ManagingPrime

On can only hope. Both parties provide endless amusement and the gun debates growing a little stale.

Agreed. And for what? I don't think the video provided any real insight into human nature.

A career politician playing politics?! Say it aint so! Cynicism can keep the bastards from getting you down.

Anyone can do this right now with an opposite sex friend. What's the difference? That's the trillion dollar question. Half seriously and half in jest I suggested two friends marry each other for the financial aid benefits... they did. Since they were both gay it really was the perfect marriage considering the circumstances. I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fraud. No matter which side one is on this issue, every time someone does this, it makes it more difficult for those who are on the up and up. If the fact they weren't having sex with each other makes it a fraud, then a lot of straight marriages would also be fraud. The dude abides.

I think you are confusing the 40 credit (10 years of work) qualification. While I feel the benefit is now a bit outdated should just be done away with in the interest of working to get the nations financial house in order, I could get behind a 10 year marriage requirement.

Agreed, but very difficult to prove.

Anyone can do this right now with an opposite sex friend. What's the difference? That's the trillion dollar question. Half seriously and half in jest I suggested two friends marry each other for the financial aid benefits... they did. Since they were both gay it really was the perfect marriage considering the circumstances. I don't know if anyone watches the showtime show shameless, but last nights episode had a humorus bit about the character frank trying to take advantage of domestic partner benefits in chicago. How much abuse will there be? I have no idea, but I do understand that there are tipping points with these things. At which point do a large percentage of people game the system because "you're a sucker if you don't"? If a law is like a computer program, why would you write a new piece of code that's going to interact with an existing piece of code that is already known to be flawed. If you keep doing that you end up with shit software. I think there is an elegant way to get gay marriage legislation passed that if not of benefit to all citizens, at least does no harm. In my mind that would be if gay marriage becomes law on A date anyone not married by that date is not eligible for X, Y or Z benefits. Anyone married prior to that date is still fully vested in those benefits. Would close to 60% of americans still support gay marriage if that was the case? Maybe, I think it depends on how it's presented.

It does not sound good, but in political parlance I guess I'm saying I think its ok to hold gay marriage hostage in exchange for comprehensive entitlement reform. Excluding entitlements I can't, off the top of my head, think of a situation where there is not a work around for domestic couples. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Understood. I don't take any issue there. Marriage is a contract and that contract addresses a number of issues, like medical decision making. I've got no issue there as there is nothing that prevents me as a single person from giving medical power of attorney. Marriage is a useful contract...I agree.

I don't see how it's pertinent to the discussion. Marriage is a contract. I can see where that contract establishes the prior intent you mention. But I don't see where single people could not also enter into a contract establishing intent as well. My focus is more on survivor benefits and the like. Example: Person A, Person B and Person C individually pay in 100K to social security over the course of their lives. None of the persons has children. All three persons collect SS income at the age of eligibility. Person A is single. Persons B and C are married. Person B is married to Person C and person B dies shortly after starting to receive benefits. Person C collects their benefits and additionally collects the survivor benefits of person B. How is it fair that Person C receives survivors benefits and their own benefits. Granted. All persons are entitled to those payments because they did in-fact pay into the system. However, Persons C and B can have part of their benefit go to a surviving spouse and person A has no ability to direct those payments after their demise since they have no surviving spouse or child. That's not fair. Now say "gay marriage" becomes legal without addressing these programs. Person A is single, collecting benefits, but they have failing health and don't expect to live much longer. They have a friend who could really use those benefits and they marry that friend so that their spouse can collect survivors benefits. Overlooking the whole issue of fairness. Gay marriage, as proposed by some, leaves the door wide open for gaming the system. The deck is stacked in favor of heterosexual married couples. I think gay marriage is the perfect opportunity to ensure fairness for all parties.

How is this scenario relevant in the context of the current debate?

You went somewhere different than I thought. In that case, no. I think the law would operate just as it does now. The judge would take consideration of all evidence presented and look to award custody to the parent who has best demonstrated that they will provide the best environment to raise the child in. Being married does not by default make someone a suitable parent.

Do you mean that single people and married people should have exactly the same rights as each other? Yes. I think I know where you are going with this, but I'll let you explain.

My issue is solely with entitlements. I think gay couples should have the same rights as any other married couple. To reiterate, because there seems to be some persistent misunderstanding: I'm not against gay marriage, I'm for it. As a student organizer LBGT rights was something I was envolved in. My brother is gay. I have ZERO shame in my position which is marriage is a right which should be available to straight and gay couples alike, however unintended consequences must be taken into consideration. I'm not one of your dumb ass social conservatives. I've spent time cooling my heels in a jail cell fighting right alongside "liberals". I do however have a knack for illiciting the ire of liberals and conservatives alike.

Survivorship benefits and school grants/loans are not rights. I'm not concerned with my personal finances so such as I'm concerned with the financial solvency of this nation. Without addressing entitlements the system, the already broken one, will be gamed. That's just a fact. I would propose 100% equal treatment under the law of single people and married people (all the types of unions). If that makes me the bad guy so be it. I'm comfortable in the fact that I've actually done my part to beat the streets for equal rights of the LBGT community among others. That work and other life experiences have given me the perspective that I have. There are no free rides. You don't ask for rights, you demand them. If you have to take from someone what is rightfully theirs in order to get your "rights", you are in the wrong pure and simple. It's kind of sad that there are so many that confuse rights, privledge and entitlements. It's just my generation and future generations that will end up cleaning up the mess created. Thanks.

What's so special about marriage that you must make the distinction?

I really like the way you think. You go first and let me know the coast is clear.

Personally, I think the government should get completely out of the marriage business. There should be no special treatment awarded to anyone just because they are married. The government should issue civil unions to cover the legal stuff relating to medical treatment, survivor benefits and whatnot. If you want to get married in a certain church that is your own business and should have nothing to do with the government. That being said, until that comes to pass (which I doubt it ever will) then you can’t treat one group differently from another. If the laws are changed for everyone then great but for now, same sex couples are being discriminated against. I honestly just wanted to hear promise5 come right out and say that my mother doesn’t deserve the same rights that she does. People like that want to restrict the rights of others just because they don’t like their lifestyle. To me that is disgusting and goes against what this country is supposed to stand for. The part that bothers me the most is that people like her think of themselves as patriots and believe they are trying to save this country. It truly is no better than those that opposed the civil rights movement. This I agree with, right down the line. However, there is one thing in your post where I think we disagree with some others. You mention "survivor benefits". I get the idea from rehmwa and ManagingPrime that they think that married couples (of any combinations of genders) should be treated as two completely separate individuals. That means no such thing as survivorship benefits. If you and your spouse buy a house together, when you die if you leave your share in the house to your spouse they will have to treat it as taxable income. If you or your spouse decide to take a few years off of work to raise the kids, it'll cost whoever takes the time off big time because they won't be contributing to their individual retirement, and they won't be able to rely on their spouse's pension to make up the difference. Whatever you do, don't have any joint bank accounts, because if you or your spouse should die everything will be tied up until you can prove, to the dollar, exactly how much you put in vs how much is the estate of the deceased. If you have kids, once they turn 18 they'll be adults not dependants. If you decide to help them out by paying for college, they'll have to treat your payment of their tuition and expenses as income. Also be prepared to spend big bucks for a lawyer to draft up lots of different contracts so your spouse can make medical or financial decisions for you, should you become incapacitated. I have no idea what legal web would be generated to enable you both to make decisions regarding kids, if the legal relationship between you and your spouse would be assumed to be exactly the same as the relationship between you and a complete stranger from the next county. Don Exactly. That is what they are saying. Those are "entitlements" that single people do not enjoy. Of course all the points you raised are the reasons WHY there is recognition of couples under the law. Some people argue that adding more people to that pool is irresponsible, and since we can't stop heteros from marrying, we can at least keep the gays from gaming the system. Its does not have to be earth shattering change to those who already enjoy some of the "benefits" of being married. I don't see any reason why existing married partners could not maintain their benefits under a grandfather clause. ALL new married partners would simply be playing under a new set of rules. I would like to see radical overhaul to social security and medicare as well. But, the boomers (who politicans on both sides owe their elections to) will not stand for the change. I understand why the government has encouraged marriage with these "benefits" for as long as they have, but the fact remains that times are changing. Women do have their own means of support now. Survivorship benefits, tax on estates, who are the real beneficiaries when women live longer than men? Anyone care to guess how many college students will marry a friend in order to get financial aid if we don't address the root problem of the government being partial to married couples? It's already happening with male-female pairings. It's going to happen even more if that limiter is removed. Boomers are the obstacle. Boomers are also responsible for the changing views race, sex, etc. In this country. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost. Lets deal with it.

I don't think anyone would consider having access to or assisting in medical decision making for an incapacitated spouse is an entitlement. With that point clarified I think we are in agreement. Making the sell is difficult, but I think something could be drafted on a bipartisan basis. Just can't wait until I get my brothers wedding invitation. That will be such a joyous day.

Don't avoid the elephant in the room: http://militarypay.defense.gov/survivor/sbp/01_overview.html http://www.ssa.gov/pgm/survivors.htm http://www.finaid.org/calculators/finaidestimate.phtml ...and last but not least: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-taxes-idUSBRE92B06K20130312 I mean seriously?! No one can acknowledge the additional costs? It's easy to take the high ground and argue basic human rights, morality, justice, etc., etc. If you want to get it done, get into the trenches and deal with the nuts and bolts of it. I don't like heterosexual couples getting these entitlements, let alone the idea of hundreds of thousands if not millions of others being instantly added to the dole. And there in lies your problem. People who are not homophobic and support gay rights saying "FUCK THAT, I'm not paying", "social conservatives" saying, "fuck that" (jesus, etc.) and people who are pretty ambivalent about the right to marry saying "fuck that" if their entitlements are on the line to get it done. Keep arguing it's the "right" thing though...see where that gets you.

Rights, yes. Entitlements, no. Why bother even asking the question of someone whos base argument for their belief stems from their religous views? Do you really think you will make any progress lobbying that group by pulling at heart strings or using reason (not intended to be disparaging)?

Again: no. Sexuality is biologically predetermined in the brain at birth. I'm not aware of and body of studies that supports that conclusion decisively. If sexuality is purely biological then how would you reconcile the cycle of child sexual abuse? Were people just born destined to enter into and perpetuate those kinds of sexual relationships? I like reptiles too. People, for the most part are "sexual" however you would like to contextualize that... I don't disagree, but to disregard environmental factors makes no sense. I fully understand why there is a great desire to find a "gay" gene and there are advocates who will in plain English tell you why they would very much like to discover said gene. I don't see how entertaining the debate of nurture vs. nature is in any way homophobic and as previously mentioned I don't see any evidence that the debate has been settled, despite how much people would like to see it settled. Again, I'm not advocating against those who have sexual orientations in the minority from having a family with children... I'm just saying the debate is much more interesting then the marriage debate and the "right" answer is much more difficult to arrive at since you are not just talking about two consenting adults.

Incorrect assumption that you can't. There is one for sale in the gun store closest to my office. You are only limited by your desire, ability to pass a background check and $$. With enough $$ you can buy a nuke "legally"... in theory. There is a somewhat clearly established body of US law that regulates weaponry owned by citizens. Prior to that law there was a set of founding principals, one of those was articulated as the right to bear arms. It's only natural that some people would like to abridge that right, do so with the law and do so with good intent. However, that does not mean they are right. How has the war on drugs turned out? "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." People can't own nukes. Ok. People can't own RPG's. Ok. People can't own automatic weapons. Ok. People can't own semi-automatic weapons that are capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. Ok. People are not allowed to own micro-wave or laser devices that could fatally harm another. Ok. People can't own any "weapons". Ok.....can you assure the rest of society that no harm will come to them because there are no legally available weapons? Liberty is delicate and as such must be treated with care. I think it's been referred to as a tree, though I don't necessarily agree with the watering prescription.

I have no issue with consenting adults entering into a pact that's designed to set up a family unit. Wendy P. Along with finances this is another point of contention. I noticed your leanings towards "nature" in the common "nature vs. Nurture" arguement. The finances are tough enough to deal with. I think you would have to disenfranchise future generations from entitlements currently received by many as a benefit of being married. To me this seems necessary to ensure equality going forward. When addressing children it becomes more difficult if nurture is not removed from the equation. Would the children of homosexual childen have a higher likelihood of "becoming" homosexual themselves? If so, does that have a net positive or negative effect on society after many generations? It seems that the data is just not there yet... I could be wrong. Couples of all sexual persuasions are already adopting, so that horse is already out of the barn. It's too bad, because that debate is more nuanced than the marriage debate that tends to just bring peoples prejudices to the surface..."institution" and what not.

I like chocolate ice cream. Sometimes I like vanilla bean. I can't stand frozen yogurt...it should be illegal..at the very least it should not be recognized as a tasty frozen treat.