marriage, they simply rattle off the old "sanctity" and "tradition"
lines, like the GOP has suddenly been populated with a bunch of
less-flexible Tevye's.
I'd like to hear non-partisan, non-political economic points as it
relates to gay marriage. If (hypothetically) all 50 states were to
suddenly back it, how many new married couples would be projected? How
many subsequent divorces over x,y,z years? What would the tax impact
be? What studies have various industries done to gauge that effect?
On a personal level, I find moral opposition to gay marriage sort of
ridiculous, when I can be married by an Elvis impersonator in a Love
Chapel on the Vegas strip, and file for no-fault divorce at any point
afterwards. That sort of cavalier attitude towards another person and
vows that are meant to define the rest of your life is more of a threat
to the institution of marriage than the gender of those involved.
- Jim
Doug White wrote:
>As I see it, marriage imparts many government goodies, such as favorable tax
>status before the IRS, Legal, as in inheritance, consent to medical procedures,
>joint tenancy such as homestead exemptions held jointly, and many more.
>The proposed civil unions do not impart these protections and perhaps that is
>the reason the movement is opposed. That is aside from religious reasons.
>
>For example if 1 1/2 million gays or others entered into same-sex marriage, what
>effect would that have on the millions of us who opt for what is known as
>traditional marriage?
>Would we lose something? Would it be any different for us? If so, how?
>
>
>
>
> > Disappointing actually. I really dislike it when others try
> > to shove their religious biases down my throat. And for all
> > intents and purposes this proposed amendment does exactly
> > that. Moreover it contradicts the equal protection clause as
> > well. Welcome to the latest in the Republican wedge issues.
>
> While I'll agree that there are some serious considerations and issues to
> look at with this proposal. It should also be pointed out that this is
> simply an announcement of intent, not a guarantee of passage. When it comes
> to changing the US Constitution there is a whole slew of hoops that the
> amendment has to run through before it is enacted.
>
> The problem that is happening right now is the fact that we have a Full
> Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution (Article 4) that means that what
> is recognized as a marriage in one state must be accepted as a marriage (for
> *legal* purposes) in all states. The other thing that I heard during his
> announcement was that he suggested that states come up with some alternative
> to marriage (civil unions, support of same sex couples in taxing and
> benefits) without redefining marriage.
>
> We're not talking about whether or not two men or two women should have the
> ability to commit themselves to each other before God, family and friends.
> It is a question of whether or not the Government must see these same sex
> couples at the same level as they do heterosexual couples when it comes to
> legal issues.
>
> Hatton
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
