serious gay marriage question

“If I rake my neighbors' yards for free, but then ask for a business license so I can start charging them does that mean I was doing something unlawful when I was doing it for free?
Two different things, doing it for free vs getting paid. Lets say you don't get a license and charge people for raking their lawns. If you make enough money they will come and prosecute you for not paying taxes or in some cases operating without a business license..

If someone shares a house with someone else, but then want to get married so that they can get better protection under property right laws, share in employee insurance programs, etc (whether they really need it or not) does that mean they were doing something unlawful?”
No, but you open yourself to regulation and meddling by bureaucrats by asking their permission. There is nothing that cannot be covered or protected using standard contract law from what I understand. Why involve the government?
last edited: 12/03/07 8:41:46 AM”

“The smart move for the government would be to...”
Lumberjack
11:38:13 AM
12/03/07

Do we have an oxymoron thread? This statement would be a good candidate :) ;)

Seriously though, I agree with you, but government is neither smart nor non-controlling.”

“Lets say you don't get a license and charge people for raking their lawns.

Lets not say that since I clearly said I wanted a license so I could get paid, not that I wanted to get paid and not get a license. (BTW doing it for free vs. not getting paid is one way to look at living together vs marriage. Having you ever heard the phrase why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?)

Tax law can't be covered by existing contract law. Being counted as a spouse on your spouce's company provided insurance isn't covered. I may be wrong but receiving social security benefits from your unwed significant other is not covered. Their is a very long list of contractually enticing items that are only available to legally married couples.”

“Tax law can't be covered by existing contract law. Being counted as a spouse on your spouce's company provided insurance isn't covered. I may be wrong but receiving social security benefits from your unwed significant other is not covered. Their is a very long list of contractually enticing items that are only available to legally married couples.”
hyway


These dilemmas are why I despise the welfare state and socialism.”

“agreed, but we are talking about the current legal differences between shacking up and getting hitched.”

“ The smart move for the goverment would be to regulate all civil unions including gays and leave actual/traditional marriages to the church. This helps remove the moral issuses from the picture and allow a better legal defination to exist that could be equally applied across the board. The goverment has no business trying to decide moral issuses for anyone.��

agreed”

“The following is my solution to the gay marriage debate. I believe that everybody can agree with this solution. It should impede on nobody's beliefs or rights (or at least ones that I've heard presented while following this debate for several years).

The first step is for heterosexual marriage apologists to give something up. They must give up the desire for the state to recognize their marriage. Marriage is between you and your spouse, and for some, their god. If you want to get married, find a preacher or anybody that you and your partner recognize as suitable to wed you, and do it. Keep the state out of it. You don't need that government to validate your marriage, do you?

The next step is to establish a "Legal Partner Document" (LPD). This is not a civil-union document. It differs in that there is no sexual connotation to it, whatsoever. This document affords ANY two people the kinds of rights that married people enjoy now, including tax breaks, medical benefits, tax benefits, etc. This document can be made legally void at any time. Individuals must wait at least 5 years before attaining another LPD, and can only have one at any given time.

Finally, all currently married people will automatically receive this document, unless they refuse it. Any future married people must request the document, as does anybody else.

You can have this document between you and any other single person, regardless of age, race, sex, religion, etc. It is not a document affording forgiveness for you to break existing laws, such as underage sex. Laws such as underage sex, adoption, etc., will become separate issues from marriage. For example, the most difficult challenge as a society would be our need to determine if two people with a LPD can adopt. This will allow the existing legal processes to work themselves out on this matter without being held up with other issues, such as debates over underage sex.

This solution will allow those on the left, or supporters of homosexual relationships, to receive of the benefits and legal recognition they have sought after. It will allow those in the center, such as libertarians, to realize their wishes for freedom for all regardless of moral beliefs. It will allow those on the right, or heterosexuals and religious people, to maintain their covenant between them, their spouse, and their god.��
Sarge
2:36:12 PM
3/16/06

best sarge-post ever. what it boils down to is, gay couples can get married, just dont legally call it that. or, they get the benefits of marriage without actually calling it marriage. i think its a perfect compromise. its fair and right. gay couples get their rights without re-writing the dictionary. which i believe is what theyre wanting anyways. if someone sees that as the fed sticking its nose in someones bedroom, then their moral compass is outta wack”

“By asking permission and receiving license you are admitting it isn't lawful or legitimate behavior aren't you

you dont have to ask permission to get married. youre asking for your marriage to be legally recognized so that you may receive X benefits”

“The biggest worry I see corporations having about this is the couple who gets hooked up and one partner has serious medical issues.

If we could find a way to make "private insurance" more affordable (not Government insurance) so that if A marries B they get a choice of cafeteria type programs. I mean those who "putt from the rough" most likely won't need insurance for some items but may need insurance for others.

Then Corporation A would be able to say,"Okay we will pay "X" number of dollars toward your insurance, you pick the cafe list of items and pay any difference.

If they had "Bobcare Health Insurance" and the happy couple wanted to cover some of the more terrible consequence diseases they would have to pay.

The thing is the term Marriage is almost a "religious" term to me. I agree with Sarge you get Married in the church. Then you submit your "marriage" to the state. If Georgia or Arkansas would not recognize it. WHOOP TIE doo. Don't go there.”

“The biggest worry I see corporations having about this is the couple who gets hooked up and one partner has serious medical issues.

Could you translate that into a sentence please?”

“Okay..Sarge, the common complaint I get from Corporations (big companies) is that a couple might get "hooked up" so that one member can take advantage of the other partner's insurance program.”

“Ok. Why is that a problem with my proposal? If anything, it does away with that problem completely.”

“xl hates marriage; loves big corporations

~smirk~”