Anonymous Post
netting' Blog
I was just going to post this in response to Ambers blog entry for today, but I can't do an anonymous post. I have to say something about this, so I guess I'll do it here.
Marriage= love is only part of it. I was going to vote no on the amendment, then I realized that the only thing homosexual couples would gain is the marriage tax break and other such monetary things (don't stop reading yet). The other benefits they want that go along with being married (Power of attorney, medical rights, etc.) can be gained through other legal actions, and I believe they should be entitled to it. A person should be able to pick the best suited person to be the one in charge of their affairs and decisions if they are not capable of doing so. A person should also be able to choose who they live with, etc. Weather it be friends, family, or significant others of all kinds. Everything except the monetary breaks, as far as I can tell, is available to homosexual couples in ways other than a marriage contract. I am all for homosexual civil unions....
Marriage is a religious thing. Our government uses it basically as a governmental bond, and as a way of record keeping. The money given to married couples is with the assumption that they will rear children. It is to advance our population.
Further, a huge reason that so many states are voting on this now is that judges were ignoring their state's laws and simply saying "the constitution doesn't say they can't get married" and granting them marriage licenses. This was the absolute wrong way to go about changing policies. Not to mention that there are thousands of laws that we follow that are not in constitutions. That doesn't mean they're invalid. So, now states are putting in the constitution so judges can't make that interpretation... I have more thoughts, but I'm not conveying these very well, so I'll just stop for now.
I was just going to post this in response to Ambers blog entry for today, but I can't do an anonymous post. I have to say something about this, so I guess I'll do it here.
Marriage= love is only part of it. I was going to vote no on the amendment, then I realized that the only thing homosexual couples would gain is the marriage tax break and other such monetary things (don't stop reading yet). The other benefits they want that go along with being married (Power of attorney, medical rights, etc.) can be gained through other legal actions, and I believe they should be entitled to it. A person should be able to pick the best suited person to be the one in charge of their affairs and decisions if they are not capable of doing so. A person should also be able to choose who they live with, etc. Weather it be friends, family, or significant others of all kinds. Everything except the monetary breaks, as far as I can tell, is available to homosexual couples in ways other than a marriage contract. I am all for homosexual civil unions....
Marriage is a religious thing. Our government uses it basically as a governmental bond, and as a way of record keeping. The money given to married couples is with the assumption that they will rear children. It is to advance our population.
Further, a huge reason that so many states are voting on this now is that judges were ignoring their state's laws and simply saying "the constitution doesn't say they can't get married" and granting them marriage licenses. This was the absolute wrong way to go about changing policies. Not to mention that there are thousands of laws that we follow that are not in constitutions. That doesn't mean they're invalid. So, now states are putting in the constitution so judges can't make that interpretation... I have more thoughts, but I'm not conveying these very well, so I'll just stop for now.
posted by nettymus @ 1:56 PM
1 Comments:
At April 08, 2005 1:40 PM,
Blessum Yellowstone Trip said…
Marriage in a church is a religious thing and can be controlled by the church as they see fit, but marriage in the government is not and should not be religious. Thus in having marriage as a government contract, it should be open to all people of the age of consent. There are other "monetary" and legal issues that marriage entitles people to such as partner's insurance coverage (some employers do not recognize civil unions) and inheritance when no will has been made. If the marriage tax is only about reproduction, then it should only be given to reproducing couples (i.e. should be incorporated as a child tax). What about homosexual couples with children? Don't they then deserve the tax break for marriage? What if I said that I didn't think that you should be allowed to marry and that you only deserve to have civil unions because you are Irish? Would you be satisfied that civil unions are "just the same" and marriage is only a monetary and reproductive issue?
Post a Comment
<< Home