DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 You support equal rights for ALL citizens, as long as they're not gay.Classic. 79354[/snapback] It probably has less to do with "equal rights" than it does with one's definition of marriage. If one defines marriage as a "union between a man and a woman", then it's not a "right" same-sex couples are entitled to. Personally...I think reducing it to "gay marriage, yes or no" is a cop-out, since it reduces the topic to arguing about what marriage is, and ignores the real issue of whether or not same-sex couples should enjoy the same rights and advantages in our society as heterosexual couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 It probably has less to do with "equal rights" than it does with one's definition of marriage. If one defines marriage as a "union between a man and a woman", then it's not a "right" same-sex couples are entitled to. Personally...I think reducing it to "gay marriage, yes or no" is a cop-out, since it reduces the topic to arguing about what marriage is, and ignores the real issue of whether or not same-sex couples should enjoy the same rights and advantages in our society as heterosexual couples. 79365[/snapback] I guess I just don't see the big deal. Just because you have a man and a women in a "marriage" doesn't validate that marriage as being a sound one. There are hundreds, if not thousands of gay/lesbian couples in this area that have been in successful relationships for decades. They just want what everyone in a solid, long-term relationship wants...to be recognized for what it is, and benefit from that union the way heterosexual couples do. Sounds like equal rights to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 (edited) http://www.krzyzanowski.com/politics/What_I_Believe.htm Liberal vs. Conservative - What I Believe! I believe that the federal government should spend more time & money defending our country than it should spend on free hand outs to the complacent. Liberals have always been opposed to defense & military build up and have always been for spending more and more and more on social programs (some that work, but even those that don't work) with no checks on abuse. [rest deleted due to copywrite violation] There will be more terrorists attacks in this country - whether or not we proceed with this war against Iraq. What you see on the news today with homicide bombings in Israel will happen in our children's lifetime in this country - whether or not we proceed with this war against Iraq. Citizens of other countries will always have groups of them who hate Americans - whether or not we proceed with this war against Iraq. I don't lie. I am right more often than I am wrong. I have said before that I and my heroes can never live up to my ideal, and those who oppose my beliefs use that against us. And it's true. Edited October 21, 2004 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I guess I just don't see the big deal. Just because you have a man and a women in a "marriage" doesn't validate that marriage as being a sound one. There are hundreds, if not thousands of gay/lesbian couples in this area that have been in successful relationships for decades. They just want what everyone in a solid, long-term relationship wants...to be recognized for what it is, and benefit from that union the way heterosexual couples do. Sounds like equal rights to me. 79373[/snapback] Again, it depends on your definition of "marriage". One of the reasons I don't like discussing "gay marriage" in terms of "marriage" is because it's too loaded a term for too many people, in that it has definite religious connotations and history that tends to cloud the real issue: the rights of gay and lesbian couples under state and federal law as compared to heterosexual couples' rights. My wife and I got married at the courthouse: brought the paperwork, stood up in front of the justice, blah blah blah, you're married. Simple secular ceremony that served to legally cement our commitment in the legal sense and in our eyes. Or landladies are a committed lesbian couple, and even though my own attitudes tend more towards the conservative in this issue (i.e. against "gay marriage"), having experienced that type of legal union I would now have a very hard time telling them "No, you can't have your commitment legally recognized." However...there's a very significant number of people (I wouldn't be surprised if it were a simple majority, but I don't know) who see marriage as a commitment before God...very frequently before a God that doesn't recognize homosexuality as anything but deviant, and specifically defines marriage as a heterosexual sacrement. I think you fundamentally can't expect anyone with that definition of marriage to support "gay marriage", even if they're otherwise open and accepting to homosexual issues. And just try legislating it...tell the churches that by law they're required to recognize and perform "gay marriages" as a "civil right"...oops! State interference in religion! Violation of First Amendment freedom of religion! Thus, my conjecture: calling it "gay marriage" is ultimately counterproductive, and lends itself to seemingly contradictory positions based on people's differing definitions of "marriage". Take the semantically loaded word "marriage" out of it, and concentrate on the real issue (gay/lesbian couple's right to have their commitments recognized legally in the same sense as heterosexual couple's - or not), and we may actually have healthy debate on the subject... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Again, it depends on your definition of "marriage". One of the reasons I don't like discussing "gay marriage" in terms of "marriage" is because it's too loaded a term for too many people, in that it has definite religious connotations and history that tends to cloud the real issue: the rights of gay and lesbian couples under state and federal law as compared to heterosexual couples' rights. My wife and I got married at the courthouse: brought the paperwork, stood up in front of the justice, blah blah blah, you're married. Simple secular ceremony that served to legally cement our commitment in the legal sense and in our eyes. Or landladies are a committed lesbian couple, and even though my own attitudes tend more towards the conservative in this issue (i.e. against "gay marriage"), having experienced that type of legal union I would now have a very hard time telling them "No, you can't have your commitment legally recognized." However...there's a very significant number of people (I wouldn't be surprised if it were a simple majority, but I don't know) who see marriage as a commitment before God...very frequently before a God that doesn't recognize homosexuality as anything but deviant, and specifically defines marriage as a heterosexual sacrement. I think you fundamentally can't expect anyone with that definition of marriage to support "gay marriage", even if they're otherwise open and accepting to homosexual issues. And just try legislating it...tell the churches that by law they're required to recognize and perform "gay marriages" as a "civil right"...oops! State interference in religion! Violation of First Amendment freedom of religion! Thus, my conjecture: calling it "gay marriage" is ultimately counterproductive, and lends itself to seemingly contradictory positions based on people's differing definitions of "marriage". Take the semantically loaded word "marriage" out of it, and concentrate on the real issue (gay/lesbian couple's right to have their commitments recognized legally in the same sense as heterosexual couple's - or not), and we may actually have healthy debate on the subject... 79414[/snapback] Don't we have a double standard already with regards to divorce and the catholic church? Many catholic couples get divorced, don't have the marriage annulled, but then re-marry outside of the catholic church. No one seems to have a problem with that. If a church doesn't want to recognise a particular union, that should be up to them. The church is not the institution that rules on what the benefits of a marriage/civil union are, the government is. I don't see how recognizing a "marriage" of a couple in a unitarian church in Bedford Mass violates the first ammendment rights of a catholic church in another town or state. No one would be forcing them to perform same sex unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 It is a shame to be 23 and that close minded. Or maybe...just maybe...it's commendable that at the age of 23 he already owns his own business and is a person who is clearly steadfast in their convictions. Regarding this gay marriage thing, allow me to add two cents here. First, I believe that homosexuals simply want the right to marry. That does not mean that they will all run out and get married like the did in San Francisco because everyone knew the San Francisco marriages wouldn't eventually hold up. They simply want the right. As I've said before, there are few real benefits to being married. Tax breaks aren't that much better, depending on your income, and health care orgs increasingly have no problem allowings gay spouses to be covered as family even though they're not married. A lesbian under my employ had just that kind of coverage from Blue Cross. So what are the benefits? You tell me. One thing we DO know, as I've commented before; if they have marriage rights same as me, then they have divorce rights, same as me. THAT will temper a lot of gay marriages right out of the gate. We have so many challenges in this world. Why this has to be one of them is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 So what are the benefits?79468[/snapback] One BIG one to the gay community that everyone forgets is power of attorney and the right to direct and participate in medical care for a partner. Lots of gays saw committed partners go into the hospital with AIDS in the '80s...and then found themselves subsequently banned from any participation in the care and decision making (sometimes to the point of not allowing visitation) for not being recognized as "family". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 One BIG one to the gay community that everyone forgets is power of attorney and the right to direct and participate in medical care for a partner. Lots of gays saw committed partners go into the hospital with AIDS in the '80s...and then found themselves subsequently banned from any participation in the care and decision making (sometimes to the point of not allowing visitation) for not being recognized as "family". 79483[/snapback] Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 One BIG one to the gay community that everyone forgets is power of attorney and the right to direct and participate in medical care for a partner. Lots of gays saw committed partners go into the hospital with AIDS in the '80s...and then found themselves subsequently banned from any participation in the care and decision making (sometimes to the point of not allowing visitation) for not being recognized as "family". 79483[/snapback] Also, there are estate taxes when their spouse passes. If you are married, you do not have to pay estate taxes since it is also your "estate." If gays/lesbians cannot marry, then they would pay taxes on their partner's estate. Am I correct on this, or am I off base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Again, it depends on your definition of "marriage". One of the reasons I don't like discussing "gay marriage" in terms of "marriage" is because it's too loaded a term for too many people, in that it has definite religious connotations and history that tends to cloud the real issue: the rights of gay and lesbian couples under state and federal law as compared to heterosexual couples' rights. My wife and I got married at the courthouse: brought the paperwork, stood up in front of the justice, blah blah blah, you're married. Simple secular ceremony that served to legally cement our commitment in the legal sense and in our eyes. Or landladies are a committed lesbian couple, and even though my own attitudes tend more towards the conservative in this issue (i.e. against "gay marriage"), having experienced that type of legal union I would now have a very hard time telling them "No, you can't have your commitment legally recognized." However...there's a very significant number of people (I wouldn't be surprised if it were a simple majority, but I don't know) who see marriage as a commitment before God...very frequently before a God that doesn't recognize homosexuality as anything but deviant, and specifically defines marriage as a heterosexual sacrement. I think you fundamentally can't expect anyone with that definition of marriage to support "gay marriage", even if they're otherwise open and accepting to homosexual issues. And just try legislating it...tell the churches that by law they're required to recognize and perform "gay marriages" as a "civil right"...oops! State interference in religion! Violation of First Amendment freedom of religion! Thus, my conjecture: calling it "gay marriage" is ultimately counterproductive, and lends itself to seemingly contradictory positions based on people's differing definitions of "marriage". Take the semantically loaded word "marriage" out of it, and concentrate on the real issue (gay/lesbian couple's right to have their commitments recognized legally in the same sense as heterosexual couple's - or not), and we may actually have healthy debate on the subject... 79414[/snapback] What if it were called "Civil Gay Marriage" to try and emphasize that effects only the secular aspects of the relationship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Also, there are estate taxes when their spouse passes. If you are married, you do not have to pay estate taxes since it is also your "estate." If gays/lesbians cannot marry, then they would pay taxes on their partner's estate. Am I correct on this, or am I off base? 79491[/snapback] Tom's point is correct and yours is partially right. I believe estate taxes are suppose to be paid regardless if your a spouse. Example being, Hugh Culverhouses wife when he died. (1st owner of the Buc's) She was forced to sell the team because the taxes were to much for her to handle. The executor is legally responsible for filing necessary income and estate-tax returns (federal and state) and for paying all death taxes (i.e., estate and inheritance). The executor can, in some cases be held personally liable for unpaid taxes of the estate. Tax returns that will need to be filed can include the estate's income tax return (both federal and state), the federal estate-tax return, the state death tax return (estate and/or inheritance), and the deceased's final income tax return (federal and state). Taxes usually must be paid before other debts. In many instances, federal estate-tax returns are not needed as the size of the estate will be under the amount for which a federal estate-tax return is required. _Taken from a New Jersey Law Site_ http://www.megalaw.com/nj/top/njprobate.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 What if it were called "Civil Gay Marriage" to try and emphasize that effects only the secular aspects of the relationship? 79553[/snapback] I think that you will still have trouble with the section of the population that defines the term "marriage" as only being between a man and a woman. They will see "Civil Gay Marriage" as a contradiction. IMO, if you wanted make it secular, I think you need to use the term "civil union" or something else without the word marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Tom's point is correct and yours is partially right. I believe estate taxes are suppose to be paid regardless if your a spouse. Example being, Hugh Culverhouses wife when he died. (1st owner of the Buc's) She was forced to sell the team because the taxes were to much for her to handle. The executor is legally responsible for filing necessary income and estate-tax returns (federal and state) and for paying all death taxes (i.e., estate and inheritance). The executor can, in some cases be held personally liable for unpaid taxes of the estate. Tax returns that will need to be filed can include the estate's income tax return (both federal and state), the federal estate-tax return, the state death tax return (estate and/or inheritance), and the deceased's final income tax return (federal and state). Taxes usually must be paid before other debts. In many instances, federal estate-tax returns are not needed as the size of the estate will be under the amount for which a federal estate-tax return is required. _Taken from a New Jersey Law Site_ http://www.megalaw.com/nj/top/njprobate.php 79561[/snapback] Is that because it was not joint owned, or would that happen regardless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Is that because it was not joint owned, or would that happen regardless? 79567[/snapback] I believe regardless, I'm no attorney by any stretch (just stayed at a Holiday Inn last night though) but, I think estate taxes kick in when it has a net value of over 1.5 million. It was, I believe 650 thousand just until the last tax cuts I think. I dont know if I've answered you Q Ken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 What if it were called "Civil Gay Marriage" to try and emphasize that effects only the secular aspects of the relationship? 79553[/snapback] For purposes of discussion...I'd sooner just refer to it by describing the issue rather than with a catchy phrase like "gay marriage" or "civil union". The problem with virtually any name you give it is two-fold: it won't adequately convey the real heart of the issue for the pro- crowd (namely: recognition of commited homosexual relationships as having the same legal standing as committed heterosexual ones), and to the anti- crowd it's nothing more than an attempt at masquerading the "fact" that gays are trying to undermine the institution of marriage (as many view the term "civil union" right now). Any name you give it is bound to touch the divisive hot-button issues of sex and religion for too many people, and ruin any chance of rational discussion of the real issues... Hell, just look at AIDS. Twenty years later, and this country STILL has trouble discussing it meaningfully, simply because the initial association was with the gay community - sex and religion again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieG Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Is that because it was not joint owned, or would that happen regardless? 79567[/snapback] Under sec. 2056 of the IRC, a spouse has an unlimited deduction for estate tax purposes, provided the spouse is a US citizen and the property is transfered to the spouse. (exceptions apply is the property is not transferred outright) It matters little right now, as the federal government does not recognise a gay marriage for tax purposes, Social Security purposes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 "Gay marriage" is a term coined in order to evoke feelings of repugnance, much like "death tax". Spin, it's all spin. Many marriages today are actually civil unions (performed by a civil officer, not a church). In fact because the states must issue a license in order for the marriages to be legally recognized you could say that all marriages are civil unions (although many are of course consecreated by the respective religious ceremonies which can only be perfomed with a valid license from the state). There are probably some exceptions of course. But I don't think "gay" is a choice and that being the case they should enjoy the same basic rights as the rest of us. Call it marriage, union or schmutz but don't deny them the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 "Gay marriage" is a term coined in order to evoke feelings of repugnance, much like "death tax". Spin, it's all spin. Many marriages today are actually civil unions (performed by a civil officer, not a church). In fact because the states must issue a license in order for the marriages to be legally recognized you could say that all marriages are civil unions (although many are of course consecreated by the respective religious ceremonies which can only be perfomed with a valid license from the state). There are probably some exceptions of course. But I don't think "gay" is a choice and that being the case they should enjoy the same basic rights as the rest of us. Call it marriage, union or schmutz but don't deny them the right. 79705[/snapback] "Gay schmutz" has an interesting ring to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 There was a great series of editorials by David Moats on this subject back in 2000, when Vermont was grappling with the issue. It had really turned ugly and here was a guy who wrote pieces that encouraged civility during the debate and looked at the actual issues. There were some pretty powerful pieces in there. He won the Pulitzer Prize for the series. I highly suggest them, especially the March 16 entry, for anyone seeking thoughtful argument. Pulitzer. org -- David Moats Entries I favor the "civil union" compromise that Kerry proposes. It doesn't define the union as "marriage," simply mandates that the state enforce the same legal rights --- health care and decision-making, benefits, tax purposes, etc. --- that are given to traditional couples. Amazing how some people can't accept that this is a basic civil rights issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 On October 20, 2004 at 3:43 PM, ubhockey said: Hey DC Tom, can you just remove that post I made yesterday. Obviously I was misleading the entire board when I said "This Just In... JOhn KErry is a joke!". Obviously we've known that for quite some time. Is that humor OK to have in this post? In all seriousness, my bitter distaste for the left and everything they stand for gets the best of my many times. To me, Democrats have no platform. They simply take views which they constantly flip-flop to gain votes. They go after the minority votes (blacks, hispanics, women, gays, etc.) in hopes of getting enough of these groups to out vote the right's majorities. Whatever your take on Iraq is -- which I am all for it personally -- this country is obviously very divided. That being said, the only thing the left had to do is a get a decent candidate to run for office and they would win. Don't get me wrong, I don't care if they had the second coming of FDR, I'd still vote Bush because I'm republican until the end. So what's the best the democrats could do? John Kerry??? That is the best guy that party could find? It really is a sad joke, he has done nothing since being elected as a Senator. His hometown paper even endorses President Bush saying "we know John Kerry very well and we know he wouldn't be a good President." So what if he can speak well, I want a President that doesn't have to speak, a President whose actions do the speaking. I could careless about what France or Germany has to say about us. I believe the UN is no longer needed, we should stop funding the UN because they don't want what's best for us. We need to realize that the world is out to get the good ole USA. Muslims hate us that's for sure, but every other country in the world is envious of everything we have. If we need to go out and kick some ass to prove a point that we're not to be screwed with, then god damnit, we don't need the world's blessings. We are #1 and they can't stand that and would love to see us suffer. There is a reason we are the best country in the world, because we don't give in ... ever. Going back to my orginal point, I think the democratic party is in big trouble after this election. There are too many good Republican leaders (Rudy, McCain, Jeb, etc.) that can run and will win. The democrats have what ... Hilary Clinton and John Edwards? That's not good if you ask me. I hope that states like NY, Ohio, and Penn soon realize that the reason they keep missing out on the economic booms that hit the entire nation and why they continue to lose jobs & people is not because of DC or the President, it's because of their liberal politicans. How long is NY going to vote left when it has done the state nothing but wrong for countless decades. There is a need to vote for change, and that change is in these states. I'm a 23 year old UB grad as of this past May. My demo says I should vote for Kerry but it really makes no sense to me why that is? What is he promising us that makes him a better choice? Absolutely nothing. In 2000, I was 19 and an independant. I voted for President Bush because I seen the flaws of the left at that young age. Now, four years later I work full time for a major coporation and own my own small business. Four years later, I see even more that President Bush is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better for me, my future, my family and the safety of all three. Lol!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts