The more things change...

Because the law says they can't. That means the law needs changing which requires time and patience. Breaking the law will not help anyone nor will it further the cause.

0 Replies

Same-sex marriage for transsexuals is legal in Texas, but not California.

Really.

Quote:

Paradoxically, it's the more conservative states that tend to allow such same-sex unions. Courts in Texas and Kansas, for example, have ruled that no operation can alter a person's sex in the eyes of the law. In the 1999 Texas decision, a state appeals court invalidated the marriage between a deceased man and his male-to-female transsexual widow, after the widow tried to sue her husband's employer for wrongful death. Gender, the court concluded, is "fixed by our Creator at birth."

The unintended consequence of that decision, however, is that a transsexual could marry someone of the same gender in Texas. After all, if a male-to-female transsexual is legally a male in the state, regardless of her surgery and appearance, then she is free to marry another female. In fact, at least two couples have taken advantage of this Texan loophole since the ruling.

Rest here.

0 Replies

I have wondered about that.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Breaking the law will not help anyone nor will it further the cause.

Actually, civil disobedience as currently being practiced in San Francisco, New York and elsewhere probably will hasten the demise of this codified bigotry.

Homophobia is fast losing its limited legal refuge, and the sooner that happens the better.

0 Replies

or, it will polarize those against it even more.

0 Replies

That's what they said when all those unwanted people started sitting down at the lunch counters.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

That's what they said when all those unwanted people started sitting down at the lunch counters.

First, I really think the efforts to relate this to our nation's racial civil rights history are off base. That's not to say that homosexuals haven't faced some of the same troubles, but that this marriage issue is not comparable to what blacks went through. Second, I think there is a difference between citizens refusing to obey laws and government officials refusing to do so. The former is civil disobedience; the latter, malfeasance of office.

What if a conservative state legislature passed a ban on abortion tomorrow and began shutting down abortion clinics and arresting doctors in their state? Sure, you want to answer that they can't do that, but why not? Because the law says they can't? You've set the standard that it's okay to just ignore the law if you think it is wrong. Is that the way you would want conservatives to work for the changes they seek?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

First, I really think the efforts to relate this to our nation's racial civil rights history are off base. That's not to say that homosexuals haven't faced some of the same troubles, but that this marriage issue is not comparable to what blacks went through. ?

I don't know about that. When you put it side by side, it sure seems there is a lot more in common between what the blacks went through then and what the homosexuals are going through now than what is different.
Granted, people, for the most part, are considerably more cautious with their behavior nowadays than from earlier years ( remember the scene where that black girl was going to class and all those whites were yelling behind her?), but The bottom line is that they are seeking equal rights. Can't fault them for that.

Scrat wrote:

What if a conservative state legislature passed a ban on abortion tomorrow and began shutting down abortion clinics and arresting doctors in their state? Sure, you want to answer that they can't do that, but why not? Because the law says they can't? You've set the standard that it's okay to just ignore the law if you think it is wrong. Is that the way you would want conservatives to work for the changes they seek?

I see where your going with that, However, I see the difference in that civil rights movements in civil disobediance focused on granting rights to people who were denied them. Your example is more of an inverse...government denying rights to those who are entitled to them.
I don't really have to time to go much into it now, but the two feel very different to me for some reason. I hope you see what I mean.

In any case, I'm hoping that 50 years from now, we'll be looking back at at this homosexual situation with the same kind of curious confusion as we looked back at the time of segregation, with the attitute of "Man, I can't believe that was really illegal back then!"

0 Replies

There seems to be some confusion on this matter between the typical sides on this issue and I want to know one thing. Is there ANYONE here who is actually AGAINST homosexuals being married?

I am not. Are you?

0 Replies

Glad we see eye to eye on something, lol

In any case, this whole thing seems to be just the "scandal of the moment", and its taking undue attention away from Iraq, corporate scandals, violence in the country, and other more important issues.

0 Replies

Heywood - What right are homosexuals being denied that heterosexuals have today?

0 Replies

From what I've read and head, it seems that homosexual couples are not benefiting from quite a number of things that heterosexual couples do. Things along the lines of insurance policies, death benefits, visitation rights (hospitals and the like), retirement plans, etc. The main point is that since they are not "married", nor does their partner count as family, their options are limited in that regard.

To be honest, I haven't gone full force in investigating the matter (there's only so much time in the day), but I have done some reading and basic research, and from what I have seen and read, its a legitimate issue.

0 Replies

Heywood - To the best of my knowledge, hospitals define their visitation rules, not the government, insurance companies write insurance policies, not the government. The government does sometimes mandate this or disallow that, but I get the feeling that most of the "rights" you think homosexuals are being denied are not rights at all, nor are they being denied by the government.

Don't get me wrong... I'm inclined to agree with you that the types of things you've mentioned should apply to same-gender couples, but that doesn't mean they are rights being denied by the government. They are not.

I work for a large company that offers the same benefits for "partners" (without respect to gender) as they do for spouses. One guy I work with had his long-term girlfriend on his insurance for a period of time. (They broke up.) Homosexual men and women that work at my company can and do have their partners on their health insurance, name their partners as beneficiaries for life insurance, etc.. The number of companies behaving thusly is growing, even as "gay marriage" remains a question mark.

My point in all of this is that--as with most debates in our culture--the language of this debate is being provided by the left, and they are choosing words and phrases that not only paint a very one-sided picture, but in many cases are misleading or outright falsehoods.

I'm for same-gender civil unions, and I could care less whether we call them "marriages", but I despise the way the debate is being waged by most people who share my point of view on this one.

And as to my earlier hypothetical example of conservatives ignoring the law to achieve their desired ends; it doesn't matter that it FEELS different to you, it is the same thing--government officials choosing to act in opposition to existing law rather than uphold it, simply because they PERSONALLY disagree with the law.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Heywood - What right are homosexuals being denied that heterosexuals have today?

In 1997, in connection with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Henry Hyde commissioned the General Accounting Office to produce a report on the number of federal laws that grant rights based on marital status. The GAO report (.pdf file) concluded that there are "1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor." The report classified the laws in the following categories:
Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans' Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Indians
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Crimes and Family Violence
Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture
Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws
Miscellaneous Laws

It should be noted that these are only federal laws. State laws, which are primarily responsible for such things as marriage, child custody, inheritance, and other family-law matters, were not included.

0 Replies

The bottom line is that gays should have equal rights and equal status, in every regard. Period.

The day that the ONLY difference between same sex couples and heterosexual couples is simply the word "marrage", is when we'll know were going in the right direction.

Now, if they got exactly the same benefits and treatment as hetero couples and the only thing different is simply the title, then maybe I'll tell them to chill out a bit (at that point, it'll just be semantics), but even then I'll see their point and respect it.

0 Replies

Heywood wrote:

The bottom line is that gays should have equal rights and equal status, in every regard. Period.

The day that the ONLY difference between same sex couples and heterosexual couples is simply the word "marrage", is when we'll know were going in the right direction.

Now, if they got exactly the same benefits and treatment as hetero couples and the only thing different is simply the title, then maybe I'll tell them to chill out a bit (at that point, it'll just be semantics), but even then I'll see their point and respect it.

I just prefer to understand the facts first and then compare them to "their point". Where I find the two in conflict, I will share my disagreement.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I just prefer to understand the facts first and then compare them to "their point".

Well, the link Joe provided looks like a good point to find some of those facts ...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Scrat wrote:
I just prefer to understand the facts first and then compare them to "their point".

Well, the link Joe provided looks like a good point to find some of those facts ...

1) I wrote this to Heywood, not anyone named Joe.

2) Which link? And what makes you think I lack an understanding of the pertinent facts relating to this issue? I'd say I've given it more thought and done a bit more reading than the average person, though I'm sure there are plenty who've done more. But my point was that Heywood seemed to be offering his support to "gays" without consideration of the facts or the actual arguments they are making. I have done and am doing differently. That was my point.

0 Replies

1) Joe was so kind as to jump in the conversation you were having with Heywood and answer the question you were asking Heywood ... i.e., "what right are homosexuals being denied that heterosexuals have today?"

Since after that you were still referring to wanting to see the facts first, I thought I'd point that out.

2) This link:

joefromchicago wrote:

The GAO report (.pdf file) concluded that there are "1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor."

(You gotta click on "GAO report")

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Heywood seemed to be offering his support to "gays" without consideration of the facts or the actual arguments they are making. I have done and am doing differently. That was my point.

Scrat, your starting to split hairs here. Just because I didn't do an entire assesment of what exact particular rights are being denied gays doesn't mean I don't know facts or actual arguments they are making.

I know that gay couples are not provided the same rights heterosexual couples are. I've spoken with them, read articles on the issue, etc. Just because I can't go into a huge amount of detail on it doesn't make it untrue. Come on, man.

Again, here is my point. GAY COUPLES ARE NOT PROVIDED THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES. Do you deny this? Or is this incorrect, and we should tell the entire gay community that they seem to be mistaken on this point, so they should stop with all their political activism?

I'd like to take you a little more seriously, but it seems like your trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about, when you know exactly what I'm talking about. I hope I'm wrong.

****Edit****

Scrat, look at the link Joe provided. From your previous post, it doesn't seem like your much interested in what he has to say, so I'll say it for him:
Laws that gay couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples include: Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps, Veterans' Benefits, Taxation, Federal, Civilian and Military Service Benefits, Employment Benefits, and Related Laws, Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens Indians Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest, Crimes and Family Violence Loans, Guarantees, and Payments in Agriculture Federal Natural Resources and Related Laws other miscellaneous laws.

Happy now?

0 Replies

The more things change...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know