Scruit Posted October 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 The Church should not tell the government how to define marriage. The government should not tell the church how to define marriage.I am all for same-sex marriage (all the state benefits of marriage) when done in a secular setting. I don't think any religion should be forced to marry people if they don't want to, so in order for same-sex couples to receive any religious benefits/responsibilities of marriage over and above the secular benefits/responsibilities they will have to find a religion willing to do it. But if that religion is willing to do it, the govt should not stop them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 The Church should not tell the government how to define marriage. The government should not tell the church how to define marriage.I am all for same-sex marriage (all the state benefits of marriage) when done in a secular setting. I don't think any religion should be forced to marry people if they don't want to, so in order for same-sex couples to receive any religious benefits/responsibilities of marriage over and above the secular benefits/responsibilities they will have to find a religion willing to do it. But if that religion is willing to do it, the govt should not stop them.:plus1: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 So how did everyone forget France's civil unions that they came up with? It solved the problem for them, and surprisingly, a good percentage of traditional marriage switched to civil unions for legal and financial reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 So how did everyone forget France's civil unions that they came up with? It solved the problem for them, and surprisingly, a good percentage of traditional marriage switched to civil unions for legal and financial reasons.I don't really care what we call it... as long as they get equal rights, all the same privileges, protections, and benefits...On the other hand, if it's going to be all the same privileges, protections and benefits..... why not just call it marriage and simplify the transition? Just seems like an easier solution than trying to write completely separate legislation for couples with the same gender identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 as I have said in every single gay marriage thread:If the gays want to go ahead and ruin one of the best things they have over straight people with not being burdened by marriage then go ahead and let them. They will assuredly regret it in years to come and realize they should've just not given a shit the same way the government really shouldn't give a shit if they wanna marry in the first place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownsfan1 Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 as I have said in every single gay marriage thread:If the gays want to go ahead and ruin one of the best things they have over straight people with not being burdened by marriage then go ahead and let them. They will assuredly regret it in years to come and realize they should've just not given a shit the same way the government really shouldn't give a shit if they wanna marry in the first place Well stated my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 this is actually a great time to consider specializing in divorce as an attorney. public opinion has swayed so much to one side that this is the time that gay marriage will be legalized. what follows gay marriage? a myriad of crying, fabulously dressed men filing for divorce, demanding that they retain custody of their boston terriers, or whatever. get in on that hot man on man action! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Gay divorce lawyer... Seriously. Do the legwork, research the laws and figure out how to make it work. It's such a patchwork of varying laws and levels of tolerance that people often get stuck in limbo. ie: - You get married in a state that allows it - You move to a state that doesn't - You want to divorce? - The state you married in says you can't file there because you don't live there - The stat you moved to says you can file there because they cannot divorce people that they are prohibited by law from recognizing as married. Put together a network of divorce lawyers in each state and specialize in gay divorce, using lawyers in each state to consult each other on interstate issues.The slogan would be "Unhitch that witch, b!tch!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 "Pay the gay away" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjachic Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 I'm all for same sex marriage. and I dont think anyone should regulate who someone can and cannot marry. Isnt this supposed to be a free country? So shouldnt people be free to marry who they want? If youre against it, fine, good for you, then don't marry someone of the same sex and you're fine. I used to work for a guy couple (best bosses ever btw). They've been together 20+ years. They have no intention on ever getting married but considering how long they've been together (more than most opposite sex couple nowadays), shouldnt they be able to receive the same benefits as everyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 I'm all for same sex marriage. and I dont think anyone should regulate who someone can and cannot marry. Isnt this supposed to be a free country? So shouldnt people be free to marry who they want? If youre against it, fine, good for you, then don't marry someone of the same sex and you're fine. I used to work for a guy couple (best bosses ever btw). They've been together 20+ years. They have no intention on ever getting married but considering how long they've been together (more than most opposite sex couple nowadays), shouldnt they be able to receive the same benefits as everyone else?Yeah I think they should, and I mentioned that in both of my previous responses. But my stance on the intended meaning of marriage holds, it is more than just a word or legal binding document to me. I have no issue with same sex raising kids either, many times they are better parents than husband/wife or single parents. The kids of those same sex families many times have more issues with teasing and bullying than other kids, but we all know it doesn't take much for that to occur anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 So since this is in "civil terms", would this be defined as civil marriage?all legally recognized marriage is "civil marriage"...Doesn't matter what ceremony or party you have with your fellow worshippers, family or friends. By law you aren't married unless you buy a marriage license from the state. There are several congregations of different faiths that will happily perform an unnecessary religious ceremony, (same gender or not) but whether or not you have all of the legal benefits depends upon whether you purchased that license from the state.My parents had no religious ceremony at the wedding I attended, It was a Tuesday when they showed up at the court house in their best Levi jeans and recieved all of the legal benefits and obligations of marriage. Everyone, including the judge let out an audible chuckle when reading the line "for richer or for poorer". 28 years later, they haven't changed a whole lot, even though they did get a little richer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 all legally recognized marriage is "civil marriage"...Doesn't matter what ceremony or party you have with your fellow worshippers, family or friends. By law you aren't married unless you buy a marriage license from the state. There are several congregations of different faiths that will happily perform an unnecessary religious ceremony, (same gender or not) but whether or not you have all of the legal benefits depends upon whether you purchased that license from the state.My parents had no religious ceremony at the wedding I attended, It was a Tuesday when they showed up at the court house in their best Levi jeans and recieved all of the legal benefits and obligations of marriage. Everyone, including the judge let out an audible chuckle when reading the line "for richer or for poorer". 28 years later, they haven't changed a whole lot, even though they did get a little richer.Vegas and the courtrooms are a fine option, and I agree that a religious ceremony is totally unnecessary and far from the best choice in most situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 I felt this belongs here: Gov. Mitt Romney Blocked Birth Certificates To Gay Parents; Felt They Are Unfit And Kids Would Be Developmentally Impaired Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 All children have a father and a mother, genetically speaking.The mother and father listed on the birth certificate may not be who raises you, fair enough - but the birth certificate is a record of the genetic lineage of the child, therefore the "mother" should be the person who supplied the egg, and the father should be the person who supplied the sperm.Listing any other person, for any reason, is quite simply inaccurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 I have no issue with same sex families raising a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I have no issue with same sex families raising a child.Me neither, unless the child comes out like Magley. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 All children have a father and a mother, genetically speaking.The mother and father listed on the birth certificate may not be who raises you, fair enough - but the birth certificate is a record of the genetic lineage of the child, therefore the "mother" should be the person who supplied the egg, and the father should be the person who supplied the sperm.Listing any other person, for any reason, is quite simply inaccurate.If it had been done that way in every case, I could be persuaded to agree, but with the advent of sperm banks, ivf, and egg sales/donations, the parents listed on the birth certificate would be 2 strangers who may never have met each other or the "parents"... it's not practical in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Me neither, unless the child comes out like Magley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 All children have a father and a mother, genetically speaking.The mother and father listed on the birth certificate may not be who raises you, fair enough - but the birth certificate is a record of the genetic lineage of the child, therefore the "mother" should be the person who supplied the egg, and the father should be the person who supplied the sperm.Listing any other person, for any reason, is quite simply inaccurate.I must say, I'm torn by this proposition. On one hand, you're absolutely corrrect; countries use birth certificates to establish "jus sanguinis" citizenship and genetic lineage. Without that line, even straight couples who choose to get their sperm at a sperm bank (for whatever reason) are gonna have a bad time. That being said, on the other hand why would the proper, legal parents be on the birth certificate if it can be established vis a vis marriage/civil union that they are the kid's parents to begin with? Assuming for a moment that the father wishes to remain anonymous via a sperm bank, and you can already establish parental control and responsibility at the time of birth from the people who are present, why wouldn't they be on the cert? It'd save from having to file for legal guardianship after the fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted October 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 We need to define and understand what a birth certificate is supposed to do. If it is a record of genetic lineage then the father column should be left blank if the genetic father is unknown. Same with the mother - if a surrogate and the egg donor is not known.Maybe the answer is to add columns for "Parent 1 (If not mother)" and "Parent 2 (if not father) This would allow non-traditional families to establish parental rights to children that are not genetically theirs - e.g. surrogates, adopted at birth, sperm donors, egg donors, same-sex parents, family members who take in a child born to a mother who died during childbirth, or any other situation in which the people who are committing to raise the child are not the genetic mother/father.The genetic lineage is an important record, but so also is establishing who is legally responsible to raise the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 that second case you mentioned is what I understood the common use for a birth certificate to be... at least in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Birth certs should be used to keep accurate records of natural birth parents. If you want a 'mock' certificate for your family album' date=' then have one made. This isn't difficult. Nor should it be a federal case. I'm all for civil liberties, but you don't keep sloppy records because it makes someone feel better.[/quote']what about in the cases mentioned above, when perhaps the father is unknown or the egg was donated...or the parents used a surrogate with their own genetic material....The system is obviously outdated. The technology has progressed faster than the forms. If you were talking old times when there was really only one way to do it, then it would be simpler. Cut and dry.If it's to be used in the fashion you're describing, there needs to be a whole section in there on conditions of birth, and that needs to be separate from named guardianship. but then that's more bureaucracy that probably doesn't help a whole lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 that second case you mentioned is what I understood the common use for a birth certificate to be... at least in this country.For countries that employ citizenship by blood (jus sanguinis) no, the birth certificate is proof that your parents were citizens (based on their birth certificate), and therefore you are a citizen. In this country it's a little murky, we employ citizenship by blood (if you're born outside the country to US citizens) AND citizenship by location (born within this country, the dreaded anchor babies) Genetic birth certificates apply to the former, not necessarily to the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 Magz' date=' I believe that's what adoption certificates are for. Say a lesbian couple have a child. Technically, only one of them is capable of being the mother, by birth. The other partner would adopt that child as her own. She doesn't belong in the 'dad' slot. Dad was the doner sperm and that record should be kept on file, somewhere. Records are kept, for health/medical reasons. Maybe they should be mandatory on the birth certs, in case the child needs access to important medical information. Maybe I'm making too big a deal out of this, but if records are to be kept..they should be as medically and technically accurate as possible. Of not, then there is no logical reason to keep them.[/quote']I can see that being a potential issue for donors though. If you get put on the birth certificate and therefore lose your anonymity, what's to stop a mother from suing you for child support (crazier things have happened and won, no less) or the kid tracking you down later in life? It really is a problem where technology has progressed past the bureaucracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.