Segway Inventor Joins Fight Against NH Gay Marriage Repeal - Care2.com (blog)

[aricisom]

What I'm getting from your post is that all of this codifieding and resalutions need to be done by the government.

...and I feel that the only people that think that civil unions and marriage are anywhere near equal are those that have not delt with the issue from the end that is getting shorted. In my job I deal with these real world people on a regular basis. The problem is real, and state government is still governmet...

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I have said and say again, gender does not change who you love or who can love you. That is not the issue. But there is a value in continuing the species. That requires a man and a woman. It is as simple as that.

Well, the most recent statistics I've seen appear to suggest that continuing the species is "valued' beyond the necessity to do so; "valued" so much in some areas that the resulting paradox of starvation and poverty threaten to undermine it. So, not to worry, there seems to be plenty of "continuing" going on.

And now, for whatever it's worth, let's put some real faces on this :

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by aricisom

What I'm getting from your post is that all of this codifieding and resalutions need to be done by the government.

...and I feel that the only people that think that civil unions and marriage are anywhere near equal are those that have not delt with the issue from the end that is getting shorted. In my job I deal with these real world people on a regular basis. The problem is real, and state government is still governmet...

Aric,

I never said that civil unions and marriages are near equal, and never intimated it. And while we have had a few on line exchanges, we do not know each other, and you may find there are lots of things in my life that you have no idea about. So do not presume you know what another may know or not.

I have lived a bit myself, and know a bit of real world experiences as well.

I believe I have been clear how I feel, and while you have chosen to not read my posts carefully, you may want to go back and re-read them again before you add a bit of a quote from me and then respond in a manner as if we disagree, when it may not be so.

[KSagal]

Pete,

I'll not willingly get sucked in. I do not know what those vids were referring to, and while I have just a tiny reservation or two on the first one, I have no substantial complaint about what she said, and have no reservation at all about the second one, feel he is as he said, a young man any parent would be very proud to call their own.

I do not see how this in any way debates my points.

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by KSagal

Pete,

I'll not willingly get sucked in. I do not know what those vids were referring to, and while I have just a tiny reservation or two on the first one, I have no substantial complaint about what she said, and have no reservation at all about the second one, feel he is as he said, a young man any parent would be very proud to call their own.

I do not see how this in any way debates my points.

I'm not trying to draw you into anything. You are voluntarily participating and willingly contributed certain perspectives to this thread, and I am contributing perspectives as well. Any suggestion that there is some disingenuous or manipulative strategy being invoked would be a mischaracterization.

As for the videos, I said "for whatever it's worth". Clearly, your comments show all it was worth to you.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I am afraid I do not agree with you about 'rights'. The term you use saying that marriage has rights that civil unions do not have is simply a matter of the way that the laws that define those institutions are written.

That's the point -- the way the laws are written. I will gladly consider what I have to be a civil union (performed by a Justice of the Peace), if I don't have to give up rights to do so. But I would.

And if the only reason mine were a civil union, rather than an equivalent marriage, differing only in legal terminology, were that my wife is Japanese -- I WOULD take offense at that.

And my marriage was, in fact, forbidden by law in California until a 1948 CA Supreme Court case ruled that marriage is a right.

And Massachusetts, where we were married, while it was legal after 1843 -- from 1913 to 2008, MA refused to recognize marriages between races if they were performed to get around such laws in other states. Yes, 2008.

And yes, this was used against gay couples wishing to marry in Massachusetts. And, in fact, that is what led to its eventual repeal -- a victory for straight mixed-race marriages, obtained for us by gay couples wishing to marry.

Originally Posted by KSagal

Inheritance is a property and tax issue that is defined by the state you live in. It can easily be corrected there to reflect what it should. There should be provisions for both the partner survivor as well as the family to have representation. This is not a new prospect, and the story of an old wealthy man marrying a young lady and leaving her his wealth is a classic story. The family often feels cheated by the old man or the young wife, and contests the will or the inheritance. This is something that needs be established and codified by the state. It is not automatically part of marriage.

I personally think we should provide a menu of legal frameworks, issue by issue (tax, child, inheritance, visitation), and let people do with them what they wish, perhaps only selecting some options, or even assigning different options to different people.

Originally Posted by KSagal

Hospital visits are simple rules established by each hospital, as far as I know. They are not also laws, but again, a simple rule that establishes the status of partners in a civil union can easily be codified by the state as 'family'.

Could be -- but definitely is not. And it should NOT be up to the hospitals. It is not their job to define who is family.

In fact, this is one of the biggest sore points. Yes, it could be fixed. But it is not, because civil unions are still considered a second-class relationship.

The biggest single sticking point is that second-class status (or no status at all in many jurisdictions). People who have been in committed loving relationships even longer than my own (18 and counting), with kids, are treated as "not deserving".

So long as both state and church try to lay claim to the word "marriage", the situation is hopeless. My solution is to take this toy away from both, and leave it up to the individuals. Churches can, if they wish, sanctify a marriage. The state can, equally to all, offer a legal framework.

Originally Posted by KSagal

I believe these are all straw men. Resolutions are available if people want them, but too often, people want to be declared winner more than they actually want a solution.

I haven't seen any straw men running around here, except for maybe your idea of "man/woman/children" defining marriage, which doesn't actually seem to relate to the issues either you or I or anyone have presented. You suggest you view that differently -- but then go on to argue for equality before the law, wisely separating your personal views from what the role of government should be regarding those views. I wish more would show that degree of judgement.

People want solutions, because these are real issues that affect real lives. Do you personally know any gay couples? Have you ever discussed the issues they face? Do you know what hassles they deal with, even when legally married in the state in which they reside?

I recently had a chance to catch up with an old friend, who was one of the first to be married in CA during the narrow window in which it was legal. She brought up a lot of things even I hadn't thought of. Like having to figure her taxes twice, two entirely different ways, for state and federal.

We agree -- that's fixable. It's all fixable. People want it fixed.

Originally Posted by KSagal

...
And we need not agree. I do not believe that all people are equal. Some work much harder to get what they want than others. Some start with advantages that others do not start with. Life is inherently unequal. All we can do is try to write laws that do not treat one group significantly differently than other groups. The rest of inequality will be dealt with outside of government.

I agree. (Although I'll point out that there is no such thing as "equal" -- or "fair" -- but there is "inequal" and "unfair", and reducing inequity and unfairness is the point here).

Originally Posted by KSagal

We are not the first society to wrestle with many of these issues. We should try to learn from history what other great societies of the past resolved these issues, and what happened to their societies when they did what they did.

OK, you've lost me. Could you cite an example of what "great society of the past" resolved these issues and how this affected what happened to them? I'm not even sure if you're suggesting it is connected to why they're in the past, or simply admonishing us to study decisions and consequences.

I guess what puzzles me the most is what society of the past you would regard as a model of fairness and justice we should consider emulating (or similar enough to avoid emulating their mistakes).

I might agree or disagree, but at the moment, I'm just curious.

[aricisom]

Bob, I agree 100% with all of your words!!!

KSagal, If I misunderstand you it is because you talk around an issuse and try to take or explain both sides of that issue. I came to this conclusion by going back and re-reading your statements. Sorry for the mis-understanding.

[KSagal]

I have said, and feel, that the government is morally bankrupt, and should not be involved at all in this topic. I believe that for legal reasons, they should have one title of Civil Union, and define it by actions...

The actions I suggested as required for the governmental legal definition of civil union were to co-habitate, and have co-responsibility in financial matters. I am sure the government will add more requirements, like a license and a contract signed by both parties, and that both parties should be of majority age.

I think that the government should divest itself of the ownership of the word marriage, and the condition of marriage being recognized by them.

In matters of inheritance or taxes, or dissolution of common property, this too should be well spelled out.

But politicians are lawyers, and they do not want it simple or clear. They want to insert themselves as integral to being a part of all decisions, and all matters. (And collect their fees for doing it)

I believe that what two people feel for each other may very well be similar to the relationship I had with my wife before we had children and I have said, and say again, gender does not matter here.

But I also believe that two people who love each other but cannot make their own children cannot have the same relationship I have with my wife, now that we have children. I am not saying any relationship is more, less, better, worse or any other comparative, just that is cannot be the same. This is my belief, and some will not respect my right to have it, and some will.

I believe that there are no single parents, and am afronted every time I hear someone claim they are. There are single people raising children because the other half of their parents are not there for one reason or another.

For the record, I also believe that divorce should not be a choice for responsible adults with children. If your relationship with your spouse or partner changes, but you have children that you are responsible for, it is selfish and damaging to those children to split up, and set conflicting and negative situations before the children, for them to deal with. Most all the price paid by a couple getting a divorce is paid by the children. Responsible adults need to do whatever is needed to stay intact, and respectful to each other, until the children are old enough to deal with it well, and that means they are no longer your dependents. (and not before)

So, deciding to have kids, comes with at least a 19 year commitment. Do not do the deed if you are not willing to do the time.

I also believe that all people should be treated with respect, including those who feel a man and a woman is the definition of 'Marriage'. They deserve respect as well, which is one of my reasons for expressing that I believe that word should not be in the government at all. It is too important to leave to the thieves and liars on capital hill.

[PeteInLongBeach]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I also believe that all people should be treated with respect, including those who feel a man and a woman is the definition of 'Marriage'.

Would you include that respect for people who feel racial endogamy should be the only definition of Marriage?

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by PeteInLongBeach

Would you include that respect for people who feel racial endogamy should be the only definition of Marriage?

I would treat William Shockley with respect, despite loathing his views on eugenics.

"Treating people with respect" is different than "respecting their views" or even "respecting them".

I can't speak for how Karl intended it, but I have no problem with his statement as I understand it.