.
  • But I don't want to see (or have my children see) gay people behaving affectionately towards each other in public.
    First, they behave affectionately in public whether married or not, so this objection is irrelevant. Second, your children are going to see (and probably make friends with) gay couples as adults and so early exposure is a good way to ensure that they won't be uncomfortable with their gay friends' affection later in life. Third, anything which restricts the showing of affection of gay couples in public should also impose the same restrictions on straight couples as well.
  • It just feels wrong.
    That's supposed to be an objection?

So, having shot down every one of the objections I've heard, I can see no legal, ethical way to obstruct the legalization of gay marriage.
Personally, I quite like the idea of gay couples having all the same freedoms as straight couples, but I am also in favour of abolishing marriage as an institution entirely, so I am left in a position of being conditionally in favour of gay marriage (i.e. if straight marriage is allowed then I think gay marriage should be as well).

Anything I missed?
 
The only reason my husband and I are legally married is because of legal concerns, in the realm of "if something awful happens". We never needed or cared about the ceremony. It's only to ensure we have the legal rights of next of kin.

Take away all the social engineering concerns and you are left with this: gay couples are not getting the full legal protection and recognition across the US (and world) that they deserve as human beings. People are people are people. Gay adults should have the same right to make this choice that straight adults do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom