SUPREME COURT DECISION PROP 8, MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN - WOMAN

4/5/2013
The Supreme Court will rule soon on Propsotion 8 and the Marriage between a Man and
woman Bill Clinton signed into law in the 1990's. I believe the Supreme Court will throw
this back Propositon 8 to California and let them deal with it. Now as far as Marriage between
a man and women Federal Law Bill Clinton signed and now he regrets he did, I say the Supreme
Court will say it's un-constituional. As far as I'm concerned my opinion you can be straight, be gay,
being married doesn't hold anyone together because of a piece of paper. What is your opinion ?

Cheers...Joe...

Gays are a minority group. Why should the marriage format change to accommodate the minority? When a woman marries a man, she takes the name of her partner. Why change this? If same sex couples want to takes vows, why not organise their own ceremony with a different name, e.g., espousal or betrothal.

I agree Joe that a marriage doesn't hold anyone together. A civil ceremony is just as appropriate as a church marriage. People take vows to love, cherish "till death do us part", and they do this before "God" and witnesses. A few years later they get divorced. So much for vows.

I have seen unmarried couples live together for many years. They love each other and no vows are needed to keep them together. As for name changes, today it is common to use a hyphenated name. Both my daughters did this, i.e., Caroline March-Long. Keeping the identity of the maiden name is a good idea, in my view. The same could apply to Gay couples. Taking the name of the partner subordinates one to the other. Who is willing to become the wife?

The problem is that so many of our laws are based on marriage. A civil ceremony doesn't protect a partner of either sex should the relationship develop problems, especially when one of the two dies.

For example, the head of the English department at the school where I taught most of my career was a lesbian with a life-long partner. It was one of those "Don' ask; don't tell" situations. Everybody knew; nobody ever said it out loud.

My superior's partner died, and left a large portion of her estate to her "friend.>

The woman's family contested the will, and won, because they were not married, only living together. The court agreed that the deceased woman's family had a prior right to the estate.

This is a common situation. Similar problems occur when a couple separate. There are no laws that adequately cover the division of property.

It becomes even more complicated when children are involved.

I don't quite understand why it would be a problem, especially when allowing the marriage would be the simplest way of handling the legal problems.

Abe, are you saying that a wife is subordinate to her husband?

If everything owned by a single sex couple is in joint names, there's nothing to contest.

"If the family home is held by both spouses/civil partners as joint tenants, the surviving spouse/civil partner automatically inherits the deceased spouse's/civil partner's interest."

Same applies with bank accounts, investment accounts, stocks and shares. If partners are not willing to share their financial assets in life, why should they be guaranteed a share in death?

Agree Shelagh.
Ann, no I don't think anyone is subordinate to another, however in a tradiitional marriage, there is husband and wife. With Lesbians or Gays, who is in what role? Whether we like it or not, in marriage, there is a dominate partner. I'm not saying one is submissive to the other, but one does lead.
It reminds me of a young unmarried couple that I was trying to get to make a decision. The one would turn to the other and say, "If it's okay with you, it's okay with me." Then the other would say the same thing and no decision could be reached. In a situation where no one will take a decision or a stand, I can't imagine how any company or any marriage, could manage to survive.

Over the years, my wife and I have adjusted. There are some things that I don't consult her on and the same is true with her. We have our roles and accept them. We discuss major decisions, but in the end, one of us will take a position/decision without which nothing would be accomplished.

4/5/2013
Ann..
I don't understand that, if she had a will, it's written in
stone, if she left her friend everything, then her family has
no say, another way is to leave each family member $1-
there's nothing they can say...Unless Texas has weird laws?
usually a will can't be contested..Or there's the Jackie Cooper
clause he wrote in his will, because his wife died two years before
and he had a son and daughter, he feared they would battle each
other so he stated: " If anyone so chooses to challenge this will
you will be automatically cut out !" It's called " The Poison Pill Clause"



Cheers..Joe..

Abe, one or the other is good, so long as it is not always the same one - husband or wife.

As I understand it, two married women are both wives and mothers to any adopted or surrogate children, and two men are both husbans and fathers.

As far as power and dominance is concerned, I am glad that I lived in Texas while I was married and during my divorce, since Texas is a community property state. Neither spouse is considered to be legally dominant over the other.

Joe, wills can be contested anywhere. In my superior's case, she and her partner were not married - did not have that "piece of paper" saying they were a legal unit, and that strengthened the family's case. It would have been pretty much the same if her partner had been male and they were not married but living together, although a judge might have been more sympathetic if that had been the situation. Having a marriage contract is binding and puts the relationship first, over claims of other family members.

I think a civil union should take care of the rights issues.
They , the gay folks , should not diminish the rights of the married straight folks by usurping their status exactly.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
If the children were to be consulted, how many would elect to be adopted into a gay marriage?
i am sorry , but ,marriage will solve nothing. I do not wish to have my grandchildren staying overnight in a gay household.
I want them to observe normal folks. My opinion. A gay lifestyle is not normal.

Alice, you most certainly have a right to hold that opinion. You are still, I would guess, in the majority.

I have had several friends who happened to be gay. In one case, I had been friends with this gentleman for some years before he came out of that closet. I was shocked at first - even repulsed, until I had an opportunity for a long visit with him at a function we both attended. After a while, it hit me: This man had not changed from the friend I had admired before I knew this thing about him. It was a kind of eye-opening experience. Since then, I have noticed that the gay friends I have personally know, are in many respects, the most "normal" people I have known. Their children seem to be pretty normal as well.

I have come to believe it is not a choice, but an inseparable part of who they are. I cannot see where they do any harm. For myself (and I can only speak for myself), I no longer see a problem. It seems to me that these people should have the same rights and the same degree of respect as anyone.

But, again, that's just me.

Ann,

They will do as they wish, with or without, my permission.
I am sorry they are gay and do not blame them at all. I truly believe
they are born that way.
No ill will towards them comes from me.They should have equal rights, except when it comes to adopting children.
I have gay relatives also.
Think of it this way-- would you have wanted two mothers?
Think of the kids.
Everyone else has a Mom and a Dad. You feel like a freak because you have two Moms or two Dads.
No Thanks!
Children need rights too.

I will always advocate for children's rights

I had a different experience.. My very "perfect" friend whom I walked literally miles per day with made me feel inferior in every way. My son bought a coke when they took him to a basketball game. I did not care.
She did. Eating was her religion--not mine.
She went to Outdoor Education with the school and teamed up with the Music teacher. Our son came home and said,' Your friend is gay."
I said," You kids don't need to accuse everyone you don't like of being gay."
He said," Well, they ran fingers through each others hair during worship."
He was right, I was wrong. She divorced her husband and left two teenage children for a WOMAN!

She must have been bisexual and to my thinking should have put her family first.
She didn't ask my opinion.

Dear Alice,

I guess this is one of those examples of how our experiences shape our perspectives. Once again, you are completely entitled to yours and I am not trying to change it or you.

Love ya,

Annie

I don't think people's behaviour or personality has anything at all to do with their sexual orientation. Some gay people are really pleasant and great company, some are not. Same with straight people.

Laws differ from state to state and country. And while judges are supposed to be impartial, they often make decisions that are based on their own perceptions.

Some years ago, in this country, we had laws in some states that required and reinforced racial segregation. It took the supreme court to end the practice. At the time, there were many who were appalled at the prospect of their children being forced to attend classes with children from an "inferior" race. During the first few years after the laws changed, there were some problems, but eventually, the viewpoint of many people changed as well. Today, the rights of minority children to equal education are accepted.

Gay people are not seen as inferior; they are seen as being different, which they are. Therefore they should have their own legal partnership ceremony that is only for gay people and leave marriage to the uniting of a man with a woman.

A team member of the Welsh national rugby team came out recently and received a great deal of media attention and sympathy. The truth is he's a married man who cheated on his wife. Just because he committed adultery with men doesn't make his behaviour acceptable. If gay people want equality in marriage, they have to conform to the rules of marriage. They can't have their cake and eat it -- not even wedding cake!

Quote :

The truth is he's a married man who cheated on his wife.

Straight me do that, too, Shelagh. I can attest to that personally.

alj wrote:

Dear Alice,

I guess this is one of those examples of how our experiences shape our perspectives. Once again, you are completely entitled to yours and I am not trying to change it or you.

Love ya,

Annie

Thank you, Ann
Same sentiment here.

Quoting Shelagh :


"Gay people are not seen as inferior; they are seen as being different, which they are. Therefore they should have their own legal partnership ceremony that is only for gay people and leave marriage to the uniting of a man with a woman."

I see it as Shelagh does.

I will add: Let their union involve them, and no one else. I am opposed to children being dragged into their "different" lifestyle.

4/5/2013
I say equal eights for everyone, as long as no one
infringes on other people's rights, it should be a civil
ceremony, I have read where Gay people have gotten
married in other states, a year later they want to get a
divorce, they can't because the state where they live
doesn't recognize gay marriage, so as I've stated before
a marriage certificate doesn't mean a hill of beans it won't
keep people togther wether their straight or Gay.
Cheers..Joe..

Clearly a traditional marriage ceremony would be ludicrous. " What God hath joined together , let not man put asunder." would not fly here.

alice wrote:

Clearly a traditional marriage ceremony would be ludicrous. " What God hath joined together , let not man put asunder." would not fly here.

Why not?

Because God did not join them together. LOL

How do you know, Alice?

4/6/2013
Boy this is getting to be one helluva subject !

Cheers..Joe..