The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This is somewhat in line with what I was saying

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

Maybe that's not a bad idea. The details would be tricky, but it seems like a good solution, though I doubt it would ever get traction after what has already happened.

 

[Danoff]

This is somewhat in line with what I was saying

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

Maybe that's not a bad idea. The details would be tricky, but it seems like a good solution, though I doubt it would ever get traction after what has already happened.

I think this was discussed at length here on GTPlanet, and of course it's pretty close to the right answer. The government should be in the business of marriage as little as possible. However, I think it makes sense to have a standardized contract that is recognized for the purpose of marriage. Maybe that contract is called a marriage license, maybe it's called a civil union. The bottom line is that there are legal aspects of marriage that are critical for lots of legal situations (like guardianship). I don't think you can completely remove the government from marriage, but it certainly is far more involved in marriage than it should be.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think this was discussed at length here on GTPlanet, and of course it's pretty close to the right answer. The government should be in the business of marriage as little as possible. However, I think it makes sense to have a standardized contract that is recognized for the purpose of marriage. Maybe that contract is called a marriage license, maybe it's called a civil union. The bottom line is that there are legal aspects of marriage that are critical for lots of legal situations (like guardianship). I don't think you can completely remove the government from marriage, but it certainly is far more involved in marriage than it should be.

Totally agree, hence the "details would be tricky" part of my post.

There's no reason that wedding businesses couldn't roll this into their standard service. People are arguing against Rand saying that under this policy you would need a lawyer to get married, which I think is completely overstating things. Unless there were unique circumstances, a standard marriage contract would be...well..standard and likely not need a lawyer at all.

A person marrying a foreigner might be interesting if marriage becomes de-federalized though....which would be important to me as I'm with an Iranian national...

 

[Danoff]

eople are arguing against Rand saying that under this policy you would need a lawyer to get married, which I think is completely overstating things.

Well, people already use lawyers to get married with prenuptial agreements.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Well, people already use lawyers to get married with prenuptial agreements.

Their prerogative.

 

[huskeR32]

If this passes, what's to stop me saying "I was fired for being gay, give me my job back". Are you going to go through my personal life to discover if I'm gay?

Do you think that if a black man were to file a wrongful termination suit, all he would have to do is show up in court so that the judge could see him? "Yep, you certainly are black. I find for the plaintiff!"

Race, sexual orientation, age, gender - it doesn't matter. Anybody claiming wrongful termination would still have to prove that the employer acted wrongfully based on that discrimination. Adding LGBT folks to the list of already protected groups doesn't change that.

 

[FoolKiller]

People are arguing against Rand saying that under this policy you would need a lawyer to get married, which I think is completely overstating things. Unless there were unique circumstances, a standard marriage contract would be...well..standard and likely not need a lawyer at all.

You can online and form an LLC, create a will, create a power of attorney, create a living will, and a number of other "you need a lawyer for that" things for cheap. I am pretty sure there would be a quick and easy generic marriage contract for those who just want the same legal protections a marriage license grants. Sign it and have it notarized and you're done.

The people who argue this point are either too old to believe things can be so simple and easy without government, or purposefully ignorant of the world they live in right now.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You can online and form an LLC, create a will, create a power of attorney, create a living will, and a number of other "you need a lawyer for that" things for cheap. I am pretty sure there would be a quick and easy generic marriage contract for those who just want the same legal protections a marriage license grants. Sign it and have it notarized and you're done.

The people who argue this point are either too old to believe things can be so simple and easy without government, or purposefully ignorant of the world they live in right now.

Or so caught up in partisan crusades that a lateral thought is impossible.

I feel like it would be easier to tell people "it's like Uber, for marriage"

That might get through to them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Or so caught up in partisan crusades that a lateral thought is impossible.

I feel like it would be easier to tell people "it's like Uber, for marriage"

That might get through to them.

Legal Zoom should be a much more widely understood thing than Uber. It has nationwides ads on TV, radio, and even podcasts (not that I think they listen to podcasts).

Also, keep in mind, these are the same people that think Uber is a way for reckless driving drug addicts and rapists to get young women in their cars.

 

[GTsail]

Maybe I'm old and wedded to our historical ways, but what would really change if all marriage licenses were granted by Legal Zoom instead of by the local state Justice of the Peace?

Except that it might put some Justice of the Peace's out of work?

Lets say that you need your marriage license to prove your marriage to a hospital so you can visit your sick spouse in a hospital that limits visitors to parents and spouses.

And lets say that you are in a LGBT marriage and obtained your marriage license thru Legal Zoom and your spouse is in a hospital.

You bring your Legal Zoom marriage license to the hospital so you can visit your spouse.

Can the hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse because you have a Legal Zoom marriage license?

Can a hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse even if your marriage license was granted by your local state Justice of the Peace?

Or can a hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse no matter who granted the marriage license if you are a LGBT couple and the hospital wants to discriminate against you?

The above may be a clumsy example, but its the best I've been able to think of so far. What I'm trying to get at is if all marriages are now granted as soon as two people (of whatever persuasion) sign their Legal Zoom document, would these two people always be considered to be "married" for all purposes, and there would be no distinction in any court of law or other societal situation?

If so, then how does this limit LGBT marriages? (which I assume to be the purpose behind various religious groups opposition to LGBT marriages). Wouldn't marriage licenses be even easier to obtain using Legal Zoom than what was necessary before when using a local Justice of the Peace? Or would "Legal Zoom" marriage licenses now be considered "second class" and this would allow more institutions an easier path to discriminate against LGBT couples?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

Maybe I'm old and wedded to our historical ways, but what would really change if all marriage licenses were granted by Legal Zoom instead of by the local state Justice of the Peace?

Except that it might put some Justice of the Peace's out of work?

Lets say that you need your marriage license to prove your marriage to a hospital so you can visit your sick spouse in a hospital that limits visitors to parents and spouses.

And lets say that you are in a LGBT marriage and obtained your marriage license thru Legal Zoom and your spouse is in a hospital.

You bring your Legal Zoom marriage license to the hospital so you can visit your spouse.

Can the hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse because you have a Legal Zoom marriage license?

Can a hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse even if your marriage license was granted by your local state Justice of the Peace?

Or can a hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse no matter who granted the marriage license if you are a LGBT couple and the hospital wants to discriminate against you?

The above may be a clumsy example, but its the best I've been able to think of so far. What I'm trying to get at is if all marriages are now granted as soon as two people (of whatever persuasion) sign their Legal Zoom document, would these two people always be considered to be "married" for all purposes, and there would be no distinction in any court of law or other societal situation?

If so, then how does this limit LGBT marriages? (which I assume to be the purpose behind various religious groups opposition to LGBT marriages). Wouldn't marriage licenses be even easier to obtain using Legal Zoom than what was necessary before when using a local Justice of the Peace? Or would "Legal Zoom" marriage licenses now be considered "second class" and this would allow more institutions an easier path to discriminate against LGBT couples?

Respectfully,
GTsail

Before now someone who isn't legally married could appoint a medical surrogate and power of attorney to anyone through legal documents. A legal marriage merely creates a next of kin to be referenced in the event that no one else is appointed.

Even hospitals run by religious institutions have not refused medical rights to anyone (to my knowledge) as that status doesn't specifically require a spouse or next of kin. I could determine that my wife is too emotionally attached to make my medical decisions for me and assign any person I wish. They have no reason to discriminate, as anyone can act in that role, no matter the relation. Marital status is only used if no one is specifically appointed, as that is the legal representative in that case.

Ultimately, it would be a violation of medical ethics and law to refuse a homosexual spouse to have those rights (unless a judge determines them unfit), as they are the person they are legally required to go to, if able. Any doctor/hospital that refuses will find themselves in court and a judge will order them to follow the wishes of the legally appointed representative. They are legally and ethically supposed to follow the patient's wishes and that person is indicated as the one that relays those wishes in the event that the patient is incapacitated.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe I'm old and wedded to our historical ways, but what would really change if all marriage licenses were granted by Legal Zoom instead of by the local state Justice of the Peace?

Except that it might put some Justice of the Peace's out of work?

Lets say that you need your marriage license to prove your marriage to a hospital so you can visit your sick spouse in a hospital that limits visitors to parents and spouses.

And lets say that you are in a LGBT marriage and obtained your marriage license thru Legal Zoom and your spouse is in a hospital.

You bring your Legal Zoom marriage license to the hospital so you can visit your spouse.

Can the hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse because you have a Legal Zoom marriage license?

Can a hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse even if your marriage license was granted by your local state Justice of the Peace?

Or can a hospital refuse to let you visit your spouse no matter who granted the marriage license if you are a LGBT couple and the hospital wants to discriminate against you?

The above may be a clumsy example, but its the best I've been able to think of so far. What I'm trying to get at is if all marriages are now granted as soon as two people (of whatever persuasion) sign their Legal Zoom document, would these two people always be considered to be "married" for all purposes, and there would be no distinction in any court of law or other societal situation?

If so, then how does this limit LGBT marriages? (which I assume to be the purpose behind various religious groups opposition to LGBT marriages). Wouldn't marriage licenses be even easier to obtain using Legal Zoom than what was necessary before when using a local Justice of the Peace? Or would "Legal Zoom" marriage licenses now be considered "second class" and this would allow more institutions an easier path to discriminate against LGBT couples?

Respectfully,
GTsail

There has to be some standardization. "You have a type 16B marriage license, which means that you don't have guardianship rights in case of incapacitation if the patient's parent is alive and can be reached." or "you have a custom marriage license, which was not on file at this hospital. We require at least 24 hours to review all custom marriage licenses prior to..." or "I see we have your 3A marriage license on file, you have visitation rights and guardianship."

All of that works fine for me, but if the government is going to certify all marriage licenses and treat them with the same provisions, then it needs to do so equally.

 

[FoolKiller]

There has to be some standardization. "You have a type 16B marriage license, which means that you don't have guardianship rights in case of incapacitation if the patient's parent is alive and can be reached." or "you have a custom marriage license, which was not on file at this hospital. We require at least 24 hours to review all custom marriage licenses prior to..." or "I see we have your 3A marriage license on file, you have visitation rights and guardianship."

All of that works fine for me, but if the government is going to certify all marriage licenses and treat them with the same provisions, then it needs to do so equally.

Where I live only has one marriage license.


Not that people can get them. Religious objecting county clerks in Kentucky have stopped granting all marriage licenses in order to avoid illegal discrimination. These are elected positions in Kentucky. That's going to be a tough one to make change. It's a Class A misdemeanor to not perform the duties of an elected office, so this should get interesting.
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/29/3923157_some-kentucky-county-clerks-refusing.html?rh=1

 

[GTsail]

Not that people can get them. Religious objecting county clerks in Kentucky have stopped granting all marriage licenses in order to avoid illegal discrimination. These are elected positions in Kentucky. That's going to be a tough one to make change. It's a Class A misdemeanor to not perform the duties of an elected office, so this should get interesting.
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/29/3923157_some-kentucky-county-clerks-refusing.html?rh=1

So what should the Governor of Kentucky do?

Maybe the Governor should add a section to the marriage license link that you provided that says: "for the next 30 days, please use this standard Legal Zoom form for your marriage license" "link", and once both of you sign the form you are married!! Congratulations!!

And then tell the various objecting county clerks that if they don't come back to work within 30 days and start issuing Kentucky marriage licenses to all, they needn't come back to work at all!

GTsail

 

[TenEightyOne]

Where I live only has one marriage license.


Not that people can get them. Religious objecting county clerks in Kentucky have stopped granting all marriage licenses in order to avoid illegal discrimination. These are elected positions in Kentucky. That's going to be a tough one to make change. It's a Class A misdemeanor to not perform the duties of an elected office, so this should get interesting.
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/29/3923157_some-kentucky-county-clerks-refusing.html?rh=1

So publicly elected people are imposing their own views on the job? Go, democracy.

Personally I think that all people who have a proper job to do who feel unable through their Sky-Fairy transfixation should be removed from office to make way for the sane.

 

[FoolKiller]

So what should the Governor of Kentucky do?

Maybe the Governor should add a section to the marriage license link that you provided that says: "for the next 30 days, please use this standard Legal Zoom form for your marriage license" "link", and once both of you sign the form you are married!! Congratulations!!

And then tell the various objecting county clerks that if they don't come back to work within 30 days and start issuing Kentucky marriage licenses to all, they needn't come back to work at all!

GTsail

He's leaving office at the end of the year. He should ask the state police to charge them with the misdemeanor. The current Democrat running for governor didn't side with this governor on the gay marriage lawsuit issue, so he already has broken any ties to him. I think Governor Beshear is willing to just ignore it because he was the one that fought gay marriage until he couldn't get to a higher court.

What happens in November will be very telling. The Republican running was an outsider in the primary and leans a bit tea party, possibly libertarian on some issues. He might get the state out of marriage altogether and have it be a different system. Or he might let the clerks continue on their current course of action.

I think if the Democrat wins he will enforce the ruling with legal ramifications for clerks not doing it, but that will depend on the political climate. He already has a reputation for being a bit rough around the edges and not liked on a personal level.

I imagine it will be an issue in the upcoming debates.

So publicly elected people are imposing their own views on the job? Go, democracy.

Personally I think that all people who have a proper job to do who feel unable through their Sky-Fairy transfixation should be removed from office to make way for the sane.

What happens when the next election has these people with religious beliefs (let's avoid insults, shall we?) become elected by a majority that support their choices? Keep in mind that this is a state that elected to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

 

[GTsail]

What happens when the next election has these people with religious beliefs (let's avoid insults, shall we?) become elected by a majority that support their choices? Keep in mind that this is a state that elected to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Isn't that the point?

County Clerks should provide their services on a secular basis.

Personal religious beliefs should not override their fiduciary responsibilities to provide their services to all Kentucky citizens.


I remember questions being asked about John F. Kennedy when he was running for President:

Ie: Would JFK take instructions from the Pope (because JFK was roman catholic) or would he exercise his Executive/Presidential duties on a secular basis without being governed by specific roman catholic teachings?

So JFK had to say that he wasn't going to look to the Pope on how to govern, but would instead look to the US Constitution, and govern based upon US law.

Separation of Church and State

I imagine that the US Constitution could be amended to allow religious doctrine to override secular governance, but until the US Constitution is amended I don't see how a particular County Clerk's religion can override US Supreme Court rulings.

Throw them in the pokey!

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

Isn't that the point?

County Clerks should provide their services on a secular basis.

Personal religious beliefs should not override their fiduciary responsibilities to provide their services to all Kentucky citizens.


I remember questions being asked about John F. Kennedy when he was running for President:

Ie: Would JFK take instructions from the Pope (because JFK was roman catholic) or would he exercise his Executive/Presidential duties on a secular basis without being governed by specific roman catholic teachings?

So JFK had to say that he wasn't going to look to the Pope on how to govern, but would instead look to the US Constitution, and govern based upon US law.

The difference between JFK and these county clerks: These county clerks have already shown a willingness to let their religious beliefs affect their job. If they get reelected then it would be a fairly clear signal that the voters approve.

Separation of Church and State

I imagine that the US Constitution could be amended to allow religious doctrine to override secular governance, but until the US Constitution is amended I don't see how a particular County Clerk's religion can override US Supreme Court rulings.

Throw them in the pokey!

But the clerks are not violating the Supreme Court ruling. They aren't discriminating. They just quit offering marriage licenses. Their crime wouldn't be discrimination. It would be dereliction of duty, but unless that is enforced then there is nothing to stop them, especially when the voters make it clear that they want them in that position.

One option would be for them to have some other staff member in the office handle it, but many small towns in Kentucky don't have extra staff. The only person behind the counter is the county clerk.

I honestly believe that the only way this can be stopped is if someone enforces the law and charges them with a misdemeanor and they are removed from office. Then if they get reelected they will be charged again, at which time the Class A Misdemeanor punishment starts to reach its maximum sentencing of jail time. But that relies on the local judge and juries enforcing the law. The judges are elected. The juries are locals.

Ultimately, I believe that you will wind up with certain counties where you just can't get a marriage license. Fortunately Kentucky law allows you to get a marriage license from any county and Kentucky is a relatively small state with 120 counties. Going into the next county might require a 30-45 minute drive at most.

 

[GTsail]

Ultimately, I believe that you will wind up with certain counties where you just can't get a marriage license. Fortunately Kentucky law allows you to get a marriage license from any county and Kentucky is a relatively small state with 120 counties. Going into the next county might require a 30-45 minute drive at most.

I imagine that this ^^^ would be fun!!

Sort of like "wet" and "dry" Counties!!

It will be interesting to watch to see how many County Clerks put their religion before the interests of couples wanting to get married.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

I imagine that this ^^^ would be fun!!

Sort of like "wet" and "dry" Counties!!

It will be interesting to watch to see how many County Clerks put their religion before the interests of couples wanting to get married.

Respectfully,
GTsail

I give it 10 years before it's just begrudgingly accepted.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

So, this has been making the rounds this morning.

Stay classy, Catholic Vote.

 

[DK]

Funnily enough, the exact same thing happened here in the run-up to the marriage equality referendum here - a group called "Mothers and Fathers Matter" (or as I call them, the Provisional Iona Institute) had one referendum poster reading "DON'T BE SILENCED - VOTE NO", and there's plenty more on irishelectionliterature.ie. After the referendum, conservative columnists and pundits kept harping on about who would represent the 38% who voted No, as all of the parties with seats in the Oireachtas (a bicameral legislature, with a Dáil (parliament) and Seanad (senate)) supported the referendum proposal with only a handful of independents opposing it.

 

[Daniel]

So, this has been making the rounds this morning.

Stay classy, Catholic Vote.

 

[Dotini]

I think marriage licenses should be granted not on a standardized national basis, nor even a state basis, but on a basis determined by cities.

 

[Encyclopedia]

So, this has been making the rounds this morning.

Stay classy, Catholic Vote.

So basically, they feel opressed by the fact that another group in society can now enjoy the same rights as them. Unbelievable.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So basically, they feel opressed by the fact that another group in society can now enjoy the same rights as them. Unbelievable.

Well, we did have that thread about how Christians were feeling persecuted because the rest of the world wasn't recognising them as being the most persecuted. We went from persecution complex to persecution persecution complex complex a long time ago.

 

[Sarah Haywood]

Should I defend Homosexuals who are real human beings with feelings or a Book written by Ignorant Humans thousands of years ago? That's tough.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Should I defend Homosexuals who are real human beings with feelings or a Book written by Ignorant Humans thousands of years ago? That's tough.

Depends on if the Bibble says you should...

 

[Sarah Haywood]

Depends on if the Bibble says you should...

I'd rather just follow my "free will"

 

[Jet Badger]

The several thousand year old book is far from the only thing people use to reason opposition. Just sayin'.

If bigotry required a solid reason, it wouldn't exist.