Comments on: Mawidge is what bwings us togewer today http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/09/mawidge-is-what-bwings-us-togewer-today/ Muttonchops and loud shirts... Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:11:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: markus http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/09/mawidge-is-what-bwings-us-togewer-today/comment-page-1/#comment-110 markus Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-110 I think I'm starting to agree with your take on the whole "definition of marriage" the more I think about it. The only problem is, the way I see it, it relis on both sides having soem shred of common sense, something that's no longer assumable today. I was all for gay marriage at first... but then I thought about what the differences would be between that and a civil union. I guess it also depends on how a marriage works; considering I can get married by Elvis if I look hard enough, I'm sure gays can get "married" but whether or not it means anything (more than on paper) might be another story. Then I realized the bottom line for a lot of same-sex couples is the benefits - they want to be treated the same as heterosexual couples, get the same medical coverage, tax deductions, whatever. If I could be certain that these benefits would be extended to civil unions, I could care less whether or not they actually get married. That might sound a bit... cynical or uncaring maybe, but getting medical coverage for your partner strikes me as slightly mroe important than a marriage license. One fear I have is that, if gay marriage is constitutionally banned (why are we changing the constitution to include sexual orientation? Is this <i>really</i>necessary?) then anyone asking for benefits can simply be told "well, that's for married couples only" and a civil union becomes a moot point. Unless gays have some assurance that they'd be able to receive those benefits - one way or another - I think that any compromise would put them at a disadvantage. I'd like to think that our government wouldn't create stipulations that result in different treatment for citizens of different sexual orientations, but then again, I'd like to think that a President should be, you know, <i>voted</i> into office, so who knows anymore. Sorry this got so long; feel free to axe it if it's taking up too much room. I'm always willing to post this on my livejournal and just link to it here to save space :) I think I’m starting to agree with your take on the whole “definition of marriage” the more I think about it. The only problem is, the way I see it, it relis on both sides having soem shred of common sense, something that’s no longer assumable today.

I was all for gay marriage at first… but then I thought about what the differences would be between that and a civil union. I guess it also depends on how a marriage works; considering I can get married by Elvis if I look hard enough, I’m sure gays can get “married” but whether or not it means anything (more than on paper) might be another story.

Then I realized the bottom line for a lot of same-sex couples is the benefits - they want to be treated the same as heterosexual couples, get the same medical coverage, tax deductions, whatever. If I could be certain that these benefits would be extended to civil unions, I could care less whether or not they actually get married. That might sound a bit… cynical or uncaring maybe, but getting medical coverage for your partner strikes me as slightly mroe important than a marriage license.

One fear I have is that, if gay marriage is constitutionally banned (why are we changing the constitution to include sexual orientation? Is this reallynecessary?) then anyone asking for benefits can simply be told “well, that’s for married couples only” and a civil union becomes a moot point. Unless gays have some assurance that they’d be able to receive those benefits - one way or another - I think that any compromise would put them at a disadvantage.

I’d like to think that our government wouldn’t create stipulations that result in different treatment for citizens of different sexual orientations, but then again, I’d like to think that a President should be, you know, voted into office, so who knows anymore.

Sorry this got so long; feel free to axe it if it’s taking up too much room. I’m always willing to post this on my livejournal and just link to it here to save space :)

]]> By: Kurt http://thomnottom.com/blog/2004/02/09/mawidge-is-what-bwings-us-togewer-today/comment-page-1/#comment-113 Kurt Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 //?p=#comment-113 I think we need to get the government out of the whole marriage business. Civil unions for all! Seriously, I think we need one set of laws that cover inheritance, hospital visitation, next-of-kin, etc, that can be applied to any set of consenting adults, and that the paperwork for that group of rights should not be called a "marriage license". Marriage is a religious thing, and by the first amendment, shouldn't be part of the government's regulation. I think we need to get the government out of the whole marriage business. Civil unions for all!

Seriously, I think we need one set of laws that cover inheritance, hospital visitation, next-of-kin, etc, that can be applied to any set of consenting adults, and that the paperwork for that group of rights should not be called a “marriage license”.

Marriage is a religious thing, and by the first amendment, shouldn’t be part of the government’s regulation.

]]>