  Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 745 Registered: 09-2005 |
God Bless, Michigan.... Does the amendment prevent public bodies from providing benefits to same-sex couples that are analogous to opposite-sex "common law" partnerships? In my opinion, same-sex partnerships are analogous with opposite-sex "common law" partnerships rather than opposite-sex marriages. Can "common law" couples get benefits from public bodies in Michigan? http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20070202/NEW S06/70202023 | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 500 Registered: 06-2006 |
While I voted against the amendment two years ago, there's no denying that this COA panel got this decision right... Michigan voters passed the amendment with the intent of denying same-sex couples the same benefits and protections that married couples enjoy... | ||
Walterwaves Member Username: Walterwaves Post Number: 75 Registered: 01-2007 |
lolol I can not believe this is still an issue in these times. Really. While being gay is not my cup of tea , what the hell gives me or you or anyone for that damn matter the right to tell anyone whom can love whom. Utterly ridiculous in this day and age to still have this as a topic. But then again, it was only a few years ago interacial marriages were still illegal in a lot of states. Go Figure. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8246 Registered: 10-2003 |
Since less than 50% of all marriages succeed I say we drop benefits for spouses. Why do people have such a difficult time with monogomous same sex couples while supporting an outlandish divorce rate? Just shows that the populace of this backwoods state is still thinking like it is the 50s. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8247 Registered: 10-2003 |
Spot on Walter. At one time people in this country thought it should be illegal for women and black people to vote. If the voting population has showed one thing over the years it is they are all about judging others and denying rights by voting. I love how this state won't acknowledge my gay friends that have children and live as a happy family but will acknowledge a family with someone who abuses his/her spouse and children. Maybe people are unhappy with the fact that the old stereotype of predatory, sexually deviant gay people does not apply as they tend to think. (Message edited by jt1 on February 02, 2007) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2320 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: At least Michigan's schools were still doing a fine job educating its populace back during the 1950s--unlike today. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2914 Registered: 08-2004 |
Jt1, remember it's older people who are voting. Not the young people. =( | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8248 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: How do you measure school success then compared to now? Do you have quantitative proof that shows Michigan schools now compared to the 50s has a larger gap than other states? Beyond opinion I would like to see some facts and see those relative to other states as well. The times are different, the requirements are different. | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 746 Registered: 09-2005 |
Do non-married opposite-sex couples qualify for benefits? | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 263 Registered: 08-2006 |
Yet another reason for me to move out of this state and head for the coast. 5 months and counting, can't wait. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8249 Registered: 10-2003 |
No but their marriages would not be acknowledged by the state. Give same sex partners the ability to get married and your question will actually be relevant. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2321 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: For one, the SAT scores peaked during 1962. The results are way lower since. Those test takers were educated during the 1950s. In actual fact, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was scrapped at the end of January 1994 and replaced with a dumbed-down version--the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). This led Mensa to disallow high scores in the new (and unimproved) SAT to no longer qualify for Mensa admission (due to its relative simplicity). There are lots of other evidence. Times are different. Today's "grads" are just as intelligent but nowhere near as educated, especially in SE Michigan. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8250 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You must also take into account how many people are taking the test. Seeing as the national graduation rate in 1960 was below 50% there was a lesser spectrum of students taking the test. The SAT was taken by those that were going to college which was a smaller pool at the time. In 2004 Michigan graduated 71.5% of the students. In 1960 the national average was about 46%. The manufacturing sector was booming and there was still a large farm base in the US. Kids simply didn't finish HS because they didn't need to and most certainly didn't even consider college. Fast forward to 2004 and many kids that would have never considered college in 1960 times now go to college due to the decline of opportunity in the fields that do not require education. The times are changing and most opportunities require college which waters down the SAT scores. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2322 Registered: 10-2004 |
Talk about graduation rates! DPS still hasn't effectively refuted the claims of its 21.7% graduation rate... | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8252 Registered: 10-2003 |
You opened the conversation speaking of Michigan schools then narrowed it down to SE Michigan then down to DPS. Do you always change the topic of your argument when you are incorrect? Would you like to discuss Michigan schools, SE Michigan schools or DPS. It is much easier to carry on a discussion when the core topic is not changed with every response. I know that you are anti-public education but the fact is Michigan as a whole is educating children much better than they were in the 1950s. DPS is failing but much of the burden falls on the parents. Schools can not educate children that are not prepared or educated in the home as well as school. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 140 Registered: 12-2006 |
This is simple: find a set of high-school-course final examinations in, say, English and Mathematics given to seniors in 1960. Give that same set of tests to today's seniors and watch what happens. Why English and Mathematics? They haven't changed so much in these 50 years. You couldn't use Physics or History (for instance) because the information from a 1960 examination would be seriously out of date. By the way, SAT scores (the way most people see them) are normalized and the average score is, on purpose, exactly the same year-over-year. The raw scores, which most people never see, have changed and (as LY points out) declined. We have taken what used to be schools and turned them into multipurpose day-care-and-proselytizing centers where students spend some time learning academics but some time hanging around, some time learning that "drugs are bad" and other heady stuff, plus whatever politically correct crap the ed establishment feels like cramming into their heads that particular week. Go to any college Dean and ask him or her how many students have to take remedial classes in Freshman year even compared to five or ten years ago. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2323 Registered: 10-2004 |
Four SE Michigan counties have about half the total Michigan population. And also the lowest tests grades in MEAPs. You're beating a dead horse. Now all you're doing is playing the blame game for SE Michigan's failures. SE Michigan is a big drag on the rest of the state. Another factoid: the Traverse City area is one of the highest among national home schooling. Their ACTs and SATs are way higher than SE Michigan's, including many of the better school districts outside Detroit. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 44 Registered: 10-2003 |
Why are you talking about schools at all on this thread? I thought this was about benifits to same sex partnerships. Anyway, I really think the reason these homophobic laws keep getting passed is because of a very vocal minority. I do not think the grand majority of the populace feels this way. Problem is, when something scares you because you're ignorant, you're more likely to say or do something about it. If you accept something, and it doesn't bother you at all, you're less likely to go marching in the streets about it. | ||
Awfavre Member Username: Awfavre Post Number: 95 Registered: 08-2005 |
Talk about a thread hijack . . . Now what about them gay people? Oh yeah, the evil ones who are single-handedly ruining the sanctimonious institution of marriage. Thank God we have the Michigan Court of Appeals to protect this sacrosanct institution by denying same-sex couples the benefits for which they and their employers bargained. I can see the TV ads now: “Denying benefits to same-sex partners saved my marriage. Re-elect Judge Moron to save yours, too!” | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2324 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: That thread-jack was in response to an offhand remark to the 1950s, which were actually high-water marks in Detroit or Michigan's history--hardly worth any "backwoods" commentary from the ill-informed. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 45 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hey, no fair using my post about the actual subject to further your argument with the ill-informed and their "backwoods" commentaries! Hehe. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2325 Registered: 10-2004 |
All's fair on DY... | ||
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa Post Number: 747 Registered: 09-2005 |
For purposes of comparison: if an Ontario government passed such a constitutional amendment (to the provincial constitution -- a weird concept in Canadian law), the amendment would be unconstitutional as it would infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that if certain benefits are extended to married heterosexual couples such benefits must also be extended to: common law heterosexual couples common law same-sex couples Of course, Parliament has now legislated same-sex marriage in Canada. I would assume the law would prevent anyone from distinguishing between benefits provided to married couples on the basis of sexual orientation. What a difference a 1km drive across a bridge makes. | ||
Ednaturnblad Member Username: Ednaturnblad Post Number: 6 Registered: 09-2006 |
given the bleak economic picture facing Michigan (I saw a report that said the state would not recapture its number of jobs from the year 2000 level until at least 2012), I don't understand why we would discourage gays from staying in and coming to Michigan. Statistics indicate that on average, gays have more disposable income and higher levels of education. I say let's paint this state pink and bring 'em in! Detroit's timeline for revitalization would be drastically and dramatically fast-tracked! We love the gays! | ||
Artistic Member Username: Artistic Post Number: 36 Registered: 09-2006 |
Speaking from my point only, any person and I mean any person that believes they have the right to tell another person who to love and tells that person they do not have the right marry because of there personal beliefs or religious beliefs are not clear thinkers in United States. We give full and equal rights to all, which means everything.......period. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 46 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree Ednaturnblad. Right now is NOT the time to discourage anybody from coming to Michigan who has some money and education. Hell, they'll probably start up some small businesses, and from what I hear, that's good right? Gay it up. | ||
Erichp77 Member Username: Erichp77 Post Number: 227 Registered: 12-2003 |
Heh, Michigan is going down the drain. Many folks who complain about Michigan's decaying cities,economy, and increasing poverty levels need to blame themselves. They've followed these so called righteous Christian/Catholic leaders with a blind eye. They'e become judges of those around them in the name of their own faith. Though there are still good people that live here, the decades of bigotry and descrimination by the majority have cursed this State. And God, is "not" here. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 502 Registered: 06-2006 |
"Thank God we have the Michigan Court of Appeals to protect this sacrosanct institution by denying same-sex couples the benefits for which they and their employers bargained." The COA's job here was not to determine whether gay couple should receive benefits as a matter of social policy...the Michigan voters put that question to rest in November of 2004... All the COA was doing here was determining whether, in light of the Amendment the voters passed in 2004, gay couples could receive benefits that are intended to go to married couples... Since the Michigan voters' intent in passing the amendment was to stop gay unions from ever being recognized as marriages and to deny them the same protections and benefits as married couples, this decision was a no-briner for them... You have to remember that the court's role is not to make policy, but rather to interpret the law | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2327 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: No fair pouring salt on their wounds... | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 503 Registered: 06-2006 |
lol | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2328 Registered: 10-2004 |
That's an eggcorn (acorn), such as shoe-in... | ||
Dialh4hipster Member Username: Dialh4hipster Post Number: 1916 Registered: 11-2004 |
It's really true ... you can't blame the court in this instance. You have only the voters of Michigan to blame if you don't like this. Actually, it's ok. I was kind of missing the gay shame of the 80's. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 326 Registered: 04-2006 |
Gay couples should not get the same benefits that married heterosexual couples get. People have the right to be who they want to be, but this does not include special privileges that others don't get. The Gay rights movement in the U.S.A. has unfortunately gone too far thus needs to be changed to reflect decent moral values by citizens such as myself. For example, Gays should be able to ride public buses for the same cost as non-Gays. I'm a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ. | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 51 Registered: 11-2006 |
Now I firmly belive that the benefits should be upheld because they were negotiated before prop 2 passed, a grandfathering compromise. And could someone please explain how allowing me to marry my boyfriend is a special privilege that others don't get? Personally once I am done with school I am going to look at leaving Detroit and Michigan simply for the fact that I can't get married. Maybe things will change and I will get to stay in the city that I love but I doubt it, Michigan is to ass backwards for that to happen. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6156 Registered: 09-2005 |
The real question is: when do benefits start? If you meet someone and decide you love each other, should your employer be responsible for the cost of their healthcare? Most voters said no. If you'd like to legally marry, then benefits may begin. Comparing this to interracial marriages, abusive relationships, gay shame or what the govt is giving away in Canada is ridiculous. | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 52 Registered: 11-2006 |
But Karl your forgetting the part where gays are closed out because they can't legally marry. | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 70 Registered: 06-2005 |
I usually keep silent in discussions like this simply because the posts tend to get progressively more ridiculous. But I'm breaking my silence on this one. Trainman, that last post HAS to be the single most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my entire life. Grammar aside, nothing you have just said made even the slightest bit of sense to anyone that doesn't speak Bigot. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4715 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: ...but for more than the Irish pay!!  Yeesh!!! | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 73 Registered: 06-2005 |
By the way, "non-Gays" is not the prefered nomenclature. "Style impaired" is the PC thing to say these days. Keep it clean. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6157 Registered: 09-2005 |
6nois - and so is everyone else. The law has long recognized the marriage of one man and one woman - exclusively. The real issue is this: some folks wish for someone else to pay for their benefits. If you wish to cover someone not covered by your employer's benefit plan, go out and purchase coverage yourself. Why should employers - often taxpayers - be burdened paying for someone the employee is having a "relationship" with? | ||
Adamjab19 Member Username: Adamjab19 Post Number: 742 Registered: 11-2003 |
Maybe I have missed a couple things here, but why haven't the gay community members concentrated more on getting the anti-gay laws changed to try to get the marriage thing figured out first before worrying about the right to have same sex marriage benefits when their marriage isn't even legal yet!? It only seems logical, with the current laws, to have the "legal" partnerships (i.e.-heterosexual marriages) with benefits. I know it's assnine that this day and age with the divorce rate being so high that gay marriage wouldn't be legal so why not fight alot harder for the marriage thing first... not to say that they haven't tried, but I sure was not surprised about the ruling. | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 75 Registered: 06-2005 |
Karl, I think one could also make the same argument for heterosexual marriages. I mean given that as a married heterosexual you're just as likely to end up having a divorce as staying married for life, your point that gay couples don't deserve benefits because their relationships are somehow more superficial doesn't seem to hold water. On that point, how can you really make a blanket statement that no gay people are in lifelong relationships? Honestly. As an aside, I know more than a straight few couples in my generation (the 21-30 age bracket) who have gotten married just for the benefits. Are they more entitled to enjoy benefits than anyone else? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 506 Registered: 06-2006 |
Adamjab19: Because they lost that battle...at least here in Michigan they did...a vote was held in 2004 and they lost...it's now unconstitutional for gays to marry or have civil unions in Michigan...so, because they lost that fight, they are going after "domestic partner" benefits... | ||
Zephyrprocess Member Username: Zephyrprocess Post Number: 237 Registered: 08-2006 |
quote: Karl, I just want to be certain I understand you: you're advocating the abolition of such benefits for spouses? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 507 Registered: 06-2006 |
I think he's advocating benefits for spouses when companies opt to provide such benefits... | ||
Adamjab19 Member Username: Adamjab19 Post Number: 743 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thejesus- thank you for the information. I was aware of the amendment, so why not fight that. That seems like the root of the problem. Plus an ignornat voting public.... | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 473 Registered: 07-2004 |
I had to do a report on Same-Sex Marriage for college in my polics class. Here was my closing statement. I understand this does not address benefits, but it does address marrage and being in a commited relationship. So here it is. It is a couple years old now. -------- For me a marriage is a contract between two people and their church. If a same-sex couple can find a priest to marry them, then I feel their marriage by a priest is more of a real marriage, then just a piece of paper from City Hall. So in many ways gay people already can get married. They can get married in their hearts, and in spirit with the churches that accept them. A paper from Ciy Hall would be great, and I hope our new prime minister goes through with same-sex marriage. But it is not the be all and end all. For me, a vow made between two people is much more of a marriage then a signature. And in that regard no government or people can tell anyone who to marry or not marry. --------------- I got an A on it | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 511 Registered: 06-2006 |
Adamjab19: Since there is no legal basis on which to invalidate a provision of the state constitution, the only way to "fight" a provision of the constitution is to vote on it, and we just did that in 2004...holding another vote right now would likely yield the same result... | ||
Themax Member Username: Themax Post Number: 527 Registered: 09-2005 |
Trainman: Where did Jesus ever talk about homosexuals? Gay people who were employed by some Michigan universities had been given domestic partnership benefits by their employers prior to the new amendment which makes them second class citizens. Michigan has become Michissippi, backward and bigoted, when you look at the state constitution and some laws. Most of the arguments against gay marriage centered around the word "marriage" which supposedly has a more mystical, religious connotation than domestic partnerships. It is obvious though that denying domestic partnership benefits just shows that some people aren't happy unless they are oppressing someone else. Why wasn't the distinction between a "marriage" blessed by some god and the secular domestic parnership kept? | ||
The_nerd Member Username: The_nerd Post Number: 377 Registered: 12-2003 |
Here's a suggestion, since Michigan voters are unlikely to change their minds about their vote and their actions were inspired by the "morality" of Judeo-Christian values... The following are excellent and logical ways to "protect" the marriage institution and ensure "good families" 1. Amend the Constitution to Ban no-fault divorce. Divorce would only be allowed for adultry, so if you marry someone who molests your children (tough luck), rapes you (toubgh luck), steals all of your money (tough luck), or beats you (again tough luck). The party at fault for divorce because of adultry would be imprisioned for life, since the State bans capital punishment (the Biblical Remedy). 2. Ban adulturers or those divorced without showing adultury from public office. Furthermore ban re-marriage for all divorces, regardless of fault, unless their former spouse dies. This would ban Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, but also Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and several other politicians from both parties. 3. Ban "unnatural" sex acts, (i.e. anything other than the missionary position) abortion and contraception (including condoms). Anyone violating this would be guilty of murder and imprisioned for life. | ||
Exmotowner Member Username: Exmotowner Post Number: 78 Registered: 06-2005 |
This is just crazy in the 21st century! I was with my first Husband (and Yes I called him my husband and you cant stop me from that)! were together 20 years. My current husband and I have been together 8 years. But thats Not ok? Yet Elizabeth Taylor can screw around and have 9 husbands but thats ok. Really doesnt make sence to me. Ya know, I don't agree with who Laura Bush Married, but I'd fight to the death defending her right to marry the idiot! I think its a damn shame that my relationship with my husband is harmful to you. (and Im talking in generalities to the ones my gayness offends). He is my husband whether you like it or not. We've been to lawyers and were so tied together, it will take two lawyers and a full court to divorce us!. Its pretty petty that you have to pass legislation to stop us from getting benifits. Damn Homophobes, If it was about inter-racial marriage, all hell would be breaking loose, but queers, its ok to discriminate just because you dont agree with my lifestyle. (OYE) (Shaking head here)! | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 513 Registered: 06-2006 |
Themax: The amendment that was passed two years ago made civil unions unconstitutional as well...so apparently is not just the word "marriage" people have an issue with... | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 514 Registered: 06-2006 |
exmotowner: no is preventing you from being w/ your "husband"...also, no one is preventing you from receiving "domestic partner" benefits from private businesses that wish to give them to you... but to be married is really just to ask society to recognize your union, and it's society's right to chose not to recognize it if society wishes... also, when you are employed by the state, you are working for the people of the state, and if the people have chosen not to recognize gay unions, then there is no valid argument to support the notion that the people should confer benefits to the the "spouse" of a union they have explicitly chosen not to recognize... | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 211 Registered: 08-2006 |
Hey Exmotowner, its just certain people who still think back like they did in the 50s. You are right, had it been interracial marriages that were under attack, it would be a whole different scenario. Just keep living your life with your husband and dont let anyone define the love you both share. Im fine with your relationship. Most of the kids in college that were polled, 61%, say gay unions were fine with them, they had more important issues to deal with. Hang in there hun. Jane | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 150 Registered: 12-2006 |
Miketoronto brings up a good point. Marriage is between two people, and if they are of a churchgoing faith then it is between them and their church. When was it the Government decided it had to get involved? With regard to benefits, if a private company wants to, it can provide benefits to you and anybody you choose to include under any and all circumstances. Unfortunately the Court has decided that our public vote included that the State and its institutions cannot provide benefits in one particular instance. This is a very strange time to be alive, I think. | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2006 |
If you look at the amendment you will notice that that it really won't even allow partner benefits from private companies. Because it says something like a union between one man and one woman and prevents anything that gives any sort of legal recognition to a gay couple, therefore if a private companies offers benefits it could be sued for breaking the amendment. As for the whole church thing screw the church why would I go there and ask them for a blessing I am not religious that doesn't mean anything to me, its a load of crap. I want to work on something that says the likes of peoples open displays of heterosexuality really upset me and are disturbing and I would like to ban all such activity in public places. Do you see how crazy that statement is? Very so I don't feel that some one can say the same thing about me and be serious because it doesn't make any sense. Oh and for laugh I found this article talking about an amendment in Washington that will help preserve marriage. Haha. http://www.gay.com/news/articl e.html?2007/02/05/6 | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8259 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I would say frustrating, not strange. Living in a place that votes to take rights away from citizens because they are not the average person is frustrating, not strange. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 516 Registered: 06-2006 |
"If you look at the amendment you will notice that that it really won't even allow partner benefits from private companies. Because it says something like a union between one man and one woman and prevents anything that gives any sort of legal recognition to a gay couple, therefore if a private companies offers benefits it could be sued for breaking the amendment." your analysis is so far off that I don't know if I could even explain it to you...just know that this Amendment to the state constitution has no effect whatsoever on the actions of private businesses...they can dish out cash to whomever they want for whatever reason they want...this requires no legal recognition by anyone of two peoples' union... the constitution is essentially a contract between the state government and the people...it's not a law that has any effect on private commerce... btw, the company I work for is one that provides domestic partner benefits... (Message edited by thejesus on February 06, 2007) | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1537 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thejesus wrote: quote: I don't think I agree with you, but that is the crux of the issue. I'd say there's a mix of people out there, some who support both gay "marriage" and gay civil unions with benefits (I'm in this group), some who would support gay civil unions with benefits but not gay "marriage", and some who oppose both. I think a substantial number of people are in the middle group, who would support civil unions with benefits, but would prefer that the term "marriage" (which has religious meaning for some) be reserved for heterosexual unions. People in the middle group ended up voting mostly in favor of the amendment because that's the only choice they were given. I think the solution is fairly obvious for the gay community. Get the wording for another amendment together which provides for legal civil unions for gays with benefits, but reserves the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions. Get the signatures and get it on the ballot. I'd think it would stand a very good chance of passing. Problem solved. The reality is that Michigan is a pretty middle-of-the-road state on social issues. It's not as progressive as California but it's not as socially conservative as Arkansas either. Another amendment should be doable. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 523 Registered: 06-2006 |
Dougw... not exactly...anyone who is opposed to gay marriage but in favor of civil unions should have had no bones about voting against this amendment...this would allow them to consider JUST the gay marriage issue during a subsequent election... you say that's the only choice they were given...true, that was the only choice on the 2004 ballot...but by voting against it they would have been leaving the door open to consider a separate amendment later on with different language... and even if that group in the middle was as large as you think it was, apparently the they still weren't concerned enough about banning civil unions to vote against it...they must have felt that the upside of banning gay marriage was well worth banning civil unions altogether... | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8260 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And the upside of banning gay marriage is? | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5489 Registered: 02-2004 |
YAY!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA. What a Christian, Muslim and Jewish ideology! Where .......... partners is not to be permitted. Now all of you ......... partners can hit Canada and dance with Horny Boy. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 524 Registered: 06-2006 |
"And the upside of banning gay marriage is?" Well i'm no social scientist, but I would guess the upside of banning gay marriage from the point of view of those who voted against it is probably that gays can't get married...again, just a guess | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8261 Registered: 10-2003 |
and gays getting married would cause problems such as ? People should be much more alarmed at the rate of divorce than focusing on efforts like these. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 525 Registered: 06-2006 |
I don't think society's fear is that they would go around causing problems... Again, to be married is simply to ask society to recognize your union, and society has refused to do so, either because they feel it's unnatural or ungodly or whatever...no one is preventing gays from living together and humping if they want...society (at least in Michigan and some other places) just doesn't want to recognize their union | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8263 Registered: 10-2003 |
I am just trying to understand why. We have national divorce rates above 50% and the holier than thou public is trying to protect the 'sanctity' of marriage. To much surface religion with no substance by the people in this State and this Country. Let's protect marriage, then get divorced. Much of fucking hypocrites. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 526 Registered: 06-2006 |
I've always felt that's a weak point to be honest...you're just taking the word "sanctity" and using it to encompass something the other side isn't...the issue of what type of union society wants to recognize and forcing people to stay married against there will are two very different issues....if the pro gay marriage crowd wants to be taken seriously, they really need to abandon that argument... | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8264 Registered: 10-2003 |
That is not the lone argument just the argument about the hypocrisy of many/most people that are against gay marriage. I still have not heard one valid argument why gay marriage should be illegal beyond those with religious intent. If people are voting against and fighting against gay marriage on the grounds of their religious beliefs then it is extremely wrong that they argue for the religious aspects of marriage but abandon it so quickly and easily. Can you name one valid reason why it is logical to ban gay marriage. What society chooses to recognize has been proven wrong on many social issues in the past and certainly should not be considered the strong point here. I ask for one solid argument that voters can claim to ban gay marriage. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8265 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: How can a valid argument be framed when most voting against gay marriages argument is 1. marriage should be one man and one woman - end of story 2. God did not intend for gay people to be married. 3. They will just abuse the system for benefits I would love to hear one logical reason why people are against gay marriage and one intrusion it will cause in their lives. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2003 |
Gay marriage became an issue when Karl Rove saw an opportunity to mobilize the evangelical christian vote (three million non-voters, who if they did vote, would vote republican). Nobody was talking about it before the Bush-Gore election. After the republicans stole power via the "election", they used the evangelical vote to make sure they stayed there. By putting gay marriage issues on state ballots accross the country, they guaranteed themselves an extra 3 million votes. Let people be. More people should worry about their own lives than trying to infringe on the lives of others. Gay people aren't hurting you. Leave them alone. And for the record, I believe most gays don't give a damn about your sacred "marriage" word. Its a word. They just want to be allowed to have some sort of official union like the rest of us have the right to. They'd like to be able to visit a loved one at the hospital if they are dying, and the visiting hours are for family only. They just want the same rights and equality you have. They don't give a damn what word you call it. Its Karl Rove that made the issue about "marriage". | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 527 Registered: 06-2006 |
"What society chooses to recognize has been proven wrong on many social issues in the past" I don't think you can ever say that what society feels has been "proven wrong"...people have changed their opinions on things, but that doesn't mean they were "wrong", as in "incorrect"...if you want use the term "wrong" in the sense of what is morally right or wrong, again, that's just the product of how people feel about certain things...it doesn't make them correct or incorrect Aside form the religious arguments, some people feel that same sex relationships are unnatural...there are also people who are opposed to gay adoption and fear that allowing gays to marry would given them the right to adopt (and yes, they prefer a child not being adopted at all to a child being adopted by a gay couple) You're looking for a "logical" reason as to why someone is against gay marriage...the problem with that question is that this isn't as issue of logic...it's an issue of taste and opinion...there's no right or wrong answer when you're dealing with the way different people feel about an issue... | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1538 Registered: 11-2003 |
quote: The group in the middle might not be huge, but it only has to be around 11-12% changing their vote to make civil unions legal. (I think the original amendment banning gay marriage won 60-40?) Also, although the language in the original amendment was fairly clear that it didn't allow any benefits for gay couples, there was still a lot of confusion at the time among voters about whether that was really the case. I think a lot of people voted for it because they didn't want the "marriage" term applying to gay couples, and they didn't dig much deeper into the language. | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 42 Registered: 10-2005 |
Sometimes a majority simply means all the fools are on the same side. | ||
Terryh Member Username: Terryh Post Number: 134 Registered: 11-2006 |
As late as 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in, I think 37 states.I predict we will see most democratic, industrial societies legalize same sex marriage; benefits etc. many years before socially rigid conservative U.S. becomes tolerant of same sex couples. Unlike accepting Jesus or submitting to Allah which are philosophical lifestyle choices, Gays and Lesbians must be driven to their behaviour by some biological factor. Why would anyone choose such a lifestyle which is clearly unpopular and dangerous to ones safety. | ||
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku Post Number: 1108 Registered: 03-2006 |
free country my ass! | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 528 Registered: 06-2006 |
"As late as 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in, I think 37 states." That statement in and of itself is meaningless...could you elaborate on what you are trying to say? | ||
Terryh Member Username: Terryh Post Number: 136 Registered: 11-2006 |
I would say that, compared to other countries progressive social change has come very slowly in the U.S. which tends to be very conservative. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 529 Registered: 06-2006 |
well, all things are relatve...there are still countries where you get executed for engaging in the activities we are discussing in this thread... but I agree that societal values move towards the left over time, and almost never go the other way... | ||
Imperfectly Member Username: Imperfectly Post Number: 202 Registered: 06-2004 |
I can only speak from my own experience ...as do many others on here. I own property with and have financial ties to my partner. I am not religious and am not interested in "marriage". I thought marriage was a sacrament in the church, which I have no intention in participating in. So I really do not understand the arguement against a legal non-sacred sort of amendment. I work in an industry that doesn't provide good health care benefits. My partner does. I would just like to let people know that not all the gays want to run to the alter and tie the knot destroying your churches and shattering your worlds. My life would have such a better quality if I could be on her insurance. I just want to be able to go to the doctor with some normalcy just like everyone else. Is that really so offensive or too much to ask. Oh and filing our taxes together would be awesome too. Thanks and try not to attack each other over this terribly offensive plea for some equality. | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 800 Registered: 06-2005 |
I think Germany does it correctly. Germany has separated the Government Civil Marriage and Church Marriage. Basically, if you want to get married, you go to the Government, get a license, have a ceremony and voilá, governmental contractual marriage. If the Happy Couple is religious, then there is a separate Church Ceremony. This is the unofficial marriage, which for many if the more important, due to the spirituality. Fact is, the church is separated from government. | ||
Exmotowner Member Username: Exmotowner Post Number: 80 Registered: 06-2005 |
Ya Know. I really dont care to get Married and probably wouldnt even if I could. The benifits would be nice but thats it. Im secure in my relationship and thats all that matters to me. I know this is a bit off the subject, but I know the church preaches that Im going to hell for being gay. I think of it this way. My God is not going to send me to the same hell for loving my husband and being in a good secure relationship as he sends people like Hitler, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacey etc. If he is going to send me to the same hell for loving someone as he did those people for the haneous crimes that they committed, Im not so sure I would want to be with that god anyhow. Just my feelings. No not all gays would rush to the alter. But denying us the same rights hetrosexuals have is pure discrimination. No other way to look at it. Just because you dont agree with something, does not give you the right to opress it. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5491 Registered: 02-2004 |
YAY!! America, where the ideology of marriage between a man and a woman is community inferred by means of many religious foundations. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 532 Registered: 06-2006 |
Detroitduo: The problem with that is, when you're asking a government in America for a marriage license, you're really asking the people to recognize your union rather than the politicians who have to power to grant you a license... Also, there more to this than just the religious element...if that's all it were, then the amendment never would have passed with 60% of the vote in Michigan... | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 533 Registered: 06-2006 |
"YAY!! America, where the ideology of marriage between a man and a woman is community inferred by means of many religious foundations." Many people are opposed to same sex marriage for reasons completely independant of what religion has to say about it... Don't forget that religious rules like no gay marriage were man-made in the first place, which means that people are opposed to such a thing for their own reasons, and not just because religion tells them they should be... | ||
Walterwaves Member Username: Walterwaves Post Number: 88 Registered: 01-2007 |
"As late as 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in, I think 37 states." That statement in and of itself is meaningless...could you elaborate on what you are trying to say? The above statement is not meaningless. It is true and bears direct association to same sex marriage as both are/were looked upon as being freakish when in reality all they want is the same recognition as the mainstream. Last I checked, this was America. Yanno? Equal rights for all, regardless of race ,creed or color? Including sexual orientation. Maybe America wasn't such a great idea after all. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 534 Registered: 06-2006 |
Again, to be married is simply to ask society to recognize your union, and society has a right to chose what it wants to recognize...forcing it to recognize something it doesn't agree with defeats the purpose behind marriage altogether If we were talking about denying the right of two people to live together or hump each other, then you could make an argument about society interfering with personal rights...but when we're talking about marriage, we're talking about society's right and no one else's And as sad of a situation as it was up until 1967, it was society's right to not recognize interracial marriages if it didn't want to, just as it is their right to chose not recognize heterosexual (yes, hetero) marriages if that's they way society feels...but to force society to acknowledge a union that it doesn't agree with defeats the purpose of marriage in the first place... Now if you want to talk about benefits afforded to married couples, that's a different (yet related) topic. The constitutional amendment that was passed in Michigan does not prevent private businesses from paying domestic partner benefits if they want to but it's their choice to do so since it's THEIR money, just as it was the people of Michigan's choice to decide not to pay benefits to domestic partners with THEIR money... | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 56 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thejesus, all the logic you are using on this thread implies that whatever the majority of a society wants is that society's "right". Thats crap logic. See, this is America, and we have certain rules we live by that should not be changed regardless of what the majority at that moment might believe. And again, by continuing to make the debate about "marriage" misses the point altogether, as that word was only brought out by Karl Rove and the republican party to incite evangelical christians into coming out to the polls to vote for them. But, if this country is going to put legally binding benifits on a CHURCH institution such as marriage, it needs to offer another simliar institution for those not belonging to the church. IE some form of civil union giving the same benefits as Marriage does. That is only fair and equal, and society does NOT have the "right" to deny equality, no matter how many of them may want to. Otherwise, I guess Germany had the "right" to kill 3 million Jews, since the majority of them were deluded by the Nazi party. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 479 Registered: 07-2004 |
The USA is the land of liberty and freedom, so based on what the USA wants itself to be, gay marriage should be allowed. For a country that is suppose to be about personal freedom and no judgment, I sure observe alot of it in the USA. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 480 Registered: 07-2004 |
The USA is the land of liberty and freedom, so based on what the USA wants itself to be, gay marriage should be allowed. For a country that is suppose to be about personal freedom and no judgment, I sure observe alot of it in the USA. | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 801 Registered: 06-2005 |
LOL! You're right MikeToronto. Actually, I honestly didn't realize how "unfree" America is, until I moved to Germany for 2 years. First of all, Censorship is HUGE in the US. Second, discrimination, while illegal, runs rampant. Really, it's crazy when you think about it. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", except when the majority disagrees! I am tired of the politics being played with my and other people's lives. What's really great is, while I am married in Germany, when I move back to the US, I am not anymore! How cool is that? In the end, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy and in the end, not EVERYTHING the public thinks is wrong or unacceptable should be an amendment or illegal. That is why we have 3 levels of government, including the Judicial tier, which is supposed to uphold the Constitution (our personal rights!). When the Judges start becoming political, that's when the system is failing..... | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 537 Registered: 06-2006 |
"Thejesus, all the logic you are using on this thread implies that whatever the majority of a society wants is that society's "right". Thats crap logic." Actually, that's called a Democracy, and in a democracy, the majority rules. However, in our Democracy, we have traditionally recognized minority rights along with majority rule. Often with such a system, though, we find ourselves in a situation where we have to balance the two interests. And we already have two institutions of marriage, one legal and the other religious. When you apply for a marriage license with the state, it carries no religious connotation whatsoever. Likewise, being legally married before the state is not a prerequisite to a church recognizing two peoples' union. Now the institution that was voted on in 2004 was the legal institution, and the people defined legal marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Also, a lot of the argument from your side has been something along the lines of a free society shouldn't deny rights to anyone. That's a fine theory and all, but I would assume that you would agree that a line does need to be drawn at some point. Different people just draw the line in different places. For example, we have laws that deny nudists the "freedom" to walk around naked in public. While the nudist populace no doubt feels that such laws are an infringement on their freedoms, they are in the minority on the issue and are therefore compelled to conform to society's values. (Message edited by thejesus on February 07, 2007) | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 58 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Also, a lot of the argument from your side has been something along the lines of a free society shouldn't deny rights to anyone." Obviously everybody should not have the right to do everything. Some things hurt others or infringe on the rights of others. We all understand that. "For example, we have laws that deny nudists the "freedom" to walk around naked in public. While the nudist populace no doubt feels that such laws are an infringement on their freedoms, they are in the minority on the issue and are therefore compelled to conform to society's values. " Nudism is a choice. I suppose you would argue that homosexuality is a choice as well. I would disagree. The difference is the nudist can put clothes on to go out, but a gay person cannot put straight on. But since we've gotten down to the true fundamentals of this arguement, 'your side' will simply say that homosexuality is not a biological thing, that is a choice like nudism, 'my side' will say it is and therefore should not be persecuted, and that gays should enjoy the same rights and benefits as heteros, and the entire debate becomes pointless because there's no accepted evidence currently either way. If homosexuality has a biological cause, as I believe it does, then denying them any rights or benefits that heterosexuals enjoy is blatant discrimination, no different than racism. If it's a choice, than your argument holds water about what society deems correct. | ||
Exmotowner Member Username: Exmotowner Post Number: 81 Registered: 06-2005 |
Being GAY is NOT a choice! There is NO WAY IN HELL I would have chosen this. I knew I was gay when I was a very very young child. Probably around 4 or 5 years old. My mother was (lovingly called) "Archie Bunker". All I heard growing up was "I would rather my kids be dead than queer or on drugs". And you would think I picked this lifestyle? I tried killing myself twice when I was young. This is the 21st century. I cant even belive this is a topic. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 59 Registered: 10-2003 |
I'm with you Exmotowner. I don't believe it is at all either. But the lack of imperical evidence it what still gives credit to these bigots who would deny you equal treatment. | ||
Walterwaves Member Username: Walterwaves Post Number: 89 Registered: 01-2007 |
Exmotowner, the people on here who are against gay people getting married are the same ones thatwould not hesistate to call my wife a "nigger" or me a "honky". Don't feel bad , you will get your equal rights due you, all you have to do is continue fighting for them and as history has proven time and time again, with a relentless fight, even the peoples minds can be changed. Walt | ||
Walterwaves Member Username: Walterwaves Post Number: 90 Registered: 01-2007 |
Exmotowner, the people on here who are against gay people getting married are the same ones thatwould not hesistate to call my wife a "nigger" or me a "honky". Don't feel bad , you will get your equal rights due you, all you have to do is continue fighting for them and as history has proven time and time again, with a relentless fight, even the peoples minds can be changed. Walt | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 538 Registered: 06-2006 |
"I suppose you would argue that homosexuality is a choice as well." Well as you said, there's no evidence either way...but I would say my understanding is that the actions are a choice, but the impulses are not... Anyways, we're getting too far away from the topic of discussion, and believe it or not, I'm not on the opposite side of you as far as whether gay marriage should be allowed...I have no problem with it, which is why I voted against the 2004 amendment...where I disagree with you is on the issue of whether society should (or even can) be forced to recognize a union that it doesn't want to recognize | ||
Nyburgher Member Username: Nyburgher Post Number: 34 Registered: 10-2006 |
I myself have read the bible and have many, many questions. Here are some http://ralphies.blogspot.com/2 006/06/homosexuality-and-old-t estament.html | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 574 Registered: 06-2006 |
The religious element is a much smaller part of this debate than many of you could care to believe...most of the people who are against gay marriage are against it for reasons that are completely independent of religion...same with the majority of Michiganders who voted down gay marriage in '04 | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 221 Registered: 08-2006 |
Exmotowner, I agree 100% Ive known many gays and lesbians and transgenders. They chose nothing, it was a part of their identity at birth. I understand and I think its great you survived your upbringing. Not all people are hateful, just surround yourself with good people and friends. Love, Jane | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 582 Registered: 06-2006 |
whether it's the result of birth or upbringing is a question that is completely independent of whether people want to recognize same-sex unions or not... people believing gay people are gay at brith does not = people being OK with gay marriage... | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 114 Registered: 10-2003 |
"whether it's the result of birth or upbringing is a question that is completely independent of whether people want to recognize same-sex unions or not... " That's totally untrue. This society expects people to make choices in life, and it wants those choices to be based on moral ground, since we're still a bunch of back-assward puritans in many ways. People who are born a certain way, we are taught to have understanding for and actually go out of our way to help. When we perceive how someone is as a CHOICE, we release ourselves from feeling any responsibility or sympathy for the person. This is PRECISELY the question. And it's no coincidence that you believe it's a choice and are against same-sex unions and I belive it's biological and am for them. Find me someone who thinks it's biological, and yet they should STILL be banned from enjoying some form of recognized union. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 583 Registered: 06-2006 |
"it's no coincidence that you believe it's a choice and are against same-sex unions" I'm not against same-sex unions, nor do I simply feel it's a "choice"... While I'm sure we can agree that homosexual conduct is clearly a choice, I would say that even if one believes the impulses are not, there's still an issue as to whether the impulses are the result of upbringing or birth, which is something that can't be proven either way, which makes it a pointless argument in my opinion... and it's true that we generally want to go out of our way to help people born with certain conditions, such as handicapped people, but the problem with sexuality is that no one can present any evidence or put forth conclusive proof either way as to whether that condition was avoidable...this is not the case when we're simply dealing with someone born with one leg...this is part of the reason as to why the public reaction to these two conditions is different... Since evidence can't be put forth either way, people tend to look to the anatomical condition of people to determine what a union should consist of, either a man and a woman or two people of the same sex... (Message edited by thejesus on February 15, 2007) | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 584 Registered: 06-2006 |
btw, I think what this dude in WA is doing is a brilliant way to raise to issue and get a dialogue going... http://www.ibnlive.com/news/ha ve-a-kid-in-3-yrs-or-marriage- annulled/33642-2.html?xml In response a 2006 Washington state Supreme Court ruling that said in part that procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage was a legitimate government interest, this guy is trying to get a measure on the ballot to annul any opposite-sex marriages that don't produce children after 3 years and make proof of reproductive ability a prerequisite to marriage | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 116 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hmm that is an interesting way of getting dialogue going. Sort of a Jonathon Swift type thing. A lot of people are going to miss the point on that one and just be outraged I bet. Pretty clever of him I'd have to say, nice find. | ||
Zephyrprocess Member Username: Zephyrprocess Post Number: 247 Registered: 08-2006 |
quote: Thejesus--did you want to offer some of that independent-of-religion reasoning? And I am curious as to why you believe this debate differs from historically earlier ones about "miscegenation." | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 585 Registered: 06-2006 |
“Thejesus--did you want to offer some of that independent-of-religion reasoning? “ Sure. Religious books (which are man made) drew their conclusion about marriage being between a man and a woman largely from the anatomical characteristics of the different sexes. Likewise, many people draw the same conclusion on their own independent of religion. While they both reach the same result, there's a difference between these two since the view of people who take their views from the conclusions of religion would change if the view of the religion changed. This is not so of the latter group, which would have independently and individually reached the same conclusion on their own even in the absence of religion. Also, I know several people who aren’t religious in the least but, yet are opposed to gay marriage simply because they “hate fags”. Again, no religious interpretation about the will of God needed for that one. “And I am curious as to why you believe this debate differs from historically earlier ones about "miscegenation." I don’t believe that it does. The two are very analogous. |
