Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Choop]

Anyway, you're missing my point, and the thread's veering. Back to the topic you've evaded somewhat: The text on the imaginary ballot which I proposed did not represent the amendment in full. My main beef with this? There's plenty of room on the screen/page/paper to print the entire text of the amendment, so why not do it? Toner costs? Oh, please.

[AlohaDawg]

Choop - in Ohio, Illinois and in Hawaii (the three places I've voted) the ballot would contain some portion of the amendment but also, clearly printed in the voting instructions as well as near the portion of the ballot dedicated to the amendment/initiative/proposition was a statement to the effect that the full text of the ballot item was available from the election officials. If that is not the case in Georgia, it sure should be because otherwise there is no way to make a truly informed decision at the ballot box.

Your indignation is absolutely righteous.

[CortJstr]

In VA the full text did no appear on the ballot but on posters while in line. I'd already read them online but if I hadn't there's no way I would've had time between the time I got close to the poster and the time I'd moved past it. You'd think in a 1.5 hour line there'd be plenty of time to read but there was only one poster (per initiative) up.

I as I said in another thread:

When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt

In other words, respect other's beliefs and practices even if you don't agree with them. That doesn't mean that preaching or converting is wrong, just that one shouldn't blatantly try to block others from practicing their beliefs in the mean-time.

That being said I think the gov't role in marriage (always a small m) is to recognize it and that's it unless it's dangerous or unhealthy. So any marriage between two consenting adults who are not immediate relatives. That covers polygamy and incest. You can even throw a "sentient" or "human" in there if you want. But other than that love is love regardless of gender, color, religion, etc.

My religion techinically says marriage is only between two Catholics but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and make the state or federal gov't outlaw protestant/Jewish/Hindu/&c marriages.

[slink]

That being said I think the gov't role in marriage (always a small m) is to recognize it and that's it unless it's dangerous or unhealthy.

The problem comes not in the religious aspect of marriage and whether two men, or two women should be allowed to be married. I mean, they could call it something else and it would be fine. The issue is in the civil rights - state pension being a particularly difficult example. I mean, I think if you get 'married' to ANYONE, things like state pension should be treated the same as if you were married conventionally, but even a lot of people who support gay marriage have a problem with where lines ought to be drawn.

As far as I'm concerned... What lines?

[Nabubrush]

It just seems strange that marriage should remain traditonal so there is no slippery slope to guys marrying dogs, but gays can enter into civil unions. What's to stop guys entering into civil unions with dogs, with the institution of marriage is so tenuous? And why would you deny gays the opportunity to marry just because there might be challenges? I suspect that argument might have been used against interracial marriages, too. I could undertsand if your point was to save money by not clogging the courts up with challenges, but I'm guessing that most judges are not going to allow someone to marry a chicken just because same-sex marriages are ok.

I'm thinking that the basis of traditional marriage being one man/one woman is religious in nature, and I don't think that it is fair to make something with a basis in religion be legally binding over people who do not belong to that particular religion.

[arkabee]

Hospital visitation policies have nothing to do with the law. They are the purview of the hospital.

are you certain?  i was under the, possibly erroneous, impression that (and especially now with further HIIPA (spelling?) enactments) that most hospital polices ARe in fact governed by the , uh, government.

For instance, if i am badly injured and in a car wreck or whatnot, and my girlfriend comes rushing to the emergency room, due to "patient confidentiality" etc things, i was under the impression that she may or may not be allowed visitation as she as not a family member nor any other LEGALLY SANCTIONED entity Sanctioned to interact with or for me when i am not in possession of the facilities to make decisions based on such.

ie, if i'm unconscious, they aren't legally allowed to let random people in and let them make decisions for me while i'm not.

which, incidentally, i'm grateful for.  i mean, i don't want some random person coming into the room and saying "i'm so and so, and he always said to pull the plug!!!!".

to be honest, other than marrying her, i'm not sure what i would have to do to give her the rights, privileges, responsibilities etc that would allow her to make those types of decisions for me.

however, i guess that's wha "civil unions" would seem to me to allow.

so, to me, i can understand why, in addition to the social changes that would allow society to be more "Accepting", a gay couple would want to be allowed "Legal Marriage" or "civil unions" etc.

since, i do not know what other recourse they would have to allow their partner to take care of them in times of need.

however, i would guess that things such as "living wills" or "powers of atttourney" would exist to give these types of powers???

sadly, i am incredibly ignorant on the subject.

more sadly, i think that many more people are much more ignorant than i onthe subject.

I'm gonna catch hell for this post but I'm being honest. Please try to keep the flames low...

i may disagree with your stances (on occassion) sir, but i certainly am in favor of your thought out and rational explanations of your opinions and views.


to veer dangerously to where i didn't quite want to go,
it seems to me as if the issue in "america" isn't quite "no gay marriage" so much as "no gay".

perhaps it is purely "the media" not representing the general views of the populace, but i rarely if ever hear or see actual "reasons" for not recognizing or endorsing gay marriage.

i see a lot of hate, and i see a lot of indignation, and blustering, etc.  but i do not see a lot of rational thought nor reasons.

and it makes me sad.

so, mr. alohadawg, thank you for making me happy.  because while i may or may not agree with your REASONS, it is certainly nice to hear (see) actual REASONS in regards to this issue.  it gives me some hope that there is someone on that side of the issue who is rational and intelligent and etc.

of course, you are kept trapped on a volcanic island by your right-wing masters, which saddens me.  (please note this last sentence is humor, albeit not very good.)

[Nabubrush]

I'm gonna catch hell for this post but I'm being honest. Please try to keep the flames low...

Yeah, Dawg - let me also make clear that I'm all for you saying what you believe, and the fact is that I've been trying to find some reasoned defense of the 'defense of marriage' acts for some time. The folks that I work with have basically a few positions, such as:

-I don't want my tax dollars supporting gays,
-Gays can't procreate, and that's what marriage is for,
-God hates fags.

I'm glad to hear some well-thought-out ideas, rather than knee-jerkism (which I get from both sides).

So thank you, Dawg.

[CortJstr]

What arkabee said.

And it's HIPAA. We deal with it a lot at my job and the privacy provisions make our lives quite difficult.

[AlohaDawg]

HIPAA (at least in the environment in which I work) has a lot to say about the confidentiality of your medical information; what a doctor may or not disclose; to whom they may disclose it. In cases outside the ICU (where medical reasons often preclude indiscriminate visitation) I don't think HIPAA applies. Otherwise nursing homes and other facilities like that would have problems with visitation. As long as the medical information is safe I don't think it addresses the visitation policy. Releasing medical information to a gay domestic partner would be a problem without a legally recognized relationship, signed release, living will, power-or-attorney, etc. though.

Hospitals have to be accredited by JCAHO and this is a huge, systemic process that is meant to assure quality as well as quality improvement. They look at everything in the hospital including policies. This is more likely, to me, to address visitation issues. But I have visited many people in the hospital in various states including near-death, without being related to them in a direct way. So I'm not sure about the relationship between gay marriage/civil unions and hospital visitation but I still suspect that this is an issue of hospital policy more than regulation.

[Nabubrush]

Additionally, once marriage is altered beyond the traditional meaning, a precedent is created by which any two individuals should be able to sue for marriage. Farcical potential situations that would be difficult to legislate against once marriage is open to definition include brothers and sisters marrying, state-sanctioned polygamy, uncles and nieces, and other less than savory possibilities including individuals 'marrying' animals.

You know, it's kind of odd - traditionally, marriage means between a man and a woman, so lots of folks want to keep it for men and women, and homosexuals can just have something else. But at one time, traditionally, voting was just for white men, property ownership was the same way - everything was, really. This country opened those rights up to other humans and things worked out pretty well.

It's pretty poor if our country can't extend rights to a group of its citizens because it might lead to 'farcical potential situations that would be difficult to legislate against.'

[V-Adore]

Er, isn't there already legislation against marriages between close blood relatives (and sometimes cousins)? That seems to counterindicate that these would be difficult to legislate against. In fact, most of your cases mentioned can be clarified very simply; legislate that marriage is a bond between two consenting adults who are not within a certain degree of relation to one another. This eliminates all the particularly farcical cases pretty much out of hand.

(Also, provided that the arrangement is between three or more consenting adults who run a harmonious household together, what's so wrong with polyamorous relationships being recognized by the state? I realize that, in practice, such relationships are often unstable, but every kind of life-partnership relationship is unstable.)

[Bozack]

Yeah, my big thing is, why doesn't the government just say, okay. We will, henceforth, only care about "civil unions." So, if Jack and Jill want to get married, they can go and get married in a church, and the church can send the paperwork to the government, and we'll put that down as a civil union. Jack and Jim can do the exact same thing, but they might have to go to a different church. Basically, let's completely separate the religious significance of marriage from the work-a-day realities of civil unions, because, as it is, it degrades both.

And we'll throw something in there about two humans, not related, as well (although I actually don't see anything massively wrong with polygamy; not my cup of tea, but if Ezekial is willing to put up with the fights, and we can work something out, tax-wise, I don't think I would mind. Except when I get pissed because those Mormon guys are taking all of the good girls.)

EDIT: As they say on Mefi, "On preview...what V-Adore said," for the last part.

[andalucia]

I believe the farcial situations part was intended to refer to THE COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF THE INSTITUTION OF MATRIMONY, AND THUS, SOCIETY AS WE KNOW IT!!! that would of course result from said marriages.

[Nabubrush]

I'm certainly doing my best to break down society with my marriage. And I'm having pretty promising results, too.

[AlohaDawg]

(Also, provided that the arrangement is between three or more consenting adults who run a harmonious household together, what's so wrong with polyamorous relationships being recognized by the state? I realize that, in practice, such relationships are often unstable, but every kind of life-partnership relationship is unstable.)

There is no compelling reason to grant a new state-sanctioned, state-defined relationship to a narrow class of people that creates a spectrum of rights or privileges that are already covered in the body of law or can be addressed by non-legal means. You can't compel the state to make a law which then it would be required to spend money to administer and uphold, when the interests that would be served by the law can be served in either the existing body of law or by policies in non-legal areas. Hospital visitation, adoption, property succession, power-of-attorney, living wills, Gay-friendly churches who bless unions, and work benefits are all areas that do not require any or additional legislation and serve virtually every purpose for which altering the definition of marriage would supposedly accomplish.

Also you are making my point; once you begin recognizing every kind of relationship it becomes farcical and indeed destroys marriage as sacred institution. As I have tried to say, call it something besides 'marriage' and define it in legal terms that accord specific rights and responsibilities to the involved parties and you will have a much better chance at seeing this concept supported.