hmmm

[kimba1]

actually economics was brought up how it would impact to allow gay to marry,but I kept think if this were true then legally hetro couple had to limited since it`s a numbers game.

any economic data against will impact against marraige overall.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the state gives tax breaks to married couples, then there is am impact on taxes. But the state does not have to give tax breaks to couples. If the state favors families and child-rearing, then it can give tax breaks to parents instead, and allow gays to adopt.

The DOMA does not defend marriage. Nor it Obama's actions about DOMA have a thing to do with Walker's stance on hospital visitations.

[BT]

Nor it Obama's actions about DOMA have a thing to do with Walker's stance on hospital visitations.

They are one and the same. In both cases, the chief executive abandoned defenses of legislation because they believed that legislation to be unconstitutional either federally or in Walkers case, Wisconsin.

Many in here slammed Obama for doing that, which is why i posted the story about Walker, to see if the slammers were consistent. But alas the slammers were silent about this particular paradox.

Oh well.

[kimba1]

i think it`s my fault for pointing out the dying alone part

[BT]

i think it`s my fault for pointing out the dying alone part

Actually your post  reminded me what a ridiculous hospital policy that was.

[kimba1]

the only reason I thought of it is because I experience what it`s like to be alone in a hospital. I really didn`t see many people visit my neighbors ,when I was allowed to walk I made an effort to visit them .

hospital tv don`t help much

[Plane]

What is the states interest in marrage?

===============================
Possibly tax deductions for married couples.

There is NO WAY that preventing Adam from marrying Steve that will change any hetero couple's marriage in any way. DOMA does not defend marriage, it just turns Biblical prejudices into law.

Actually taxes can sometimes penalise marrage.

But what advantage is there to the state for anyone to marry?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not think that the issue is to please the state or displease the state.

I fail to see any reason not to legalize all gay marriages of any two people. There is no downside to anyone.

[Plane]

I do not think that the issue is to please the state or displease the state.

I fail to see any reason not to legalize all gay marriages of any two people. There is no downside to anyone.

Then why is your opinion a minority opinion?

You cannot see why there is any state regulation of marrage at all?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The state has an interest in seeing to it that minor children are not married, and that bigamy is prevented.

 Otherwise, any two people should be able to get married provided that both are single and willing.

Marriage between "races" was a minority opinion in most of the South until it was overruled by the Supreme Court. It might still be a majority opinion in some states.

 This is not an issue that should be decided by the majority, because the majority is unaffected by it. The effects of gay marriage have far fewer visible consequences than interracial marriage, after all. You cannot tell the child of a gay marriage by looking at him, after all. In the case of an interracial marriage, you can at least some of the time.

 

[Plane]

The state has an interest in seeing to it that minor children are not married, and that bigamy is prevented.

 Otherwise, any two people should be able to get married provided that both are single and willing.

Marriage between "races" was a minority opinion in most of the South until it was overruled by the Supreme Court. It might still be a majority opinion in some states.

 This is not an issue that should be decided by the majority, because the majority is unaffected by it. The effects of gay marriage have far fewer visible consequences than interracial marriage, after all. You cannot tell the child of a gay marriage by looking at him, after all. In the case of an interracial marriage, you can at least some of the time.

  So you do or don't favor Brothers and Sisters getting married leagally?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Oh, come off it. No, I do not favor this.

I did not say that I was rewriting marriage law. This is about same sex marriage and you know it.

Brothers and sisters are strangely always of opposite sexes.

I do not care if two brothers marry or two sisters marry, before you ask. But I really doubt that this would be an issue.

[Plane]

Oh, come off it. No, I do not favor this.

I did not say that I was rewriting marriage law. This is about same sex marriage and you know it.

Brothers and sisters are strangely always of opposite sexes.

I do not care if two brothers marry or two sisters marry, before you ask. But I really doubt that this would be an issue.

It isn't unfair and discriminatory to prevent marrage in those who want to marry a sibling ?
Why would anyone be against this?

[Xavier_Onassis]

There are some fairly good reasons to avoid incest. Genetic diseases are more likely to be passed to the next generation, though this does not always happen, and not everyone has a genetic disease. The Habsburg family was inbred, usually because of cousin to cousin marriages, and many had hemophilia.

The Egyptian and Hawaiian royalty required brother and sister marriages for a while. The results are sketchy.

The truth is that if two people really want to get married, they will do so regardless of the law by simply disguising an identity.
Gay marriages are exempt from any of the disadvantages of inbreeding for obvious reasons,and the children are generally adopted. So this is unrelated to the issue.

[Stray Pooch]

The state has an interest in seeing to it that minor children are not married, and that bigamy is prevented.

 Otherwise, any two people should be able to get married provided that both are single and willing.

Marriage between "races" was a minority opinion in most of the South until it was overruled by the Supreme Court. It might still be a majority opinion in some states.

 This is not an issue that should be decided by the majority, because the majority is unaffected by it. The effects of gay marriage have far fewer visible consequences than interracial marriage, after all. You cannot tell the child of a gay marriage by looking at him, after all. In the case of an interracial marriage, you can at least some of the time.

Why should bigamy be prevented?  Child marriages are a matter of state interest because of the state's obligation to protect minors.  The state has no inherent interest in preventing bigamy per se. 

The only state interest in any form of marriage is protecting the rights of the individual spouses.  The division of property and other such aspects of domestic partner relationships become legal issues (especially when those partnerships dissolve).  That is the only reason the state should ever be involved in marriage.

This is why I supprt civil unions for all and marriages as a function of the church only.