Gay Marriage Ban: For or Against? (Page 7)

Thanks Jim...helpful information.  As I said...I'm no expert in this area.

I agree with you, and I think that it is your prerogative to call people out on their use of hyperbole and histrionics. Keep in mind, though, that sometimes people make comparisons that they consider apt, like comparing the denial of the right of gays to marry with the opinions held by organizations that descriminate as their raison d'être like the KKK. You may not like the comparison, but it doesn't mean that it is not a good one. But just because some people use tactics that appeal to emotion to reinforce their points, it doesn't mean that you should take your ball and go home. You can take what you consider the high road and your arguments will be heard like all the others. In fact, they may be heard more clearly.

Yes, "societal benefits" are being denied gay couples. The US General Accounting Office prepared a report listing 1,049 laws affecting married couples. You might peruse the 75 page report to learn more about how the denial of married status affects the homosexuals who want to be married. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

I'll use the example of one of my (gay) friends who died a few years ago. He was 39 and had been in a living with a man for about 3 years; they were most definitely a "couple." B was admitted to Moffitt Cancer Center with leukemia here in Tampa (he lived on the other Florida Coast). After some very aggressive chemo treatment, it was decided that the best course of action would be to induce a coma. His parents, sister and brother (my best friend) all agreed to make a decision after a week in the coma; he asked that they not keep him in a coma longer than 1 week (his parents ignored this request once he was in the coma). His partner, M, had no say in the matter; legally, he had no right to be by his bedside, much less make healthcare decisions for him. B implored his brother to stand up for M's right to be there every minute, knowing that his born-again Christian parents and sister believed that his leukemia was a punishment from their god for B's homosexuality. Had M and B been legally married, M would have been making the decisions, not B's homo-hating parents. M would not have been at risk of being ejected from his bedside. M would have made the funeral arrangements in accordance with B's wishes (which B's parents ignored). These are but a few heart-wrenching decisions that M was not legally entitled to make because the law will not recognize civil union or marriage between homosexual couples.

They didn't need to be married for "B" to fulfill the wishes of "A". Marriage in this case would have been a great fallback but Leukemia didn't sneak up on him. Power of Attorney and a Will would have solved this problem.

Actually, he was admitted to the hospital within 2 weeks of being diagnosed and never left the hospital. Leukemia did sneak up on him.

If they were married, they wouldn't need the Power of Attorney and Will.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, Chris, but didn't you advocate for Terry Schiavo's husband's rights? These are the same rights that B's partner would have enjoyed if the state allowed same-gender marriage.

But Chucky, why should we have to do all that? That's the point. Of all the 100+ laws afforded to married couples, most can actually be circumvented with legal documents (wills, powers of attoney, etc), applications, special case by case considerations, certain more progressive companies that offer benefits etc. It's really hard, really time consuming, and expensive.

A personal example, just to put a face (or avatar) on this: We moved from DC to WI because my partner finished medical school, and was going to do her residency here. I did not have a job at the time we moved, I was a teacher, and while I had my resume in many hands, and had made it through 2 rounds of interviews for 2 jobs, I did not have an actual offer w/ salary yet. Our house in DC was legally mine, I bought it before Kathryn moved in.

So. We were looking to buy a house here in WI together (if we were legally married, it would have been a no brainer.) Instead, we buy as 2 individuals. We had an incredibly difficult time getting a mortgage at a reasonable rate bc of med school debt, and becasue I didn;t yet have a job. If we had been married, we would have appeared to have SHARED the debt (which we do anyway, all of our finances and assets are joint) and my joblessness would have been irrelevant since, according to the idiotic computers who calculate risk, I would not be a risk because I had a SPOUSE with an income. Additionally, I had been a very good Wells Fargo borrower, and their policy is that if you have been good, you qualify for an upgrade on your next mortgage.

But I was jobless, and K's income (as paltry as a 1st year resident's income is) did not appear to the computer to be what was supporting me. Additionally, since we were not married when living in our old house, and since at the time it didn't occur to us for her to be on the title (we grossly misunderstood what "legal marriage" would have guranteed us) Wells Fargo didn't consder her eligible for their nice 2nd timer policy.

They kept telling us how sorry they were, that there was nothing they could do, it's the computer that sorts this stuff out, the computer can't deal with us as a single financial entity... The best any lender could do for us was nearly 2.5x the best going rate.

So there's a long winded example....For those that asked.

To apply that logic to an aforementioned example of discrimination:

Just because sitting at the front of the bus wasn't an option, doesn't mean they didn't have other means to achieve the same result.

Would you be willing to back that up by dissolving your marriage, and pursuing a path of a living will and/or power of attorney between you and your wife, if indeed marriage adds nothing to your relationship? As you say, it would accomplish the same thing, would it not?

My point about the laughing at the laughable KKK - and any other organization whose views I find mean-spirited - seems to be lost.

It seems that some people, when they don't like another's strongly-held opinion, resort to this convenient and misguided POLITICALLY CORRECT CALL-OUT. As if we are supposed to be open to all ideas.

My point, quite simply, was that some ideas are laughable and I'm not at all willing to be politically correct and, for the sake of someone's social endorsement, say "Oh yes, well, I should be open minded to all ideas." I call bullshit on that attitude.

But Chucky, why should we have to do all that?  That's the point. Of all the 100+ laws afforded to married couples, most can actually be circumvented with legal documents (wills, powers of attoney, etc), applications, special case by case considerations, certain more progressive companies that offer benefits etc.   It's really hard, really time consuming, and expensive.

A personal example, just to put a face (or avatar) on this: We moved from DC to WI because my partner finished medical school, and was going to do her residency here.  I did not have a job at the time we moved, I was a teacher, and while I had my resume in many hands, and had made it through 2 rounds of interviews for 2 jobs, I did not have an actual offer w/ salary yet. Our house in DC was legally mine, I bought it before Kathryn moved in.

So. We were looking to buy a house here in WI together (if we were legally married, it would have been a no brainer.) Instead, we buy as 2 individuals. We had an incredibly difficult time getting a mortgage at a reasonable rate bc of med school debt, and becasue I didn;t yet have a job. If we had been married, we would have appeared to have SHARED the debt (which we do anyway, all of our finances and assets are joint) and my joblessness would have been irrelevant since, according to the idiotic computers who calculate risk, I would not be a risk because I had a SPOUSE with an income. Additionally, I had been a very good Wells Fargo borrower, and their policy is that if you have been good, you qualify for an upgrade on your next mortgage.

But I was jobless, and K's income (as paltry as a 1st year resident's income is)  did not appear to the computer to be what was supporting me. Additionally, since we were not married when living in our old house, and since at the time it didn't occur to us for her to be on the title (we grossly misunderstood what "legal marriage" would have guranteed us) Wells Fargo didn't consder her eligible for their nice 2nd timer policy. 

They kept telling us how sorry they were, that there was nothing they could do, it's the computer that sorts this stuff out, the computer can't deal with us as a single financial entity... The best any lender could do for us was nearly 2.5x the best going rate.

So there's a long winded example....For those that asked.