I know this has been posting constantly before, but it is disgusting when you think about it. Basically, a straight married man can vote to tear a couple apart, because no matter the outcome of Prop H8, his wife will still be his wife - where other's aren't that lucky. A straight person knows that if their partner dies, they will have custody of their own children that they raised, while voting to take that off other families.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I was watching My Life on the D List and they were doing a rally. This man's spouse had cancer and he wasn't allowed to visit him in the hopsital because they weren't related or anything. Wtf? That should never happen.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Again? Really... a post like this makes the homepage every week. inb4 debate

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Too late

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think government shouldn't have any say in any marriage. No marriage licenses at all, no fee and if it still affects taxes then there can be a standard form that the administrator of the marriage fills out and you send in with your tax form.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

^This is retarded. Who would you like to control marriage?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Why does marriage need to be controlled? Churches can decide to marry whomever they want to marry, and justices of the peace will just marry whomever. Really if you look at the origins of marriage it's religious, so the state doesn't need to be that involved. Even if you're atheist, there's no reason for the government to get in your business.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because letting the church decide who to marry worked out so well before, and who do justices of the peace work for? Oh yea... the government.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You can't force a priest/minister/pastor to marry someone, that's a huge breach of separation of church & state. I don't want to take away justices and captains ability to marry people, just that we don't have marriage licenses and fees. It's dumb that you have to pay $35 to get the signature of a clerk before you can get married.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, who needs taxes? Lets just let people donate money to the government. That will work.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm more into flat taxes and getting rid of all the fine print.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Even if gay marriage were legal the church wouldn't have to marry them. Religious marriage ceremonies are at the discretion of the priest. Even though it's legal for a black person and a white person to marry, the church is not required to recognize the marriage if it is against their beliefs. When two people get married in a church they still need a marriage license through the government. Civil marriage offers tax breaks and the legal status that makes being married better and easier than just having the title of being in a relationship and calling each other husband and wife. Yes, you can pay to get certain things put in your will and you can also pay to have joint property, but why pay more when marriage is cheaper in the long run?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know that it's up to the discretion of the church, what exactly is your point? I know that they get tax breaks, that's why I think the priest could send in a document (like they have to do already) for the tax break. It'll still have the benefits without having the extra fees.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"You can't force a priest/minister/pastor to marry someone, that's a huge breach of separation of church & state" You said this. My point is that it is at the discretion of the church so it's not a breech of separation of church and state. We pay marriage licenses and fees because it's cheaper to pay for the paper form of marriage than to pay for the paper work to get all those benefits separately. The priest does not have any legal status, so because of the whole separation of church and state he can't be the one to sign the documents for tax breaks. My comment was also more or less a reply to comment #1241939 down there.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

twisted_memories said that when the church decides who gets to marry something bad happens, so I what I meant is that the church always decides who they marry to a degree, because you can't force them to marry two people. When I got married the priest had to mail back a form that he signed the day we got married to prove that we got married (people have to be certified to marry someone, so priests to have a limited legal status). That step wouldn't' be much different, it would just get rid of previous steps.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So are you against gay marriage or the whole marriage process in general? Your profile says you're a Libertarian, so I assume you're all for human rights and what not. But it also says you're married, so I don't see why you seem so anti-marriage.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not anti-marriage, I'm anti-government, making me pay $40 ish bucks for something that could be done easier. As with most government processes, they add a lot of unnecessary steps.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In the long run, it's more expensive to pay for the things that come with marriage separately. Marriage benefits are a hassle, but I know that they're worth it in comparison to all the work it would take to be able to see my partner in the hospital or to have full custody of our kids if something bad were to happen. I want to be able to have joint bank accounts and the I want to be able to file my taxes as a unit so I won't have to pay as much. The government really shouldn't be so involved with marriage, but it's for the best that they are. It gives you all those rights, and hundreds more, with just $40ish dollars, a little paper work, and a few signatures. Yeah, there are a lot of unnecessary steps, but a lot fewer steps in comparison to how it would be if marriage wasn't a government institution.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"You can't force a priest/minister/pastor to marry someone, that's a huge breach of separation of church & state." Separation of church and state is ONLY for the sake of the church not becoming a government body. Yet it seems everyone misunderstands... It doesn't mean that the church can't protest laws. It doesn't mean that the church can't declare something morally wrong. It doesn't mean that the church can't try to influence people in power. Separation of church at state is not intended to render the church mute and lame. It is merely intended to prevent another incident like The Holy Roman Empire. On topic: woo hoo gay marriage.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn't mean to say that church can't protest, declare or influence. Trust me, I'm part of a fairly large and well-organized church. I meant that if a government body tried to force a church representative to force someone they did not want to, THAT would be a breach of the separation of church & state. I don't think government should make a church do something, unless it's to stop them from doing something that is harmful towards others.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What about the benefits that come with marriage? The government controls those benefits...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Taxes: It would be solved by the form filled out by the administrator of the marriage. Inheritance: Put it in your will. Anything else?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The right to visit your spouse in the hospital, to have full parental control should your spouse die, I'm pretty sure that there are actually somewhere over 1,000 rights (according to Kathy Griffin) granted to married couples that are not granted any other way (i.e., a union, or whatever you're saying).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Your source is Kathy Griffin? And I'm sorry, I don't remember how this went from not paying a marriage tax to civil unions. Which, in most places are almost the same except by name. But that's not my point. My point is that government should not be so involved with marriage.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes. That is my source. I'm sure I could look it up, but I didn't want to. Anyway, the government should be involved because of all those rights. What would taking the government involvement out of marriage make it? What would your rights be as a married couple? Would there be any, seeing as the government grants those rights? Or would you simply be a long-term couple? Marriage is bringing two people together legally, emotionally, and sometimes religiously. You need the legal rights or else you've only got part of a marriage.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Marriage is traditionally a religious rite. And regarding hospital rights, that'd all be up to the hospital. I don't think taking away the government involvement would change those rights, and even if they were gone it's not only part of a marriage. Those are just some physical benefits of marriage. I just want to get rid of a few unnecessary steps. Nothing else.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So what exactly would a marriage be? What rights would you have as a couple? Because rights are granted by law granted by government... So I'm not quite sure exactly what you think marriage would be.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A marriage would be the same thing, eliminating the first step prior to the marriage to be granted a license. The same forms would be given to the same administers, and the rest of the process would be the same. If marriage licenses weren't involved, then government couldn't stop a couple from marrying.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A marriage would be the same thing, eliminating the first step prior to the marriage to be granted a license. The same forms would be given to the same administers, and the rest of the process would be the same. If marriage licenses weren't involved, then government couldn't stop a couple from marrying. And the reason why I asked about Kathy Griffith is because she's a comedian. I wouldn't take what they say as fact, and considering how many different kinds of unions there are, and how different they are in each state/country, it's hard to determine what rights are withheld in general. And I wouldn't say that married couples have 1000's of rights beyond even a boyfriend/girlfriend type of relationship.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

She has a show that's not simply about her being funny and she's a leader in the gay rights movement. She does things like get rallies together and spread awareness all the time. She's actually HUGE in the gay/straight equality fight. And yeah, there are WAY more rights than most people even know about when it comes to marriage, but if those rights aren't gone with what you're talking about, all you're saying is that it's one less paper to sign? I think that the government should simply redefine marriage in such a way as that it not be based of the bible or gender (like we did in Canada). It would solve the problem, I think (and probably be less confusing). Also, what happens if say, a inter-sex wants to get married, or a transvestite? It seems like people only think of gays and straights when talking about marriage. (None of that was really relevant, just a thought I had.)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Why get married if you don't even care about the physical benefits? Why not just live together and have a commitment ceremony with your church ? We have civil marriages to cut down all the thousands of steps it would take to get all the benefits awarded to a married couple. Marriage was originally a symbol of ownership, so you can't even say that marriage is all about the church and that the government needs to stay out of it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A wedding, if done through a church, is a commitment ceremony. That is why I got married. It's nice to have gotten a tax break, but I definitely would have gotten married without that bonus. I'm not saying that the government wouldn't know who was married, it simply wouldn't issue a license. The second half would stay the same.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Next time just get married in the church then. Register your relationship with city hall so everyone knows you're together and call it done. Leave the legal aspects for everyone who actually wants those benefits.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haters gonna hate.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you are against gay marriage, that's fine, but don't think you can prohibit someone from doing it

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It personally offends me when someone is against gay marriage. I don't go around telling people who they can and can't love or marry, I wish people would stop doing that with me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you're against gay marriage don't have one and shut up. Simple as that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"You can't eat pigs! It's a sin!" "Why don't you just shut the fuck up about my life?" "You can't let gays marry! It's a sin!" "Holey shit, you've got a point!" Double-standard much?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Just want to start off by saying that I'm 100% for gay marriage. But technically, the government isn't telling a group of people that they can't do something everybody else can do. You can get married if you're gay, you just can't be a man and marry another man (in most states). It isn't "gays getting married" that isn't allowed, it's "gay marriage."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"It isn't ''gays getting married'' that isn't allowed, it's ''gay marriage.'' " Are you stupid or

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm just saying that the way OP worded the post makes it incorrect. The law doesn't say gay people can't get married, so it's not telling a group of people that they can't do something everyone else can do.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Though it kinda is, in that it's saying you can't marry who you love (if they're the same gender as you).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know. I'm definitely not saying it's right, just that the way this post is worded isn't correct.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that if you want to get even more technical, it is worded correctly. Does that make sense? I dunno, I get what you're saying.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Maybe this sounds stupid, and off topic a little. Maybe I'll get voted down. Whatever. But wouldn't it be cool if there was no such thing as actual "marriage", and two people could just love each other freely, and both the government AND religion could be kept out of it? Why do religion and the law have to be involved in a relationship we have with a person? I know this sounds ridiculous. Because, of course, dishonesty and infidelity (and other common factors that ruin marriages) would have to cease to exist, and that's extremely unlikely to happen. Eh, just a thought. I'll close my hippy dippy mouth and get back in the kitchen.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

See in theory that sounds amazing, but the amount of rights granted to married couples is what makes marriage really worht while. I said in an earlier comment that Kathy Griffin says there are over 1,000 rights granted to married couples that are not granted in a union, and thus even more for those not in a union. Even common law marriages have some spousal rights that "single" people don't have.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, the good old document Universal Human Rights says that no government can deny marriage. So yeah, I don't really see why this has to be an issue here. Plus, what kind of society do we live in where we honor a man as a hero if he kills another during war but will shun and hate that same man if he wants to marry another man?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Whether or weather used incorrectly I can understand...but wheather? Seriously?

by Anonymous 12 years ago