You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 08:40:42 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Gay Marriage Hypothetical  (Read 2146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BCdan

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2012, 09:08:31 PM »
Churches don't actually sell weddings. :)  You don't actually have to pay for the service.  It's an honorarium.

Then in my kinda of tax system that is based on consumption instead of income, there is less to worry about and churches wouldn't be taxed at all. 

Offline Shjade

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2012, 10:32:56 PM »
Churches don't actually sell weddings. :)  You don't actually have to pay for the service.  It's an honorarium.

Uh, yes, yes you do. If nothing else you pay for renting the space. You might not be paying for the actual marriage itself, per se, but if you want to have it in their church with their organist, etc., you're paying for it.

Online Silk

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2012, 08:27:30 AM »
Largely the stipulation is the running of a "public" or a "private" service. If the service is conducted publically, then you lose right to discriminate, (such as the owners of a B&B who refused a gay couple after they had already booked.) However churches and marraiges in particular are usually considered private function's. Which result in having more right in who they will or not allow.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2012, 11:26:45 AM »
See, personally, I'd rather not see rules where you aren't allowed to discriminate.  If someone actually wants to discriminate based on something stupid, let them try.  If it's a stupid reason like sexual orientation in a job where it doesn't matter, the floodgates will open even worse than they did for Chick-Fil-A, which doesn't stop people from buying their product.

I guess I'm weird in that regard, though.  I wouldn't want to go to a place where I'm not wanted, but maybe I don't understand how things are in some places.

So, another question of mine (but feel free to keep posting about the first!): what happened to the compromise thing about civil unions?  Wasn't there supposed to be some thing ten years ago or so where they wanted to have that as a compromise of having legal marriage rights but not calling it marriage?  Or was that considered too discriminatory or what?

I get that it wouldn't be considered a perfect solution; I'm just curious what happened with that.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2012, 11:40:09 AM »
Not all states allow civil unions.  What I've heard about why it hasn't gained a lot of support in the gay community is that it's seen as about the same thing as the 'separate but equal' schools back in the late 50s:  Nice in theory, but some are more equal than others.

Offline AndyZTopic starter

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2012, 11:54:31 AM »
Fair enough.  Next question: somebody mentioned about the corporate marriage thingy, I forget what it's called.  Could an insurance company voluntarily offer the idea of a beneficiary to be listed for same-sex couples, or does it absolutely require government intervention to have such a beneficiary?  Or have some companies already done this?

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2012, 01:18:18 PM »
Short answer: It depends.

For instruments such as life insurance, investment accounts, 401k's, etc. you can put whoever you'd like as your beneficiary. You could list Bozo the Clown if you'd like.

However, if you have a legal spouse, that spouse is automatically assumed to be your beneficiary unless the spouse gives permission for someone else to be listed. For example, I'm automatically Mr. Torch's beneficiary on his life insurance policy and his retirement portfolio. I didn't have to do anything or sign anything. If he wanted those benefits to go to anyone else, he'd need me to sign off on it.

It's just another hoop same-sex couples have to jump through that legally married hetero couples don't.

As far as company sponsored health insurance is concerned, many companies are beginning to offer benefits to same-sex partners (I know Mr. Torch's does), but I doubt it's the norm.

It should also be noted that hetero couples who aren't legally married face the same obstacles as same-sex couples.

Offline Chelemar

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2012, 02:04:58 PM »

Hijack
Quote
Uh, yes, yes you do. If nothing else you pay for renting the space. You might not be paying for the actual marriage itself, per se, but if you want to have it in their church with their organist, etc., you're paying for it.
  While some churches may have a guideline for you to follow as far as fees, it is still a honorarium for the majority, as far as I have seen.

 Though you might have to pay for the services of secular workers, I.E. the janitor, organist, choir, whose services you may use and are not required to take a vow of poverty and do not work for the church. 

As for paying for the church, if you are a member, most of the time, you will be permitted to use it for free or a nominal donation.  Again, they may have a guideline set, but it's still up to you to decide if you will pay it.  Also, they will go by income as well.

I have been to weddings where no one thought to bring a fee for either the church or the pastor, (the best man was supposed to and he totally forgot)  the wedding still was performed and the pastor was gracious, the organist and choir still sang, again with grace. 


/end hijack

Personally, I just want to be able to have the same rights as everyone else has.  I've been with Jated, my partner for over eight years.  We consider ourselves married.  We wear rings.  But, until recently, I couldn't go and see her in the hospital if she was in critical condition because I am not legally family. 

Jated had cancer and was in Critical care after her surgery.  I had to tell them I was her sister to be permitted to visit her.  The nurse was about to tell me no, as she knew I was lying, when the doctor came and told me to come with him to see her.  He was my doctor as well and knew we were a couple.  So, yeah... that sucked.  It still makes me cry to think about it.

Second, J has a 12 year old son whom I adore and who loves me.  Should anything happen to her, I have no rights at all to see him.  As a step parent, I at least might have the chance to have some way to be able to have some sort of ability to file for visitation.  At least I could hope.  He's been a part of my live since he was four, and I have been a part of his. 

Third, Jated and I are buying a home together.    We have been for six years.  If I die, I have insurance... it will automatically pay off the house.  However, if anything happens to Jated, I have nothing.  I am not her spouse, she can not get insurance due to the cancer, and her income will not come to me because .... that's right, I am not her spouse.  I am not entitled.

If something happens to J.  I know what she wants done.  No living on machines, etc.  But, anyone from her family can change that. 

Same with me, she knows what I want, but... anyone from my family can change that.  Even with living will.s

So, what about a civil union.  Everyone who gets married really only has a civil union as far as the law is concerned.  It's not the religious ceremony that counts as far as the government allows.  We can go to any pastor, priest, rabbi, person with an internet certificate of investure, and have them say words of unity and be spiritually married in the eyes of God or any Deity you want, but legally, nope. 

So, give me the civil union please.  That is what I want.  I can find the religious service from a religion that accepts me and that I can embrace. 

I like that term civil union.  To be united with civility.  Yes, please.  I'll have one of those.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2012, 02:23:31 PM by Chelemar »

Offline Caehlim

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2012, 05:52:05 PM »
I wanted to clarify that I didn't mean this as a pejorative.  I haven't found a lot of places where the left and right actually talk to each other, so I like to find out both perspectives and see which sides have merit.

Apologies if this came off as offensive.

Sorry if I didn't respond very quickly. I never thought it had been meant in any negative fashion.

Offline Lux12

  • Eccentric Occult Glam Agent of The Unknowable.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2012, 05:55:26 PM »
As I far I know they do not have to.You don't need a priest or minister to marry you.You can get a judge to do it.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2012, 06:36:28 PM »
See, personally, I'd rather not see rules where you aren't allowed to discriminate.

Given how difficult it is to police and administrate, combined with the dangers of people using threats of litigation as cudgels or for blackmail purposes I'm somewhat inclined to agree.

Of course imagine that you're looking for a rental property with your boyfriend and discover that no one seems to accept you as tenants and I think you would find new appreciation for these laws.

Quote
If it's a stupid reason like sexual orientation in a job where it doesn't matter

In what job would it matter?

> Edit: I'm just teasing your choice of words. :P

Quote
what happened to the compromise thing about civil unions?  Wasn't there supposed to be some thing ten years ago or so where they wanted to have that as a compromise of having legal marriage rights but not calling it marriage?  Or was that considered too discriminatory or what?

Given that ten years ago, I had only just become old enough to be able to vote in elections and there hadn't been one yet that I could vote in, that consensus or compromise hardly includes me. And there's a lot of other people in the same chronological situation. Looking at it from the other end, there are other people involved who have since died.

Any discussion now is from the perspective of a new generation who are going to see things differently.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 08:21:53 PM by Caehlim »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2012, 06:52:19 PM »
In what job would it matter?

I kind of read that statement as implying that 'in a job', any job, one's sexual orientation doesn't matter (since 'having sex with _____' isn't part of the required duties), and therefore discrimination based on it is stupid to begin with.  I suppose if you were applying for work at a brothel, or as a phone sex operator or porn star, there might be some relevance, but I'm going to say that's a stretch.

Of course, the color of one's skin shouldn't matter in any job either. 

Offline Caehlim

Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2012, 07:49:32 PM »
I kind of read that statement... (snip)

Sorry, I was just kidding. I read it the same way but was just trying to be funny. I forget it's not always obvious on the internet.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2012, 08:18:10 PM »
Ah okay *brushes off humor detector*

Too used to this part of the forum being full of people taking things too seriously. ;D

Offline Lux12

  • Eccentric Occult Glam Agent of The Unknowable.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gay Marriage Hypothetical
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2012, 08:37:52 PM »
Ah okay *brushes off humor detector*

Too used to this part of the forum being full of people taking things too seriously. ;D

It has a way of doing that to a person.The internet is filled with drama created by this incredibly common mistake.