Supporting A Candidate Who Does Not Believe In Same-Sex Marriage

[Kurn]

Mrs. Clinton does not support full marriage equality at the moment. But if it were to come about about two years into her presidency I wouldn't be surprised.

This is one advantage of having an well-educated woman in the Oval Office. The person-stuff gets attended to in an orderly, compassionate manner without a lot of dithering over details. That's HRC behind all the politics.
/
/
/
/
/

 

[Centexfarmer]

Okay, case-in-point as to how this issue gets dis-illusioned.

The company that I work for recently changed hands.

When that happened, we were given a new benefit: insurance coverage for domestic partners.

Having a dom partner of 15 years, of course I chose that option.

But, there were many others who chose to place their casual baby's-daddy de jour on the same plan.

To me, that totally degraded what the company was striving to do.

My company was not trying to offer benefits to an ad hoc relationship -- they were trying to give real benefits to true couples.

But, because the way that things are: if you open-up benefits to same-sex couples, you have to do the same for opposite-sex couples.

I am totally for that and understand common-law marriages. And, there are many common-law marriages out there that should have the same benefits as a same-sex commitment.

It is just that when, ppl like I referenced above, abuse the system, then it degrades the whole premise.

I don't see same-sex marriage being heralded in my lifetime.

However, I think we are making strides.

But, when ppl like I referenced degrade that: we take one step forward and slide two steps back.

My point is: without some type of recogition, the ppl that are abusing the system are going to ruin for those using the system properly.

I don't think, in my lifetime, that we will see same-sex unions enjoy the same benefits as opposite-sex unions.

But, I think that we need some rules: so that rogue ppl are not costing us the few benefits that we are just strating to see.

Your comments, and experience are a rational example of WHY we need "Civil Unions."

A Marriage is a sacred act performed in a Church of your choice.

A "Civil Union" is the Government's Recognition of two peoples being joined together in property, not "Holy Matrimony."

The irony here, is that even a "Marriage" regardless of whether it was officiated by the Pope himself, or the local Justice of the Peace, isn't "legal" or "binding" unless the Government says it is; tax purposes, etc., etc..

So for an elected official to say, "Yadda, Yadda, my faith, blah, blah, my church, blah, blah, the law, yadda, yadda," is nothing more than bullshit poli-speak.

If you don't support Same-Sex "marriage," then do you support same sex "Civil Unions?"

Fuck the Church, and the institution that IS the Church!

Let them have their Marriages safe from us depraved souls who's hearts love another man, and allow us to enter into a Union that will not only be recognized by the Government, but any Civil Court in any jurisdiction in America.

This issue isn't the business of the Catholic Church, or the Evangelicals in this Country.

Some would argue that it's not even the business of the United States Constitution, and I would agree.

However most of the candidates who've spoken on this issue are, IMO, walking the razors edge on this topic.

If a candidate doesn't support "Same-Sex Marriage," I'm okay with that.

What matters to me is how they feel about the Government Recognition of "Same-Sex Civil Unions."

Here in Texas if a Heterosexual couple, that has never been "married," but have lived together for more than six years, they're considered a "common law marriage."

If a Gay Couple has lived together for more than six years, or ten years, or twenty years, or fifty years, and one or the other dies, then their shared estate can be confiscated by any member of deceased member's family, and there's not a legal leg that surviving partner has to stand on to contest, or prove, or defend the life that they had together.

So I agree with jtilden21, until there's some sort of recognition for us within the U.S. Government tax code, it's mostly just bullshit.

If a candidate (regardless of party) is obviously pandering to right-wing-bible-thumpers in how they answer, then NO I can't support them.

 

[RICBOUND2004]

Personally, I wouldn't support a candidate who openly supported gay marriage.

The majority of Americans believe marriage is sacred. I say leave it that way -- but therefore, by the Second Amendment, marriage does not belong in the law in any way, shape, or form ... unless it is as one recognized form of interpersonal union, one among many. The government's definition of interpersonal union ought to be simple: if some people come and say they're interpersonally united, the government should solemnly record that in the same file as all the others. It shouldn't even list whether the people call it "marriage", "bonding", "handfasting", or anything else: all the government needs to know is that these people have committed themselves to each other, and are entitled to all the same benefits, privileges, etc. as any others who have done so.

You have articulated my position perfectly. Government should not be in the business of recognizing 'marriages', but 'unions' for all.

As for a candidate who does not support gay marriage, there certainly shouldn't be a litmus test based on that criteria. Good people oppose same-sex marriage, and bad people support it. I'd venture to say more should be involved in order to make the right decision about a candidate.

Persoanlly it's not a make or break. But then again I'm only 22 (although I have a partner), for someone older who has been in a relationship 10, 15 years, I could understand the emotional decision voting for someone opposing (or at least not supporting) same-sex marriages.

I think this issue os like any other, it depends on the individual, and how they rank 'marriage' on their list of 'must-haves' for candidates.

 

[construct]

Here in Texas if a Heterosexual couple, that has never been "married," but have lived together for more than six years, they're considered a "common law marriage."

Well, no. This is a misstatement of Texas law. And we changed the name of it from common law marriage to informal marriage.

There are three elements to establish an informal marriage in Texas: an intentional agreement to be presently married (not to be married in the future), cohabitation (no minimum time-period), and the couple's holding out to the public in Texas that they are married. These elements must exist simultaneously.

Informal marriage is simply one of the ways that people can become married in Texas it is not a separate category of marriage. So all the same state provisions that apply to ceremonial marriages also apply to informal marriages. Texas has a policy of recognizing informal marriages wherever possible. So there is a rebutable presumption in favor of the marriage. Any challenge to an informal marriage must be made within two years of its termination.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well, no. This is a misstatement of Texas law. And we changed the name of it from common law marriage to informal marriage.

There are three elements to establish an informal marriage in Texas: an intentional agreement to be presently married (not to be married in the future), cohabitation (no minimum time-period), and the couple's holding out to the public in Texas that they are married. These elements must exist simultaneously.

Informal marriage is simply one of the ways that people can become married in Texas it is not a separate category of marriage. So all the same state provisions that apply to ceremonial marriages also apply to informal marriages. Texas has a policy of recognizing informal marriages wherever possible. So there is a rebutable presumption in favor of the marriage. Any challenge to an informal marriage must be made within two years of its termination.

Well, either way that you look at it, there's NO way that you and I construct can be "informally" married under current Texas law.

That's my point.

 

[Glafna]

^"morals as good as they can get"? I'm sorry, you've apparently wandered into a gay forum by mistake.

And what exactly is that supposed to mean???



To elaborate on what I said, I wouldn't vote for someone if they supported gay marriage, but lacked definition in other, more important, parts of the country, like health care, education, etc, but I would vote for someone who openly rejects gay marriage, as long as their stance on other, more important, parts of the country, like health care, and education, are superior to that of their opponents.

 

[construct]

Yes, that's right, centex. When I first started looking at this stuff I wondered if common law marriage might be an option, but it's not.

As it is, each member of the couple has to have his own set of documents--will, power of attorney, living will, etc. If you want right of survivorship in real estate, that has to be reconveyed. (No homestead rights for spouse!) You'd probably want P.O.D. bank accounts. All of that costs money. Figure $1200 for the basics.

Most of that stuff and more comes as a package deal with marriage. A marriage license costs, what, $51? I'll take the $51 special; thank you very much! It is economic discrimination pure and simple.

And some benefits of marriage can't be contracted. Spousal privilege not to testify in criminal cases, for example.

The best way to change this is by redefining marriage in gender-neutral terms. Look at all the problems that have arisen from civil unions in New Jersey.

 

[construct]

There's also a perculiar argument that's never been tried in a Texas court that's worth mentioning. The Texas Constitution forbids the State from recognizing any relationship that is substantially similar to marriage. And that is a part of Art. 1. So it takes precedence over the right to enter enforceable contracts. One could argue that the more a set of documents resembles the rights and responsibilities of a marriage, the more likely they should be declared void as a violation of the state constitution. EEK!