NationStates Jolt Archive

Would this Equal Rights law make all marriage laws obsolete?

Under the conservatives' plan, rights would be available to gay couples, relatives and other twosomes who are not eligible to marry, said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Unrelated opposite-sex couples, who can legally marry, would not be eligible for the designation.

For instance, a brother and sister who live together would be able to register under what supporters call an "equal benefits" bill. That way, one sibling could be covered under the other's employer-sponsored health insurance, and the survivor would not be taxed on inheritance if the other died.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage)

It seems to me that marriage would be an unnecessary government recognition once an institution like that came into use. How then is this guy complaining so much?

Steven Goldstein, executive director of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said the measure was a long shot to pass and, if it did, would not satisfy the state Supreme Court's requirements.

"It's a red herring for anti-gay vitriol," Goldstein said.

I understand that he’s angry about the conservatives in the legislature doing everything they can to deny out-right marriage rights, but I think that in their eagerness to deny marriage to non-heterosexuals they may have actually come up with an idea that will (or could) eliminate the need for heterosexual marriages to be recognized by the government as well. (BTW: it doesn’t say what I’m saying in the article, I’m predicting the end result myself).

What say you?

Sure, fuck, why not.

i reckon it probably won't happen. but i do think marriage should only be a religious union, the legal thing doesn't need some a label with religious connotations. i'm not saying there that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, i'm just saying that marriage should be a purely religious thing. if a religion wants to ban gay marriage in their institution then fine, they can just expect me to despise them that's all.

Would this Equal Rights law make all marriage laws obsolete?

Under the conservatives' plan, rights would be available to gay couples, relatives and other twosomes who are not eligible to marry, said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Unrelated opposite-sex couples, who can legally marry, would not be eligible for the designation.

For instance, a brother and sister who live together would be able to register under what supporters call an "equal benefits" bill. That way, one sibling could be covered under the other's employer-sponsored health insurance, and the survivor would not be taxed on inheritance if the other died.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage)

It seems to me that marriage would be an unnecessary government recognition once an institution like that came into use. How then is this guy complaining so much?

Steven Goldstein, executive director of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said the measure was a long shot to pass and, if it did, would not satisfy the state Supreme Court's requirements.

"It's a red herring for anti-gay vitriol," Goldstein said.

I understand that he’s angry about the conservatives in the legislature doing everything they can to deny out-right marriage rights, but I think that in their eagerness to deny marriage to non-heterosexuals they may have actually come up with an idea that will (or could) eliminate the need for heterosexual marriages to be recognized by the government as well. (BTW: it doesn’t say what I’m saying in the article, I’m predicting the end result myself).

What say you?

if a brother and sister do that
i think they doing more then they should be

if a brother and sister do that
i think they doing more then they should be

Nobody said the couple has to be having sex with each other :p :eek:

Would this Equal Rights law make all marriage laws obsolete?

Under the conservatives' plan, rights would be available to gay couples, relatives and other twosomes who are not eligible to marry, said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Unrelated opposite-sex couples, who can legally marry, would not be eligible for the designation.

For instance, a brother and sister who live together would be able to register under what supporters call an "equal benefits" bill. That way, one sibling could be covered under the other's employer-sponsored health insurance, and the survivor would not be taxed on inheritance if the other died.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage)

It seems to me that marriage would be an unnecessary government recognition once an institution like that came into use. How then is this guy complaining so much?

Steven Goldstein, executive director of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said the measure was a long shot to pass and, if it did, would not satisfy the state Supreme Court's requirements.

"It's a red herring for anti-gay vitriol," Goldstein said.

I understand that he’s angry about the conservatives in the legislature doing everything they can to deny out-right marriage rights, but I think that in their eagerness to deny marriage to non-heterosexuals they may have actually come up with an idea that will (or could) eliminate the need for heterosexual marriages to be recognized by the government as well. (BTW: it doesn’t say what I’m saying in the article, I’m predicting the end result myself).

What say you?

I say these people stole my idea. I came up with this YEARS ago, yet no one ever listened to me.

Nobody said the couple has to be having sex with each other :p :eek:

that and a joke came to me when i read that part

i think it would be better and cheaper to just let gay couples get married.

i think it would be better and cheaper to just let gay couples get married.

How would it be better and cheaper? What's the difference if all heterosexuals and homosexual couples and non-intimate relationships are covered simultaneously by a single form?

How would it be better and cheaper? What's the difference if all heterosexuals and homosexual couples and non-intimate relationships are covered simultaneously by a single form?

Well the "Cheaper" part comes in where there are a whole bunch of un-married couples receiving benefits with this proposition

If we allowed homosexual marrige we would end up with just married couples

Right or wrong it may be cheaper

No. Married couples are not legally required to live together. This law appears to require people to live together.

Ha. It's a lot simpler to say, "All right, fuckers, none of you can get married according to us anymore. You want your rights? Fill out this form. If you want to, check the box that says 'I give all the rights to this person' if you're too lazy or stupid to check more than one box. But no more marriages. Ask your churches about that."

That is all.

Ha. It's a lot simpler to say, "All right, fuckers, none of you can get married according to us anymore. You want your rights? Fill out this form. If you want to, check the box that says 'I give all the rights to this person' if you're too lazy or stupid to check more than one box. But no more marriages. Ask your churches about that."

That is all.

This suggestion is made of win.

i reckon it probably won't happen. but i do think marriage should only be a religious union, the legal thing doesn't need some a label with religious connotations. i'm not saying there that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, i'm just saying that marriage should be a purely religious thing. if a religion wants to ban gay marriage in their institution then fine, they can just expect me to despise them that's all.
My parents are atheists who have been MARRIED for 30 years. They were MARRIED in a non-religious building by a non-religious official in a non-religious MARRIAGE ceremony. On behalf of them, I'd like to know why marriage should belong to religious people.

My parents are atheists who have been MARRIED for 30 years. They were MARRIED in a non-religious building by a non-religious official in a non-religious MARRIAGE ceremony. On behalf of them, I'd like to know why marriage should belong to religious people.

Thus, marriage as we know it would no longer exist. It would be known as an agreement between two or more people regardless of if they decide to involve a church, a synagogue, a community, a theater program, a three-ring circus, a polar bear brigade, or a village of beer-guzzling Marmots.

The legal benefits would be such that people could give them to whomever they pleased (you know, putting people on health insurance, etc. though health insurance really ought to be taken care of by the government on some level anyway) and not be bogged down by these horseshit marriage laws.

я только не знаю

я только не знаю

Que?

Que?

i just dont know in Russian