My son and his German partner were married in Germany and California, but thanks to DOMA, his partner was still not eligible to immigrate to the US. So they took their talents, training, and education to Canada.
----------------------------

Considering that most gay couplings fall apart at the 2-year mark, why should this guy get citizenship or benefits?

Foreign spouses should get visas, but no fast track for citizenship.

They won't be paying less in taxes if they file together it will be more. And if they have children they'll get more back filing separately. In a time long ago when I had a job outside of mommy and wife that was the case. My sis and her hubby have calculated thier taxes together and separately and the differences are massive. Thing is you're not supposed to file separately because there is another person who could claim you children. It is right there in the tax forms.. So they actually have more rights than we married people. Or atleast they are penalized to a lesser degree.

Fact is one of the reasons I quit work is if I got another raise we would be making less money after than before.. And paying in at tax season instead of getting money back.. And after calculating how much it was costing us to have me working we actually had more money after I quit..

This is being argued the wrong way. Why is being married treated differently by the government than being unmarried? The solution is to make no distinction between married and unmarried people, not to pick and choose who can be married to who.

Why is being married treated differently by the government than being unmarried?

It comes up a lot because most countries' income tax systems are progressive. It isn't particularly fair when Couple A, consisting of a man who earns $200k and a wife who stays home, gets taxed more than Couple B, who both work and earn $100k each. Some jurisdictions allow income splitting or sharing of the joint income between partners to alleviate this (not where I live but there are other compensations, not all of which I agree with). Quite often in the case of Couple A, the wife (or more rarely, husband) is providing the support needed for the other partner to hold down that high paying, usually long hours job.

But that requires a clear definition of who is entitled to claim that support. The usual definition is marriage. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, only that the definition of marriage matters. Otherwise people sharing a house with separate lives can rort the system. There are other issues as well of course depending on where you live, pensions, inheritance rights, etc.

I support gay marriage by the way. I'm just trying to explain why couples are treated differently to singles.

Another area where married couples are treated differently to unmarried is in decisions on health care. A spouse generally has first say. Again, the definition of marriage matters for this. Yes, you can resolve this with power of attorney, but most people don't get around to that till it's too late.

Like it or not, marriage is an important concept in Western law.

"It isn't particularly fair when Couple A, consisting of a man who earns $200k and a wife who stays home, gets taxed more than Couple B, who both work and earn $100k each."

It is fair if it is consistant among all individuals.

It is fair if it is consistant among all individuals.

Quite often, one partner is doing things to allow the other to work more overtime or longer hours, taking kids to doctor's appointments, even cooking and doing washing, all sorts of things. How is this not a joint operation and why should they be taxed more than a couple that split the personal vs business work? The non-working partner is contributing to their joint income, so some recognition of that via the tax free allowances etc is fair isn't it?

"Quite often, one partner is doing things to allow the other to work more overtime or longer hours, taking kids to doctor's appointments, even cooking and doing washing, all sorts of things. How is this not a joint operation and why should they be taxed more than a couple that split the personal vs business work? The non-working partner is contributing to their joint income, so some recognition of that via the tax free allowances etc is fair isn't it?"

So where do you draw the line? What if one partner makes 200K and the other makes 50K? Why this scenario and not that scenario?

Once you start making exceptions it becomes unfair.

Ltw,

Bullshit. Several Octobers ago my husband nearly died. It was made clear to me, by nurses and doctors that my opinion would not be asked for concerning medical decisions.. I had to have written permission to get a number to call and find out info from his nurse. He literally had to sign a waiver saying who was and wasn't allowed to have his info. I have been with him the last.... 20 years. Well 20 years when I turn 35 this September anyhow..

Our bank account is in both our names, it still has to be him asking for a new card.. I can't do that for him.. The house is in his name and I have to have his written offically notarized permission to make decisions or ask questions about the loan. Everyone at his job knows me, has for 17 years, and I still can't call the HR department to ask question about health plans. He has to do that.. It irritates him to no end. If I get a check for something I made or whatever, he has to deposit it instead of get me cash in his lunch break. Mind you it isn't ever much but still.. I had a heart test done recently and he was going to ask them about it when he went in to get his diabetes tests done.. They have known us for 9 years and would not give him the results. I had to wait till later that night for the nurse who makes those calls to call me and tell me..

So yeah.. Bullshit. If those are the complaints then they have as many rights as me and my husband of 17 years.. As of June 2nd anyway..

I will say I don't think the state should be involved in marriage. I also don't think there should be a social security system or a family law court..

That came off a bit harsh.. LTW, I meant no insult to you. It's people just assume they have all these right then they have a crisis and find out they don't. It is natural to think you would have those right, and we used to have them, but we don't anymore.. He system has changed. It sucks. I guess it sucks as much for gays as it does for us but this illusion that we have all these rights because we are married is just not reality..

One of my friends has an adult daughter. The daughter has 3 kids and a home. She's been with the same man (the daddy) for years. They added up the money and figured out it was significantly better financially for them to not marry. They paid a lawyer to do up some proper powers of attorney.

That being said, I still think if two consenting adults of adequate mental abilities wish to marry, let them. Just because half of marriages get dissolved in no reason to deny some people that option.

Same rights and responsibilities for all.

Josephine, my mom doesn't have all those problems you state you do concerning getting info on health plans, calling HR at his work, and especially not with the joint bank accounts. I'm not sure why you would have any of the banking issues if it is a true joint account. My SO and I don't even have these issues on the very few things we have combined like our lease and a shared account for our monthly household expenses. I don't have the problems with health care information either as I've listed him as my emergency contact and that it's okay to share information with him. We've never had a problem when I've had surgeries or anything else.

So, why, asks The New York Times, do his government's lawyers continue to defend it in court?

This is a good question. I assume it's because the AG is obliged to defend our current laws, even if the administration does not support them. However, that was not the approach taken by Arnold and Jerry Brown with respect to the lawsuit over Prop 8 in California. In that case, they didn't defend it, leaving the proposition's supporters to mount an inept defense that was crushed by the Olson and Boies team.

Bunny girl,

I have no idea what state you are in or what hospital you go to for surgeries but that is what we went through here in Tn.. Our Mortgage bank is based in Arizona I think.. And they sent me a consent form for him to sign and have notarized and send back. We are in the process of changing insurance plans that will be paid out of our escrow. I can't do much of any of it without him right there and he has to work. The medical thing was actually very important as my husband is allergic to sulfa drugs. At the time they were trying antibiotics to get the infection to go away so it was kinda important. They did not want to hear from me what he needed.. And its not that our joint bank account is the problem I can't call and request a new card for him. It has to be him.. He can't even give me permission on that one..

I am told it is all to do with ID theft.. Great for you and your mom if you don't have any difficulty but many people will. I know I have..

Bunny girl I was just thinking about the lease thing.. We don't have a lease we have a mortgage.. I don't work and there fore can not be listed on the lease as I could not take over payments, and thus fulfill the contract, should something happen to him. We do have insurance to cover the house should that happen but I cannot be listed as a co-purchaser..

And have you ever tried to ask for a new card for your SO?

My hubby is also listed as my emergency contact but the only person who has ever cared is my midwife..

I haven't had the same banking problems as you, either, Josephine... We refinanced our mortgage last year using only Husband's income for verification, but I'm still listed on the billing statements and on the property title paperwork that's on file with the county. We also have a joint account that I've never had any issue accessing, though I've never needed to order a card with his name on it (versus mine). The mortgage is through BOA and the checking account is with a credit union. (We're in Texas.) When he had surgery a few years ago I didn't have any problems getting info about what was going on- and the nurses DID have some questions for me- but that was a planned surgery with admissions paperwork filled out beforehand, not an emergency. It does make me wonder how much spousal rights vary from state to state.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in states with their own gay marriage bans if the DOMA is repealed.

The first problem here is the idea that marriage is a universal individual right amongst adults.

It is not. It is a simple contract, and like all contracts where the government has an interest, there are requirements to meet.

The government provides benefit to marriage because it is the family unit which creates new taxpayers by having children. It is the family unit which absorbs those costs and related burdens, and it is only the use of opposite genitals on one another that will result in that desirable end for the state.

Two sticks rubbing together might make a fire, but not a baby.

This isn't to say that a formal legal state which binds same sex couples together legally for purposes of important decisions, such as end of life care or other private matters, should not exist. It should. However 100% of benefits with 0% chance of cost, I just don't see it.

What was true in the past, need not be true in the future, Robert.

It is true that the govt. needs to care about contracts... Marriage was a religious thing since the time that religion WAS the government. So we take marriage out of govt. control, and it's no longer part of the contract, nor does it need to be...

EVERYONE gets a contract, as long as they are consenting adults... for the purposes of healthcare, passage of wealth to family, and taxation.

That is where the Government interest CEASES.

If you wanna call it a Marriage or a Marwage, or a blessed union of souls, or whatever, the government doesen't care, and neither do I.

The SMASH survey from Australia shows:
For those in a relationship, the data was:
Up to 6 months: 21.1%; 6-11 months: 12%; 1-5 years: 34.7%; Over 5 years 16.5%.
An additional 15.7% had a relationship that had ended in the past 6 months, leaving 84.3% of those 'in a relationship' giving data about the length of a relationship.

Of course, those are just the people in a relationship - which was only around 40 percent of the sample.

In Scandinavia, gay divorce rates are 1.5 to 2.5 the rates of heteros - in a region with some of the highest divorce rates in the world. Again, most gays are not married at all - after a decade, the number of gay unions in Scandinavia is just 2 thousand or so.

And we've already shown on other threads that those relationships are open to other partners.

Tried to include links - got spam-bucketed.

Here's that Scandinavian data:
http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=40208

"And we've already shown on other threads that those relationships are open to other partners."

You live in the Middle East, where marriages can consist of up to five partners. So STFU.

ahw,

I wonder if it does vary by state or bank.. We use suntrust bank.. I wonder if it had something to do with them having to cancel the first card? I have no idea.. I have been told repeatedly that even though I had his SS# and all his other info I could not make changes to the mortgage bank account or insurance.

The Realtor, when we were signing the papers, went over the reason why I could not be listed. It would make me responsible for the loan should something happen to him and I was not capable of completing the contract with the lender.. Our loan has since been sold to another bank and the rules are the same though..

As for the doctor.. I have no idea if the laws are different in Tn.. They cannot give me the info even if he is standing right next to me when they call. They have to talk to him? And at the hospital they gave him a code number for him to give to people who wanted to call about him. He then had to list those people and sign it. Thats how I got any info I needed..

I think SwissArmyD might be on to something here. One of the things that I am discovering about this whole debate is that neither side appears to be completely honest. I'm not talking about the posters on this forum, but rather about the opposing organizations.

For example, the Family Research Council purports to have all these studies showing that children do best with a married mother and father. However, behind all their talk, their being a Christian organization means that they are going with the premise that homosexuality is an "abomination," as taught in the Bible. On the other hand, the Wikipedia entry, which seem firmly on the side of gay activists, keeps saying over and over that homosexuality is "normal and positive." It may normally occur, but how is it positive? Reproductive-wise? Health-wise?

I'm personally against legalizing gay marriage in Maryland at this time, because of what I've heard read about Massachusetts. Gay marriage is being used as a hammer to force teaching about the "normality" of homosexuality in the public schools up there, against the wishes of some parents. One father was even sent to jail for opposing the inclusion of his child in these classes. The gay "pride" parades up their have apparently become increasingly vulgar, also. It's as if the activists are more concerned with pushing the envelope, rather than simply making gay marriage a normality up there. If I have incorrect information, somebody please correct me.

However, if you take government OUT of the equation, then gays and straights can marry whenever they please, the Left fails in using this issue as a means of upending American society (see Current Communist Goals, esp. item 26), and no matter how Ben David and I feel about gay marriage itself, we can't do anything to stop it, thus providing Americans with the maximum amount of liberty. Conversely, gays can't do anything to upend straight marriage (not that they would want that). Getting sex ed and family ed out of the public schools (and preferably ending public school altogether) would help also, because it would allow those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil straight families, as well as gay families, the maximum amount of freedom in raising their children.

It's people just assume they have all these right then they have a crisis and find out they don't.

No offence taken Josephine, btw. It's an emotionally charged issue. I don't even live in the same country as you so mileage varies. I was talking generally about the importance of recognising who makes the call when you're ill and can't speak for yourself. Or as applies here, whether your organs should be donated - you can express a preference while alive (it goes on your driver's license in Aust) but your next of kin makes the final decision. It only matters when you're in a coma say and can't give consent. Then it's really important who gets to decide. If the State doesn't recognise marriage then who has the authority to speak for you?

Again, this can be solved through power of attorney, but lots of people fail to plan that far ahead. The assumption that marriage=right to speak for a partner who can't give consent is an important legal construct. Hence the State has to define what is and isn't marriage. It could be changed, but it's very heavily entangled in law in many jurisdictions.

I had a heart test done recently and he was going to ask them about it when he went in to get his diabetes tests done.. They have known us for 9 years and would not give him the results.

Not the same thing, you're not incapacitated or unable to make decisions so there is no need to reveal private information to someone else. Not even your husband.

hmmm, Josephine, I think a trip to your local lawyer might be handy... even back in the day when I was a kid my Mom's name was on the house, even though back in the 70's she couldn't get her own credit card, without my step father's say so... My ex was on everything we ever owned in several states, even though she was a SAHM, and couldn'a paid. That is the bludgeon they used to force me to give her the house when we divorced. Had it been in my name alone, they wouldn't have been able to do that...

something's fishy, and it's worth you finding out. Forewarned is forearmed

"I will say I don't think the state should be involved in marriage. I also don't think there should be a social security system or a family law court."

Wow. Just, wow.

If you think divorce or family court or any arrangement sucks today, just try to determine inheritance absent the default present today. Got an orphan? Your idea means the State is automatically the foster parent, because no one is obliged by law. How is that working today, in those cases nobody steps up?

Crummy.

Today, the state is nothing more than the modern equivalent of the tribe. You might have a problem with patrilineal culture or something, but history insists that you're dreaming.

Ask yourself this question: Why was marriage invented?

And: if it is so undesirable, why do gays want it, too?

you know what, Ben-David has a right to feel how he does without you folks calling him names and telling him to STFU. I personally am sick of this whole gay anything march. Oh, and Jim, I am pretty sure Ben lives in Israel and last time I checked, Jews do not have more than one wife, get over it. Some people do not think gays need to have the same rights as others and think it is just more PC BS being shoved down people's throats. I am officially on the fence so you may feel fill to call me homophobe or anything else that makes you feel superior because of your views on certain subjects.

Mpetri98,

I'm with you. End all the reasons that the state requires a marriage license for , end the compulsory public school system and get the state out of the marriage business. If an episcopal church wants to marry 2 woman let em. If the catholic church won't then it's up to them. End the income tax entirely..

Ltw,

He was actually in surgery and unconscious at one point. They had to remove his appendix and his gallbladder. I asked what was going on, as it was going into the 4th hour of a 2 hour surgery and I was told to wait. I didn't get any info for a while. I was in the waiting room having panic attacks thinking he had died or something and they were covering their asses somehow.. They were that evasive. And yeah I know I need a power of attorney done for both of us but he is of the mind that it will never happen again. The whole thing was terrifying for me to not be able to get info or have them understand something. He went in at 1 and was out around 8. The idea of that happening again.. Ahhhhh. Wish he weren't so complacent..

Swiss army d,

Nope nothing fishy about it. They can't get the money from me so they can't make a contract with me for the money.. I asked him tonight though and I am on the papers for the house deed but just not the loan. And the payment for the mortgage payoff insurance goes to me as do the other life insurance policies.. It was good to know that.. And we won't be divorcing. We have made it this far. He hates having to spend time away on business, which is rare, never mind having to go away permanently. And I would die before I took my kids daddy from them. I grew up without my father.. I don't understand my kids relationship with him, and to be honest I envy it a little, but they have a god given right to wake up everymorning with daddy and eat supper with daddy. My hubby's worst vices are video games and collecting astromechs.. If that ever starts to irritate me I'll deal.

Rad are you asking me. I love being married. I am just saying I dont think you have all the rights with it that were naturally assumed before.

Also I think the default if people separate should be joint custody no support. If something other than that is needed a regular court will work. My brother got custody of his son after nearly 6 years of paying her more than 400 a month to not take care of him. The main obstacles in the way were that the judge felt sorry for her pity stories and she really wanted that money. Minus that she would have dropped the boy like a brick.. my point is that custody should only not be shared if there has been criminal wrongdoing and there are courts for that.

As for orphans? Seriously? I think someone would step up in most cases, hell I would take on an unrelated child myself. However kids who's parents are just divorced would be better served if joint custody no support was the default..

And I am still reeling over the orphans argument. Did you really mean to say that and is that a shark just ahead of you there?

That sounds like an awful experience Josephine. I'm glad he pulled through. Medical staff can be pretty insensitive sometimes, partly because they get inured to pain and trauma and forget that for you it's a huge deal, partly because they're just too busy to worry about family. And of course some people are just assholes.

I'm guessing there were no decisions to be made in your husband's surgery, that is everything they did was medically necessary and didn't require a judgement call - otherwise they would have been out with the consent form and an explanation quicker than you can blink.

My mother had me back in the day when they hustled the baby away as soon as possible after the birth, then they forgot about her. It was hours before she saw me, she was convinced I had died and they wouldn't tell her. I was her first child. Eventually my father (who was recently specialised in ob/gyn, which gave him better access to the hospital) tracked me down and made them bring me in so my mother could nurse me.

Josephine, I'm not sure why you had all these problems, but I'm sorry you did. I didn't have much trouble making decisions on behalf of my parents, and for my father, I didn't even have legal health care proxy, since he was mentally incapable of giving one.

The doctors simply asked us what we wanted to do on a situational basis, and everyone was pretty rational. I think they saw the reality that my father simply couldn't give informed consent to anything, and to be able to do anything, they would have had to go through the courts. The horror stories are not universal.

The initial reason for marriage licensing, JosephineMO7, was to license the marrying of interracial couples. Get rid of the licensing, and we get rid of that morally-diseased legacy once and for all. That would be another plus.

Let me get this straight. NOW, Obama calls for DOMA repeal? Not when his party comfortably controlled Congress and could actually have conceivably madeit happen, but NOW when he can comfortably claim to have given it his best shot and gosh darn it, the GOP controlled House just wouldn't let it happen. Gay voters, take note. The Dems take you for granted.

I and My Lady were never married. But it got to the point that even without showing the POA, when I showed up at the hospital -- the staff on the floor (not the ER) understood that I was the responsible, and knowledgeable, one on her and her conditions.

I could rattle off everything but her current pulse, BP, and temp faster than they could write it down.

That being said -- marriage is a predefined contract, depending on your state. I have no issue with gays getting married. The issue is that DOMA hacks the rules with the IRS and SS.

I do and don't have an issue with the Loving v. Virginia decision in general. SCOTUS was right on moral grounds. The other half of the argument is that the individual states were always supposed to be their individual labs on how to run things.

So if you are in Ohio, Texas, or Illinois and that state wanted to ban gay marriage or interracial marriage -- that was that state's right. But you could then move to Arkansas, Indiana, or Michigan which just wants your mon... er doesn't care if you, as an interracial or gay couple, get married.

Before you jump on my argument -- consider where we would be if the Fed had actually limited itself to its Constitutional roles. SS wouldn't exist. The Dept of Ed wouldn't exist. Medicare wouldn't exist. So if state A wanted create a retirement program for all residents had lived in the state since age 25 -- that would be fine. But if state B says you are responsible for your own pension, why should I have to cough up money to state A for their pension program?

1. Get the government out of marriage. Solves much of the problem and would help push to reform tax law! Government won't do it however, they want more power. See #3 below.

2. Oh noes, discrimination. Welcome to reality in a PC world. As an average white guy can I get my taxes reduced because I'm not supported through domestic violence laws with shelters for men?

My sympathy for the "gay agenda" on the marriage issue wanes everyday. Unlike last time, I won't be voting for it the next time it hits the ballot in my state. Why? Many who support gay marriage support other laws to control my life and create more thought crime legislation. My favorite example of this would be "hate crime" laws. They made their bed, now lie in it.

3.Part of me though wants gay marriage to be made legal in all 50 states via courts/fed law. I want to see gay folks go through the divorce/family court ringer, might get some of them to push for reforms there. Its ironic to me that many will push for laws that destroy families while pushing for other laws to allow them to be a "legal" family. In reality, they're all about destroying nuclear families and creating a PC religion of the state.

So, no I don't care if gays can get married or what two+ adults do in their own bedroom consensually but I'm tired of the politics of forced acceptance instead of tolerance. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!". Yeah, I am used to it, now can you stop dancing around in your leather shorts you attention whores.

"Oh, and Jim, I am pretty sure Ben lives in Israel and last time I checked, Jews do not have more than one wife, get over it.

ronc, last time I looked Israel was in the Middle East. Moron.

You seem to think there some kind of big difference. Moron.

Jim, you said that all of the middle east alows up to five wives, and he should know that because he lives there. I merely pointed out the fact that Israel does NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY. And yes, there is definitely a differnce between a Jewish Israel, and the rest of the middle east which is dominated by Muslims. You understand that these two peoples and religions, although sharing the middle east, are not one in the same. Please tell me who the moron is again Jaime?

Off hand I would have to say it is you ronc.

Ben David is jewish, a religious tradition which does indeed allow polygamy - ever acctually READ the bible ronc?

sorry luj, modern day Juadaism does not allow polygamy, can we stay with the program please

oh, and ftr, I have actually not only read all the moderb versions of the bible, but actually studied them academically. So because I do not spew religios bullshit does not mean I am not informed of the source of modern religios practices

'modern day' - I love that phrase when applied to religion.

Tell me ronc, who are you to question the edicts of an all powerful, all knowing god?

God's rules for behavior not good enough for you?

Actually, marriage IS listed in them Universal declaration of human rights.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

I say let gay people get married. They aren't the threat to marriage, the threat to marriage are the people saying "Oh, we shouldn't have marriage, we don't need it, the government shouldn't be involved, etc. etc."

... as to the income tax, why not take the total income earned and divide it by two? So whether you're earning 150 and 50, 200 and 0, 100 or 100, it would average out to 100 each and you could be taxed at that rate.

I am still entertained no end by the "get government out of marriage" refrain.

Just how do you think you are going to prove who you are, to take your place in society?

It's not a big deal. No matter the society, you don't get to interact with it without abiding by its rules.

-----

And Josephine, assorted agencies, poorly run all if we are to believe reports about them, are packed with discarded children, wards of the State, today.

Amy talks about the two-parent family. Just what percentage of "families" do you think could be identified as "two-parent" if the State doesn't identify them?

Do you really think the three kids by different dads are as well taken care of as the three with the same father?