Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

In the interest of equality and respect to religious beliefs, I think we should level the playing field. If in 'the Land of the Free' we cannot meet consensus to federally recognize Gay Marriage or Same Sex Unions then we should strike the balance with NO federally recognized marriages or unions. That is fair, right?

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

infoplease.com

reply to post by Kali74


Actually the Federal Government never had any business creating a contract between itself and legal consenting adults.

It should have left this up to the states. There's no need for it be validated at the "federal level", since marriage is not dictated in the Constitution as a Federal thing, it needed to be deal with by only the states.

SInce they decided to create an entire legal system surrounding a religious practice, they should create an equal system for same sex couples or those who do not wish to marry under the banner of religion.

'Giving people the right to do what they already have the right to do, only gives others an excuse to legislate those rights away'.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree. However, this has been part of many governments for quite a long time now. Let's see if those who are against gay marriage agree with us, that no couple need ask permission nor receive special status for deciding to marry the person they love.

reply to post by Kali74


The whole idea of needing the governments stamp of approval and then you PAYING for a license to do what you feel is natural is ridiculous in itself!

Why does anyone need the approval of the government to live with whom they love for the rest of their life?

It's all about control and MONEY!!!!

I think all "Gay" people should be married.

After 25 years, come and tell me how much fun you had.

If you love someone...Do you even care what the state thinks?

Be careful what you wish for...You just might get some of this bliss...

Originally posted by Kali74
In the interest of equality and respect to religious beliefs, I think we should level the playing field. If in 'the Land of the Free' we cannot meet consensus to federally recognize Gay Marriage or Same Sex Unions then we should strike the balance with NO federally recognized marriages or unions. That is fair, right?

What's the Difference?

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

infoplease.com

i find this ignorant and offensive.

you say we "cannot meet consensus to federally recognize Gay Marriage or Same Sex Unions"...

im legally married (heterosexually) to my wife, but because OTHER people, not me, "cannot meet consensus to federally recognize Gay Marriage or Same Sex Unions". you want to take that from me and my wife, and by extention my kids.

shame on you lumping us all together. i did nothing wrong, or even immoral.

and what about, say, a couple fresh high school graduates, 18 years old, just got married, NEVER voted, not even given the chance to "meet consensus to federally recognize Gay Marriage or Same Sex Unions", and you want to take that from them?

just because we as a country cant decide, dont think for a second we should ALL be punished.

free will at its best.

reply to post by Dizrael


Must be nice being afforded all those privileges eh?

BTW...my same sex husband (yes we are married legally.....I bet no one felt that sting in their marriage) and I are still not afforded much of those privileges. In fact, I have to pay $3600 for the same ones you got for free.

reply to post by Dizrael


So you don't believe in equal treatment?

It's ok for same sex couples to get shafted, but don't you dare touch my rights? Seems kind of hypocritical doesn't it?

shame on you lumping us all together. i did nothing wrong, or even immoral.

Funny, I didn't think that same sex couples had done anything wrong, or immoral either...

~Tetnh

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Dizrael

 

So you don't believe in equal treatment?

It's ok for same sex couples to get shafted, but don't you dare touch my rights? Seems kind of hypocritical doesn't it?

shame on you lumping us all together. i did nothing wrong, or even immoral.

Funny, I didn't think that same sex couples had done anything wrong, or immoral either...

~Tetnh

i think my post might have been a little mis understood.

i dont think same sex should get shafted. i was pissed the poster thinks i should get shafted too.

im for the same treatment, but just because the country as a whole cant decide or decides against it, you shouldnt punish everyone.

reply to post by Dizrael


We should just punish the few then?

The majority oppressing the minority?

I don't really understand. I mean, I get what your saying, but your argument effectively is in FAVOR of discrimination.

~Tenth

Who ever said everyone wants or deserves equality? I darn sure do not. There is right and there is wrong; right and wrong are not equal. If all things are equal than taking that to its logical conclusion all things that are equally good must also be equally bad. Equality in marriage, which is absurd even to type, contradicts the purpose of marriage to begin with. That is like me saying in the name of equality we must say that all legitimate democratic-republics should also share the same categorization with regimes such as North Korea because they claim to also be democratic-republics. Last time I checked there is nothing democratic about that regime and it is more a theocracy than a republic since the "dear leader" is equated with a God figure.

The world is not fair and the more things we try to make "fair" the more unfair the world becomes. Do not mess with reality, it tends to not like that.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Dizrael

 

We should just punish the few then?

The majority oppressing the minority?

I don't really understand. I mean, I get what your saying, but your argument effectively is in FAVOR of discrimination.

~Tenth

i edited my last post.

i dont think anyone should get shafted for wanting to be with the one they love. but i felt the poster was out of line suggesting i should get shafted, when i didnt vote against. and i dont post against.

reply to post by Misoir


Your idea of morality should not effect a strangers right to receive the same benefits you do from the Government that they pay equal taxes to.

Another argument in favor of descrimination and treated some better than others.

~Tenth

reply to post by Dizrael


Fair enough, I"m just being difficult.

I think the OP was trying to make the point to those who don't support same sex marriage as opposed to people who do.



~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Misoir

 

Your idea of morality should not effect a strangers right to receive the same benefits you do from the Government that they pay equal taxes to.

Another argument in favor of descrimination and treated some better than others.

~Tenth

like i said, im not againt same sex marriage. i have my own beliefs about that, but im not going to get into that now.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


So what if I favor discrimination? Is discrimination on the same playing field as murder now? All society is based upon discrimination as is all our choices. It is to what extant and who/what we choose to collectively discriminate against that makes the difference.

The only rights and privileges are money based. Insurance, federal income tax, bereavement&inheritance and state/private healthcare. There are many legal rights but they pretty much fall into these categorizes . I know my opinion will offend many people but I couldn't care less.

So don't spend too much time writing a rebuttal because I probably won't even honor it with a response.

Let's just revoke marriage. It's an institution that is in decay, anyway.

We can create a sponsor and dependent system. Everyone can declare themselves either a sponsor or a dependent. Place no limit on the number of dependents a person can claim, but limit each dependent to one sponsor. I don't know what kind of entitlement system should be built from there.

I like the idea. I think it would be a win for everyone. I think that is all that matters to the government. Either you take care of someone or you don't . Marriage is usually thought of as before God. I didn't get married for God. I got married for the tax break, and the dependent pay. Otherwise, I would have just continued to shack up.

Leave marriage for the religious to worry about. Make a government function which honors all sponsor/dependent contracts.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

So what if I favor discrimination? Is discrimination on the same playing field as murder now? All society is based upon discrimination as is all our choices. It is to what extant and who/what we choose to collectively discriminate against that makes the difference.

Sure, you have every right to, but it doesn't make you right.

Discrimination of legal rights, although not like murder, as that would be a straw man's comparison, is a very very big deal.

I see that you think some people deserve more rights than others. That's fine, but you don't deserve more legal rights than I enjoy, nor vice versa.

Those who make the argument FOR having 2nd class citizens..should not be part of the consersation IMO.

ETA: A Conservative, would never argue for more rights than anybody else.

~Tenth

reply to post by zonetripper2065

I know my opinion will offend many people but I couldn't care less.

Sometimes, I choose an opinion just to offend people. But not in this case.

I clearly believe that if someone takes care of someone else, they should be allowed the financial break that is currently tied to marriage. Marriage is religious based. We still have a long way to go for that separation we were promised.