Before you make your summer plans to visit the Outerbanks ofNC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this whole discussion devolves into nonsense.

And, as a AA, I am sick to death of this "you can equate my struggle" nonsense.

What NC did is bigoted and is very retro. You all really should remember that none of us are free until all of us are free.

I hate when I go back and read something I wrote that I did not mean.

I meant to write: As an AA, I am sick to death of the "you CAN'T equate my struggle..." Yes, you can equate the struggles. LGBT rights are HUMAN rights!

I'll reiterate: None of us are free until ALL of us are free. That means equal access to marriage. Though Lord only knows why you want to call it that. The Heteroes are such a marvelous example with all their divorces, broken homes and broken children (sarcasm).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love two women, can we legally get married? Seriously, why not? Give me one good reason other than bigotry towards my beliefs.

Legally, polygamy causes too many complications. The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that property rights, inheritance, parental responsibility, medicare and social security entitlements, etc. can be pinned down to the two individuals who make up the married entity. Those are about the only legitimate interests the state SHOULD have in any marriage.

[Anonymous]

Not the pp, but I will say this. You're fooling yourself if you believe that churches won't be forced to marry gay couples if gay marriage is made legal on a federal level. I can just see the lawsuits coming from gay people who were denied their personal freedom to marry at a church.

And again, just because a person has viewpoints that are different from your own does not make them bigoted. It makes them different. Please grow up and realize that we all don't have to think and/or feel the same to get along and have respect for one another.

I totally disagree. We already carve out exceptions to Federal laws for churches (as distinguished from a charity or hospital for example). The recent Catholic birth control controversy being a perfect example.

As one of the most liberal of liberals, I have no legal problem with religions discriminating, as I feel they often do, against women and homosexuals, for example. Oh I hate it, but I accept that to each faith, their own. Because belonging to such a church is a choice. No one forces Americans to belong to a particular church, or any church at all. Don't like the discriminatory practices at the local church? Start your own church and be as gay as you want. Or refuse to wear a head scarf to service. Or have a female minister. Or just become a Unitarian like I am.

I don't believe that even most liberals would tolerate the Feds telling a church what it must or must not do in these areas. As a former Catholic, I am not fond of the church. But I respect its rights to believe what it wants, preach what it wants, practice what it wants - and marry whomever it wants. Meanwhile my church will enthusiastically marry all those gay folks. We just want their marriage to be treated the same under the law as any other. That's part of MY religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love two women, can we legally get married? Seriously, why not? Give me one good reason other than bigotry towards my beliefs.

Legally, polygamy causes too many complications. The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that property rights, inheritance, parental responsibility, medicare and social security entitlements, etc. can be pinned down to the two individuals who make up the married entity. Those are about the only legitimate interests the state SHOULD have in any marriage.

Legally, gay marriage causes too many complication. The state has a legitimate interest .....the rest of what you said. What about the complications when a gay couple marries and one of the partners has a biological child that the other parent adopts, then they divorce? Complicated? What about when they use donor eggs, implanted in one parent, and then the couple splits up before the child is born? Complicated?
Further, how is is any more complicated than a hetero woman with 5 children and 4 baby daddies, 2 in jail, living with a 5th who is father to none, etc. etc. Now that's complicated.

Or a wealthy couple who started a business together, got divorced, got remarried, husband continued to run company, turned into billion dollar company, then he dies. Complicated to figure that out with who gets what? (Wife from first marriage sued since she technically was start up of company) From personal experience, very very very complicated.

Anything other reasons against polygamy than "its complicated?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love two women, can we legally get married? Seriously, why not? Give me one good reason other than bigotry towards my beliefs.

Legally, polygamy causes too many complications. The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that property rights, inheritance, parental responsibility, medicare and social security entitlements, etc. can be pinned down to the two individuals who make up the married entity. Those are about the only legitimate interests the state SHOULD have in any marriage.

Legally, gay marriage causes too many complication. The state has a legitimate interest .....the rest of what you said. What about the complications when a gay couple marries and one of the partners has a biological child that the other parent adopts, then they divorce? Complicated? What about when they use donor eggs, implanted in one parent, and then the couple splits up before the child is born? Complicated?
Further, how is is any more complicated than a hetero woman with 5 children and 4 baby daddies, 2 in jail, living with a 5th who is father to none, etc. etc. Now that's complicated.

Or a wealthy couple who started a business together, got divorced, got remarried, husband continued to run company, turned into billion dollar company, then he dies. Complicated to figure that out with who gets what? (Wife from first marriage sued since she technically was start up of company) From personal experience, very very very complicated.

Anything other reasons against polygamy than "its complicated?"

You make the case very eloquently. Given how complicated these issues are already, it would be inordinatley more difficult to deal with them with more than two legal parties involved. But, if you really feel so strongly about it, poerhaps we all should reconsider - maybe polygamy should be legal after all. God knows I could use a couple of sister wives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this whole discussion devolves into nonsense.

And, as a AA, I am sick to death of this "you can equate my struggle" nonsense.

What NC did is bigoted and is very retro. You all really should remember that none of us are free until all of us are free.

I hate when I go back and read something I wrote that I did not mean.

I meant to write: As an AA, I am sick to death of the "you CAN'T equate my struggle..." Yes, you can equate the struggles. LGBT rights are HUMAN rights!

I'll reiterate: None of us are free until ALL of us are free. That means equal access to marriage. Though Lord only knows why you want to call it that. The Heteroes are such a marvelous example with all their divorces, broken homes and broken children (sarcasm).

You had it right the first time. Freudian slip if there ever were one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love two women, can we legally get married? Seriously, why not? Give me one good reason other than bigotry towards my beliefs.

I'm for it. I would vote to allow polygamous marriage. Go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love two women, can we legally get married? Seriously, why not? Give me one good reason other than bigotry towards my beliefs.

Legally, polygamy causes too many complications. The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that property rights, inheritance, parental responsibility, medicare and social security entitlements, etc. can be pinned down to the two individuals who make up the married entity. Those are about the only legitimate interests the state SHOULD have in any marriage.

Legally, gay marriage causes too many complication. The state has a legitimate interest .....the rest of what you said. What about the complications when a gay couple marries and one of the partners has a biological child that the other parent adopts, then they divorce? Complicated? What about when they use donor eggs, implanted in one parent, and then the couple splits up before the child is born? Complicated?
Further, how is is any more complicated than a hetero woman with 5 children and 4 baby daddies, 2 in jail, living with a 5th who is father to none, etc. etc. Now that's complicated.

Or a wealthy couple who started a business together, got divorced, got remarried, husband continued to run company, turned into billion dollar company, then he dies. Complicated to figure that out with who gets what? (Wife from first marriage sued since she technically was start up of company) From personal experience, very very very complicated.

Anything other reasons against polygamy than "its complicated?"

Ok lets break you "complicated" examples down. Ex 1: gay couple marries, second parent adopts the child and they divorce (if they're married, the second parent would not need to adopt the child becuase he/she will be the presumed parent of children produced from the marriage...see how marriage equality helps!). If both spouses are the legal parents of the child, this is no more complicated than a husband and wife divorcing and sharing custody of their children because they are the legal parents.

Ex 2: donor egg implanted into one partner of the marriage and then the couple divorces/splits up (this is a funky hypothetical because it assumes a lesbian couple that is using an egg not biologically related to either wife? weird, but i guess possible): again, if theyre married, theyre both presumed to be the parents of the child. The donor of the egg likely signs away her legal parental rights to the child, so this is no different than a heterosexual couple with children divorcing and doing custody. Marriage helps make these "complicated" situations easy because both partners have parents rights over the children produced during their marriage.

ex 3: woman with 5 kids, 4 baby daddies, and living with a man who isnt the father to any: what is complicated about this? her current man has no legal obligation to any of the children, and the babies fathers have child support obligations. This also isnt complicated

ex 4: wealthy couple who divorces: when they divorced i'm sure they were awarded a % share of the company or one had to buy the other out. i'm not sure why this is complicated either...

Polygamy, on the other hand, is complicated. If there are 4 wives and one husband, who makes medical decisions if the husband is hospitalized and the four wives disagree? Whose voice is the deciding factor? If the husband dies, how would the default inheritance rule (goes to your spouse) work? Would it be divided equally among the four wives or divided based on length of marriage? Would the husband's employer be forced to provide health insurance for all four wives and the dozens of children produced? Which of the four wives would be entitled to the husband's pension if he died?

The only change to heterosexual marriage that would need to be made to accommodate same-sex couples is changing the "husband's name" and "wife's name" to "spouse 1" and "spouse 2" in all relevant documentation.

[Anonymous]

Check out my post about fuel cost for this summer's trip to beach. www.rockvillemom.com, Delaware and MD will definitely be cheaper, if you ban OBX.

Ellen
rockvillemom.com

[Anonymous]

My mom lives in NC and hates its. She rolling out ASAP. The confederate flags alone scared me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this whole discussion devolves into nonsense.

And, as a AA, I am sick to death of this "you can equate my struggle" nonsense.

What NC did is bigoted and is very retro. You all really should remember that none of us are free until all of us are free.

I hate when I go back and read something I wrote that I did not mean.

I meant to write: As an AA, I am sick to death of the "you CAN'T equate my struggle..." Yes, you can equate the struggles. LGBT rights are HUMAN rights!

I'll reiterate: None of us are free until ALL of us are free. That means equal access to marriage. Though Lord only knows why you want to call it that. The Heteroes are such a marvelous example with all their divorces, broken homes and broken children (sarcasm).

As long as you are reiterating, why don't you correct your grammar. It's "None of us is free." Look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love two women, can we legally get married? Seriously, why not? Give me one good reason other than bigotry towards my beliefs.

Polygamy is an administrative nightmare. Who would make emergency medical decisions if two spouses wanted completely different treatment plans? Would an employer be forced to provide health insurance to cover all of spouses and those spouses' children? How would life insurance, inheritance work? Divorce? Alimony...If a fourth wife of a man divorced her husband, would his other three wives' income be included her potential alimony award?

Ah, well then that's the one reason that we'll keep polygamy outlawed. Because it's an "administrative nightmare." Please, PP. If you believe this will hold up in court, you're kidding yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As usual, this whole discussion devolves into nonsense.

And, as a AA, I am sick to death of this "you can equate my struggle" nonsense.

What NC did is bigoted and is very retro. You all really should remember that none of us are free until all of us are free.

I hate when I go back and read something I wrote that I did not mean.

I meant to write: As an AA, I am sick to death of the "you CAN'T equate my struggle..." Yes, you can equate the struggles. LGBT rights are HUMAN rights!

I'll reiterate: None of us are free until ALL of us are free. That means equal access to marriage. Though Lord only knows why you want to call it that. The Heteroes are such a marvelous example with all their divorces, broken homes and broken children (sarcasm).

As long as you are reiterating, why don't you correct your grammar. It's "None of us is free." Look it up.

How about this: None of us IS free until all of us ARE free.

Are you okay now? Have a nice day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love two women, can we legally get married? Seriously, why not? Give me one good reason other than bigotry towards my beliefs.

Polygamy is an administrative nightmare. Who would make emergency medical decisions if two spouses wanted completely different treatment plans? Would an employer be forced to provide health insurance to cover all of spouses and those spouses' children? How would life insurance, inheritance work? Divorce? Alimony...If a fourth wife of a man divorced her husband, would his other three wives' income be included her potential alimony award?

Ah, well then that's the one reason that we'll keep polygamy outlawed. Because it's an "administrative nightmare." Please, PP. If you believe this will hold up in court, you're kidding yourself.

This is a distraction from the issue. Like the idea of marrying dogs or ice cream. No one is advocating for polygamy. No one is talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages.

You sound like every other conservative resisting the evolution of equal rights. "Gasp, if blacks go to school with whites, such and such might happen! If women vote, what if they X, Y and Z? If we allow women in the military, it will cause (fill in blank). Your fears (Cats and Dogs living together! Chaos!) don't negate the right to equality of blacks, women, - or in this case, gays.

[Anonymous]

It is foolish to punish the folks that work in the OBX for this.