I'm still steamed by the gay guy who said of the civil union wording that they are "now on the bus, but at the back of the bus." How fricking insulting.

No, everybody else in the world has to compromise but not him. Compromise = Defeat.

Just wondering, Ace, what you're suggestion is for gay couples if you're not keen on civil unions or gay marriage. I can see where you're coming from that many straight couples in CT may opt for marriage-lite, but if gay marriage will upend 90% of the population and undermine the traditional definition of the word, well then... what other option do gay couples have?

... Let me just say that as a gay man, I could give two craps if the term "marriage", "civil union", or "conjoined fags" is used by the state to label my relationship. I just want to make sure I have the same rights as straight couples do.

Chad,

First of all, not everyone gets married, gay or straight, so your question as to "what are gay people to do?" seems to make assumptions.

I believe marriage is only secondarily about "love" and primarily about the creation of families. With children. Not just two people who have government-approval for going steady.

That said, I heartily approve of any state that makes it very simple and easy to grant most of the conveniences of marriage -- stuff regarding wills, visitation rights in hospitals, etc., the stuff that gay marriage advocates talk about the most because it's their most persuasive line of argment -- with a couple of signatures and a witness and a notary.

I wouldn't call it a "union." I'd call it a designation of next-friend status, and I'd leave it open to everyone, not just gay couples. If a pair of elderly sisters (husbands dead, or spinsters) want to take advantage of this, they should be able to do so.

I do actually think it's a little discriminatory when the state sets up certain benefits requiring a homosexual relationsip to take advantage of.

I certainly hope that heterosexual same-sex couples start abusing the Hell out of this situation.
Team up for the sole purpose of evading estate taxes, etc.
Mwaa haa haa

"And then a goat shall come down from the hill and make comfortable on the
grassy fields, among the finely dressed ladies of the city, who shall call
onto the goat 'Be gone with you beast of the field, for we are women who
care not for your well being, but only for our finer fragrances' and He
shall hear them and turn them all into goats upon whose heads are hats of a
local sporting team. And they shall run among the city eating tin cans and
paper products in His honor." 23:12-14

Is there actually a requirement that the partners in a civil union be gay?
Not sure how they would enforce that.
And could hetero same sex business partners use civil unions as a component of a financial contract between them?
Interesting, interesting.

Ace -

I will totally agree that it is along the lines of descrimination saying that only gay couples could take advantage of it. The same type of thing applies with hate crimes.... If you murder a straight person, it's a crime, but if you murder a GAY person, it's a hate crime.... That's BS.

I'm not longing for special treatment like the rest of the gay community. I just want to be able to enjoy all the same rights that straight couples can. I don't want rights given to me because i'm gay... but at the same time, I don't want them restricted because I am either. As an American, I think we're all entitled to the same things, regardless of who we sleep with. (Unless you F chickens and/or sheep... that's just no good.)

PS - I'm talking about rights and privledges here, not the terminology that goes with them. Just to clarify.

"backdoor method"-way to funny or a slip?

If you extend tax breaks, who picks up the slack? Should I as a single person be required to pay more taxes? Sounds discriminatory to me.

If family leave is extended, who picks up the slack at work? In my experience, someone always works harder with no compensation and little to none recongnition. Granting rights to one group of people always results to the detriminate of another group of people.

If "fairness" is the basis for granting rights, how is it fair to the ones it detrimentally affects?

April -

Not sure if I follow what you're saying. Certain people should get tax breaks based on their orientation while others should not? Certain people should be allowed to visit sick loved ones based on their orientation while others should not?

Should we hire less women at my company because of the risk they'll get pregnant and need maternity leave, therefore forcing myself to "pick up the slack" while they're gone?

And the "granting rights" statement saying that it's always detrimental to some other group is a bit broad I think. Women's sufferage pops to mind... how was that to the detriment of men?

Now you've done it Chad.
You should have said 'blacks' instead of 'women's' on this board.
There are actually people here who think the country started going to Hell when women got the vote.

Chad,

I think what the anonymous commenter above was saying that having the government grant benefits to one group can often lead to inadvertently screwing over another group. And also, that single people often pick up the slack for married people already, and if marriage (or civil unions) are extented to additional groups, that's more people that single people have to pick up the slack for.

I think this commenter has a point, but I don't think it will make too much of a difference since gay marriage or civil unions will affect so few people, and most of the benefits that married people get in the workplace involve their children.

But I think we need to keep in mind that government recognition of marriage is not a right, but a benefit. If marriage is a right, then I'm still waiting for the government to send me my wife.

There are actually people here who think the country started going to Hell when women got the vote.

Uhhh, ... didn't it?

Stop the discrimination. Singles demand civil unions too. If gay couples and straight couples are getting these fabulous rights then why shouldn't singles. And which rights are these that I'm being denied?

And it wasn't the 19th Amendment that gutted this country it was the 17th.

wills, visitation rights in hospitals, etc., the stuff that gay marriage advocates talk about the most because it's their most persuasive line of argment -- with a couple of signatures and a witness and a notary.

I wouldn't call it a "union." I'd call it a designation of next-friend status, and I'd leave it open to everyone, not just gay couples. If a pair of elderly sisters (husbands dead, or spinsters) want to take advantage of this, they should be able to do so.

I do actually think it's a little discriminatory when the state sets up certain benefits requiring a homosexual relationsip to take advantage of.

This sounds good ACE and in principle it makes sense. But there may be unintended consequences.

CHAD - Certain people should get tax breaks based on their orientation while others should not? Yes, absoloutely! To encourage marriage between men and women and child rearing of course we should discriminate in favor of marriage and we already do. Singles contibute more, as well they should.

Jason -

I see you're point, but I guess what I'm having trouble with here is understanding why a monogomous gay couple cannot enjoy the same benefits that come with state recognition that a straight couple can. I'm not asking for anyone to redefine marriage or anything like that.

I will agree that many of the benefits that come with that deal with children, but just because a gay couple can't get pregnant doesn't mean that they can't raise children. There are women out there that can't bare children. Should she and her husband be grouped with gay couples since they would have to adopt?

72Virgins, would I get the same tax break if my partner and I adopted? Would a straight couple get the same tax break if they adopted? (I honestly don't know, that's why I'm asking.)

I don't mean to get off track with the original post. I have to say I'm happy CT approved unions, but I'm even happier that it went through the proper channels.

Whoops... forgot to put my name in that last post.

I see you're point, but I guess what I'm having trouble with here is understanding why a monogomous gay couple cannot enjoy the same benefits that come with state recognition that a straight couple can. I'm not asking for anyone to redefine marriage or anything like that.

Why should anyone get these benefits? Why shouldn't single people get them too?

Actually, I'm not really arguing against civil unions for homosexual couples. I'm largely indifferent on the issue. I would just prefer that people not confuse rights with benfits. Marriage simply isn't a right, or there's a whole bunch of ugly people out there having their rights violated on a daily basis. There's probably some commenting on this blog right now.

I do actually think it's a little discriminatory when the state sets up certain benefits requiring a homosexual relationsip to take advantage of.

I think it's a little discriminatory when the state sets up certain benefits requiring a heterosexual relationship to take advantage of...

But that's just me.

laura

"the country started going to Hell when women got the vote."

Truer words were . . . what's that?

Oh, there was more to that sentence?

Yeah, Michael, but as Virgins pointed out, there's a rational basis for that---to encourage procreation. Now, you may not agree with that reason, but it doesn't make it unreasonable to favor procreative relationships.

And marriage used to be exactly that--limited to procreative couples only.

Society has a justifiable interest in perpetuation, and can "incentivize" relationships that are by default proicreative, without regard to individual fertility. That's alos reasonable.

Finally, 100% of gay relationships are sterile within the relationship. No two men stranded on an island can produce more than a poo-baby. Just a biological fact.

That's just. the fuckin. way. it .is.

And that's a good enough reason to limit "marriage" to opposite sex couples.

Though I'm not adverse to some "reciprocal benefits" not tied to sexuality.

I think it's a little discriminatory when the state sets up certain benefits requiring a heterosexual relationship to take advantage of...

I think it's a little discriminatory when the state sets up certain benefits requiring any relationship to take advantage of...

But that's just me.

But seriously...of course it's discriminatory. That's the point. Whether it should or should not be done has nothing to do with whether or not it's discriminatory. It's discriminatory to give tax breaks to people with kids or people who drive electric or hybrid vehicles. That has no bearing on whether it's a good idea or not. (I tend to think not for hybrid cars, but possibly so for children.)

Hob -

You're assuming that people only get married now-a-days to have kids. While most do, I'm sure there are just as many couples that marry for money out there (with no intention of having children) as there are couples having children out of wed-lock. If that is still the sole reason of keeping marriages defined heterosexually, then maybe we need to start regulating all marriages based on the couple's intentions.

That being said...Poo-babies need love too.

hobgoblin,

"Yeah, Michael, but as Virgins pointed out, there's a rational basis for that---to encourage procreation. Now, you may not agree with that reason, but it doesn't make it unreasonable to favor procreative relationships."

That depends on what population size you want and can support.

Chad,

maybe we need to start regulating all marriages based on the couple's intentions.

Indeed. As a single tax-payer I want full fuckin' value on my baby-production subsidies.

No Chad, I'm assuming only that the only legitimate reason the State has to regulate private relationships (e.g. when you can "break up) is tied to the procreative function.

In other words, the only thing the State should care about in private relationships is the possibility that future citizens will result from the relationship.

So it really doesn't matter why people are getting married. The only justification for State regulation of the conduct is the potential for a bigger tax base.

glad you took the poo-babies crack in the proper light

; )

You're assuming that people only get married now-a-days to have kids. While most do...

Exactly. Don't just quickly elide over this point. The vast majority of heterosexual marriages do result in children, or strenuous attempts at having children.

Gay marriage advocates play the card that not EVERY marriage results in children. Well, so? We craft laws for the vast majority. And most heterosexual unions will have kids at some point.

Women gets the baby-fever.

Ace,
"Isn't it likely that the commitment-phobic would turn to marriage-light as an alternative to actual marriage?"

Perhaps the committment-phobic would be better off not getting married? apart from those subsidies! Perhaps a fixed-term marriage... 10 years and see where to go from there.

Lazar,

like I said, marriage used to be completely tied to procreation. I personally see no reason to limit our population production in light of a "dying" (or Islamizing) Europe and Japan. Every time we've faced a "population crisis" in the Western world, the food supply has improved. And the benefits of large, American families (of all races, etc, but American) is obvious to me at least.

*Golf clap on the working in of the Anka.*

I'm not sure what your point is, Lazar, but I tend to find that gay marriage advocates, after claiming they don't want to change the institution, immediately begin suggesting changes in the institution as soon as problems with gay marriage are introduced.

If it's pointed out, for example, that male homosexuals largely do not form the same long-term monogamous relationships that straight couples tend to, the suggestion becomes "Well perhaps monogamy is an outdated notion."

And so it goes. The argument runs on two different tracks: 1, gay marriage will change nothing about traditional marriage. 2, If gay marriage changes traditional marriage, that's all for the best and really it's time for traditional marriage to adapt to the times.

Again, I don't know your point; but this is what a lot of libertarians and gay marriage advocates do. After endless declarations that they don't want to change anything, they turn on a dime and begin explaining how these alternative systems of marriage will be beneficial to all.

hobgoblin,
"I'm assuming only that the only legitimate reason the State has to regulate private relationships (e.g. when you can "break up) is tied to the procreative function."
Ok, but what follows is I think a non-seqitur (is that how it's spelled?) To whit...
"the only thing the State should care about in private relationships is the possibility that future citizens will result from the relationship"

Individual intentions are irrelevant. The argument is that society has an interest in promoting heterosexual relationships for the purpose of procreation. Whether or not a particular couple intends to have children is meaningless. It doesn't change societal interest.

The interest of society is to encourage this couple to have children, whatever their intentions might be. Also, intentions change and many children were unintended in the first place. Since homosexual couples can't have children on their own, society has less, if any, interest in promoting these arrangements. Society also has no interest in promoting singlehood (singleness?).

It is hard NOT to defend civil unions because we have partitioned off tremendous financial benefits enabled by marriage from the rest of the population.

Chief among them the all-important health care coverage. It is fast becoming unaffordable to get a private plan that compares to the benefits a spouse and dependents get through an employer if married.

Other super sweet deals are spousal succession in estate taxes, pensions - plus unique deals in business shelters, asset protection, court protections. The military gives married soldiers better pay (family separation allowance) and benefits than single soldiers.

Even Bush had to say he was for civil unions because it is an absolutely cherished American idea that people should get equal pay for equal work.

The benefits are part of compensation. Health coverage may be the difference between a good life, and poor health or complete bankruptcy with one significant medical event.

If we had universal health care, much of the support base for civil unions would dry up.

Ideally, you would have each worker taxed at the same rate, and whatever the worth of benefits, allow a choice between pay or the bennies as comp.

I worked with a large group of peers doing the exact same job at one time - well compensated pay-wise. We tracked one another on bonuses awarded to ensure equity. But one area equity didn't exist was in benefits. One guy married had 6 kids, 2 with major disabilities. He got 7 times the coverage bennies of a single worker, 7 times the value of coverage a lesbian co-worker who actually did far more work than he did because of his numerous "paid Family leave" invocations. The lez lived with a partner and her two kids - none of which got the health coverage and educational savings plans offered to married worker.

Bush is right. Unless we go with universal health care and set up laws giving singles and gay couples the same great legal deals and tax breaks....we have to have civil unions...and maybe extend civil unions to "straight" singles so they can get their share of the vital benefits, tax breaks, and legal rights limited to married couples.

On the "procreation" argument. I suppose you could stop civil unions if you limited the special benefits only married couples get - to when they are actively raising children with a stay at home spouse.

Married no kids? No unique benefits. Married and the youngest kid turns 18? The wife's benefits end then, and she has to find a job that gives her health care coverage. Married, trying to have kids? No dice.

It is hard NOT to defend civil unions because we have partitioned off tremendous financial benefits enabled by marriage from the rest of the population.

We, as a society, provide benefits to encourage marriage. We don't provide marriage in order to encourage benefits.

Ace, I wasn't making a point, just curious as to why you (appear to) think "Isn't it likely that the commitment-phobic would turn to marriage-light as an alternative to actual marriage?" is a bad idea.
"I tend to find that gay marriage advocates, after claiming they don't want to change the institution, immediately begin suggesting changes in the institution as soon as problems with gay marriage are introduced."
I'm not a gay-marriage advocate... I think both sides of that issue are being petty and I wish one side would just concede the issue (the whole thing bores me to tears.) I'm in favor of civil unions as regards some of the benefits issues tho I would prefer people not looking to the state for recognition. I have never claimed I do not want to change the institution. So.... what is your point?
"If it's pointed out, for example, that male homosexuals largely do not form the same long-term monogamous relationships that straight couples tend to, the suggestion becomes "Well perhaps monogamy is an outdated notion.""
Perhaps... I couldn't care less.
"And so it goes. The argument runs on two different tracks: 1, gay marriage will change nothing about traditional marriage. 2, If gay marriage changes traditional marriage, that's all for the best and really it's time for traditional marriage to adapt to the times."
Perhaps, but I'm not arguing!

This whole situation is kinda weird for me to be arguing because I agree with most of what everyone is saying in here. I just happen to be gay, and therefore have a different motive I guess in where I'd like to see this issue go. 99.9% of how groups like GLAAD go about "promoting" change I disagree with. But that's what I get for being conservative and gay.

Hob, it'll take more than a poo-baby comment to offend me.

Lazar, if you see any of my posts, you'll know I don't bother with spelling too often.

But the non-sequitur you speak of is actually more of a rhetorical question of "why don't we have best friend licenses?"

That second part is my answer to that question from a limited government perspective. The only thing the state should concern itself with in private relationships is the central concern of society in perpetuation.

IMAO, the very existence of the State itself is the only thing that can justify regulating private "friendship"-type conduct.

That's why cohabitation laws and even sex laws have properly fallen by the wayside in America, the supposed home of limited government.

And that's not necessarily a bad idea Cedarford. Tie benefits to having children in a confirmed monogamous, unbreakable relationship. Sounds like . . . marriage, prior to birth control.

Jason,
"Individual intentions are irrelevant. The argument is that society has an interest"
Society does not have an interest... individuals have interests. "There is no such thing as society" Maggie T.
"in promoting heterosexual relationships for the purpose of procreation. Whether or not a particular couple intends to have children is meaningless. It doesn't change societal interest."
So get married, take the benefits and run? That's not my idea of good tax-value.
"The interest of society is to encourage this couple to have children, whatever their intentions might be."
I think this couple would be far more encouraged to have children if their benefits were dependent on their having children... don't you?

"it'll take more than a poo-baby comment to offend me"

I nominate Chad as the un-Lad

good on ya, Chad.

and the "benefits" to marriage which modern life has created are there to encourage procreation (ostensibly).

But it makes no sense at all to limit non0child related benefits solely to married couples (e.g. hospital visitation, med decisions). Intestate succession is a bit trickier b/c it could involve kids, but I'd even throw that into the "civ union" mix.

Lazar, I don;t care what the Iron lady said, the point is that every society sets up a situation of perpetuation---i.e. "to ensure for ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty"

That "society has no rights" stuff is interesting philosophically, but more useless that tits in a bathhouse in the practical sense of things.

The rest of what you said is arguing about efficiency, not justification. As ace mentioned, probably over 80-90% of hetero marriages (that last longer than a few months) result in kids.

I'm ALL FOR making marriage harder to get out of, and ALL FOR having more kids. So ways to improve marriage stability and productivity are fine. It still doesn't undermine the justification for hetero-only marriage (or even hetero-only benefits if you want to push it that far).

hobgoblin,
" I personally see no reason to limit our population production in light of a "dying" (or Islamizing) Europe and Japan. Every time we've faced a "population crisis" in the Western world, the food supply has improved."
Agreed mostly... but there are (new) energy problems.
Ok with the rest (in the other comment.)
"non-sequitur"
heh

Personally, I support gay marriage, although my logic and assumptions are usually different from most gay marriage advocates'. (For that matter, I agree with a fair number of liberal ideas, despite hating the arguments they use to reach the same conclusions as me.)

I hate all this judicial activism BS. It should be done democratically or not at all.

Things like hospital visiting rights, power of attorney, and all that should be available to anybody as a matter of equal rights. But marriage (as a legal concept) isn't a right. It's a relationship between two people and the state, with huge implications. For example, spouses are generally exempt from having to testify against each other in court. Marriage affects whether or not a foreigner can obtain US residency. And so on. It's a big deal with big consequences.

I think marriage should be extended to homosexual couples for a number of reasons. It will only apply to a small number of people who want it badly. It provides a legally guaranteed social safety net which relieves the state of certain burdens, and promotes a culture of love and monogamy, which are good for all of us. And so on. I've got a lot of reasons, but I think it's a good thing.

"energy propblems"

yeah, but people can live in teh dark (and it produces more babies!)

SJKevin,

you're not talking about marriage, though. you're talking about benefits attendant to marriage.

Not the same thing. not the same thing at all.

What business does the state have in who I go on "man-date" with? None.

QED, buddy. QED

Hob... perhaps I just don't pay enough attention to the comments here or perhaps I'm overcome with joy for getting free Yankees tickets for tomorrow or perhaps I'm just dumb, but... what is an "un-Lad"?

It's a compliment based on your expressed sexual orientation.

See, "Downtown Lad" is a shrill, hysterical, militant gay activist and one of only like two people ace has ever banned. Takes offense at EVERYTHING. He once wrote to me that unless I agreed with the gay lifestyle 100%, then I was a homophobe.

So in deference to your resilincy and not taking offense at an un-PC crack (in other words, being a normal guy), I thought I'd compliment you.

hobgoblin:
I'm just not making my thoughts very clear, since the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet.

It seems like "marriage" means two differnet things.

1. It's a romantic relationship between two people, intended to be permanent, generally seen as a promise before God.
2. It's a legal relationship.

Much of #2 can be obtained with things like civil unions, which is a good thing. Having fair civil unions for homosexual couples would be good enough for me.

None of this affects me personally, since I'm straight. However, it affects my gay friends. And, to be honest, I think that they should get married and settle down.

No church should be forced to recognize any marriage they don't want to. But we as a society get to choose whether or not our government does. And, for my gay friends, I just really want them to have families. For me, that counts as marriage. But I'm certainly not gonna accuse somebody of bigotry for disagreeing.

Wait... You don't agree with the gay lifestyle 100%?!!?!?!?! What kind of extreme, religious right-wing intollerant neo-con are you? I like poo-babies, skin flutes, tight leather, Cher, and body glitter and if you don't like those things too then you ARE a homophobe. Everyone must agree with with everything I do, because it's all about me, me, ME!!

... that kind of thing?

Thank you Hob... I shall wear the un-lad badge with pride.

"I like poo-babies, skin flutes, tight leather, Cher, and body glitter"

Don't we all. You don't have to be gay to agree with that.

Chad, LMAO.

And SJKev, sometimes instituions, even in name only, matter. We all seem to agree on a "fair civ union" concept. We might have different lines, but I doubt by much

Lazar,

Society does not have an interest... individuals have interests.

Then society has no interest in gay marriage. But, whatever. This is just playing a game with semantics, not an argument.

So get married, take the benefits and run? That's not my idea of good tax-value.

Probably not if you look at specific couples, but collectively it might. But that's an argument for ending or reducing benefits not extending them.

I think this couple would be far more encouraged to have children if their benefits were dependent on their having children... don't you?

Well, some benefits are. But perhaps I should rephrase. The society, the country, we the people, whatever, have an interest procreating children in a stable family environment. That way, society continues while the children aren't a burden to it.

There may be some societal benefits to gay marriage (and I'm with SJKevin on that), but they aren't nearly as compelling in my mind. Again, I'm not opposed to some sort of civil unions for homosexuals and don't think it would have much of an effect on marriage at all. Liberalization of divorce laws was probably worse for marriage than allowing a handful of homosexuals to join in. I just don't think that it's a grievous violation of civil rights that they don't exist now. I don't even think it's all that unfair.

Anyway, how is it that those who want to extend benefits to gay couples always turn around and make arguments for reducing them for straight couples?

Jason:
"how is it that those who want to extend benefits to gay couples always turn around and make arguments for reducing them for straight couples?"

It's because they're almost all leftists. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a sensible conservative case to be made for it.

hobgoblin:
"sometimes instituions, even in name only, matter."

Amen to that. As I've grown older and a little bit wiser, the importance of marriage as an institution is really starting to sink in. This, of course, is why I support it for gay couples who are in love and have made a life-long commitment. But it's also why I simply can't get angry at you if you disagree for that reason. I have little patience with anti-gay bigots. But people who are simply trying to do what they think is best for marriage have all my respect, even if my conclusions are different.

So much love now.... A single tear rolls down my cheek.

hobgoblin,
"That "society has no rights" stuff is interesting philosophically, but more useless that tits in a bathhouse in the practical sense of things."
"there is no such thing as society" is not philosophy for me... it's a necessary hard empiricism... an individual wants something and they justify satisfying their wants by "society wanting"... which means other individuals or it means nothing at all... if everyone then the claim is almost certainly false... if not then how many? which people? a majority?... fine then submit your evidence please (bear in mind also the 50 million flies eat shit argument)... most of the time the usage seems to me equivalent to calling upon God... in which case it's the end of the discussion for me.
"yeah, but people can live in teh dark (and it produces more babies!)"
lol...

Jason,
"Then society has no interest in gay marriage."
Indeed.
"Probably not if you look at specific couples, but collectively it might."
Or may not!
"There may be some societal benefits to gay marriage (and I'm with SJKevin on that), but they aren't nearly as compelling in my mind. Again, I'm not opposed to some sort of civil unions for homosexuals and don't think it would have much of an effect on marriage at all."
Agreed.
"Anyway, how is it that those who want to extend benefits to gay couples always turn around and make arguments for reducing them for straight couples?"
I don't know... I can only speak for myself... and I'm not really arguing so much as curious with regard to the logic... but anyway.

Lazar,

I guess my point is that we have traditions for a reason. Marriage exists for a reason. I think before any discussion of gay marriage occurs, people on both sides of the issue should answer the question: "What is marriage for?"

And the answer most certainly is not: "So that person A can get on person B's health insurance policy."

Marriage is for expanding the tax base.

dingdingdingdingdingding

Chad gets the gold star.

Feel the love, Chad.

We craft laws for the vast majority.

Thank God that vast majority of black folks can't be discriminated against in employment.

Thank God that vast majority that is Terri Schiavo get special consideration in congress.

etc

etc

etc

Don't mask me laugh.

I feel nothin' but love Hob. The gold star is going right next to the "un-lad" badge, which is right next to my signed multi-platinum Madonna album, which is right next to the special collector's edition of "My Best Friend's Wedding" which sits in close proximity to my Saturday evening wear of tight patent leather pants and skin tight pink tank top with the word "DIVA" bedazzeled on the front.

Uhhh.... I mean..... GO YANKEES!

Not sure if I follow what you're saying. Certain people should get tax breaks based on their orientation while others should not?

Why shd gay couples get tax breaks that single people - gay or straight don't receive?

Certain people should be allowed to visit sick loved ones based on their orientation while others should not?

This is a red herring. Unless there are unusal circumstances, that can easily be avoided, no one gets denied visitation. Hell, half the nurses in hospitals are gay.

Should we hire less women at my company because of the risk they'll get pregnant and need maternity leave, therefore forcing myself to "pick up the slack" while they're gone?

No, that would be discriminatory. Woman also have the option to not get pregnant. I'm not sure maternity leave is mandatory in every state, either. The state, however, recognizes that there is a societal interest in the nurturing of a newborn. I know of companies that grant leave to fathers, too. And I haven't heard it being denied to lesbian mothers or gay fathers.

And the "granting rights" statement saying that it's always detrimental to some other group is a bit broad I think. Women's sufferage pops to mind... how was that to the detriment of men?

No, not broad at all since it was said in the context of the subject of the discusion. I have problems with the argument that it discriminates against gays when singles also are denied the same rights. The benefits of marriage serve the purpose to promote families and children. By extending these rights/benefits to gay couples, someone is left to pick up the slack.

Random drunk thought from Ace's first comment here....

I believe marriage is only secondarily about "love" and primarily about the creation of families.

I personally have always felt that love was the primary factor, not child rearing. Maybe I read too much into the whole"sickness/health, richer/poorer, sadness/joy, as long as you both shall live" crap though.

Suggestions for honest, cut-to-the-chase, AOS no BS vows:

"Do you, Suzy, take this man, Bobby, to be your lawfully wedded baby-factory? To put out whenever he so desires so as to ensure a solid and secure tax base for our Lord Jesus Christ? To not complain about the Holy Act of Procreation because you have a headache or because Oprah is on? And most importantly, to find your own Lemaze coach to aid you in the birthing process so that said Bobby may stay home and enjoy the fruits of Monday Night Football for as long as you both shall live?"

Just a thought... and Ace... no disrespect intended :)

Chad:

Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to produce and raise healthy children, which is an important state interest.

Why don't you explain to me the rational behind granting tax breaks to gay couples and not singles? Neither are capable of producing children, with exceptions of course.

If we are both being discriminated against by being denied tax benefits, how is it not discrimination to grant gay couples the exemptions and not singles? And since someone does have to pick of the slack, how is it not even more discriminatory to make singles foot the resulting higher tax burden?

"April" -

I've stated before that I'm not looking for special treatment for gay couples. I agree that raising healthy children is in the state's best interest, however, giving tax breaks to a straight couple just because they can produce said children seems a bit presumptuous. Most straight couples do have children. Some don't. Now, I'm gonna assume (and I think rightfully so) that the tax breaks regarding kids don't come into play until the kids are in the picture.

With that said, I feel anyone with kids (regardless of whether they were biologically produced or adopted) should get those tax breaks. Straight, gay, single parent, whatever.

Right now I'm single. Obviously I'm not expecting a tax break just because I'm gay. If and when I find a partner, I would like the same benefits that a straight couple without kids would have. If and when we adopt kids, I expect the same benefits of a straight couple with kids.

Perhaps I'm way off on the point of your post, but it's a Friday morning and I'm a tad hungover, so I apologize in advance.

hi,everybody is my Hilary Duff i am here in massachussets i hive all of you a kiss. bay mua.

is:Hilary Duff.