February 13, 2007
-
FENCE SITTER post
The Pursuit of Happiness…
One of the tenants our country is founded on.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We all have it, well the right to it. I love that. Even though we may never find it, we all have the right to it.
Which brings me to my point.
Gay marriage.
Ben and I have been discussing taxes and children and why it is beneficial to our government to give us tax refunds for breeding, thus contributing to the pool of future tax payers and bread winners etc. The vicious cycle goes on and on and on…
Ben said something to the effect that gay marriage benefits no one in the government because it doesn’t contribute in any way to the economic growth of our economy… This is not by any means a direct quote or a reflection on Ben’s opinion of gay marriage… just a general statement of what he sees to be.
I disagree because I believe that when two people choose to build a life together, one of the natural inclinations we all have is to build a nest and fill it with babies. Even if those people are of the same sex. They will want a family.
Now in our society there are hundreds of thousands of children who need homes. Do they care if they have a mom and dad or two dads or moms? I don’t think so. Food and shelter are foremost on their minds and then if they have the love and caring of two individuals, their hearts may have the benefit of being filled too.
Anyway I feel that same sex marriages can fill a niche of need in our society and they are being sadly under estimated… But that niche aside and to get back to my point.
The Pursuit of Happiness. By denying two individuals the right to marry, if that is what they want… Aren’t we messing with their right to pursue happiness?
No one has guarantees on marriage… they’re right or they aren’t… but shouldn’t we all have the right to try?
What are your opinions?
Comments (47)
I think Ben has a point about the tax issues regarding taxes and the inability of gay or lesbian couples to reproduce. I never really thought about it that way. No wonder the government is hesitant to create laws stating that gay marriage is okay. Hmm…
feeling contemplative today, ang?
i feel that to deny anyone the right to be united in marriage or civil union is to deny the freedom that this country was built upon… and furthermore… to stand on the box of marriage being a sacred act between a woman and a man…. hmmmm well the straight people have been able to make it work almost 50% of the time…. what a success…..
They are the ultimate DINKs. (Double Income, No Kids) I hear Hallmark pays pretty well too. (Inside Joke)
The Tax benefits of marriage are there for the supposed benefit of the children of a couple. It enables one parent to stay home, or to help afford the costs of day care. Perhaps these laws should be ammended, no benefit to anyone to be married, but channel those benefits much higher for each child.
Persuit of Happiness. You’re guaranteed the right to persue it. You are not guaranteed to be happy. Ben’s right, this issue is more about tax benefits and other benefits like health care being shared. Who pays in the long run? The children of a real family.
By the way, I don’t see too may homosexual couples fighting for the right to raise some orphans. Let me know if you find more than just a few isolated cases to justify the reasoning.
I’m with you on this one. I’ve seen the adoption side of it first hand. I coordinated newborn adoptions for a while and I honestly don’t see anything wrong with a gay couple raising a child. Then again, I don’t have issues with homosexuals like the rest of the world.
I agree with you, Ang. Anyone that wants to marry anyone else deserves to be as miserable as I. HAHAH, just kidding! We have several gay couples as friends and I believe, in my heart of hearts, that they should be allowed to marry for many reasons. It will bring them happiness, they can have full legal rights in all matters of healthcare, and all other areas, and it will allow their bond to be seen by there peers and the public in general. I am all for getting the legalization of the same sex marriage passed. That is mt $.02.
Our government really isn’t interested in the notion of marriage, or in the sanctity of marriage. What the government is interested in is the contractual nature of marriage, and the benefits and obligations that are included within that contract. The notions of what a marriage is (or ought to be) are more often used as a political platform. Of course, the stage for the current debate was in part set by the laws passed by congress towards the end of the 19th century aimed at Mormon polygamy. The first of these was the 1862 Morril Anti-bigamy act. And the courts reversed a trend there of giving states the rights to manage these issues and allowed the Federal government to dictate them (this was a huge shift – particularly on the part of the supreme court). Angi notes my views pretty accurately. The only basis on which the government can make a valid response to their current policy is on the basis that they don’t have a vested interest in protecting same-sex marriages.
We have two issues here in my opinion. The first is the idea of what marriage is. Many states still have laws on record that allow for common law marriage. That is, you cohabit long enough, you publicly treat each other as husband and wife, and eventually it becomes just that. The other side of the coin is the legal aspect – inheritance rights, property rights, health insurance coverage, social security benefits, and so on. Once the door opens on what marriage is, just about anything is probably justifiable – whether its a marriage between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a mand and a woman, and a woman, and a woman …. and I don’t think that we need a government to tell us what is acceptable in terms of private relationships.
I think that I am more than willing to draw a line here. But perhaps my line is different from others. I would rather see the government drop the pretense of defining marriage. And let us (as individuals) do that. Let’s see a notion of civil unions get adopted across the board. We can argue the details – but at least we won’t be pretending that our government cares about the notion of the sanctity of marriage, nor will the notions of the sanctity of marriage become a politicizing cry that clouds the substance that we want to address. If we want to personally define that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that’s fine. Let’s just recognize that this may be a personal choice. I also want to see us stop framing this debate in a way that ends up describing other cultures which don’t have the same societal institutions as we do as something to be looked down on.
I believe that marriage is something that both homo and hetero sexuals have a right to, but until our lawmakers stop legislating to the tune that the religious fundamentalist are playing, we will not see successful legislation guaranteeing gay marriage. My strict opinion is that if it doesn’t impact my life or my familt directly, don’t give a rats butt about it. In no way do I see gay or lesbian marriage as a threat or impact to me or mine so who am I to say they should or shouldn’t. I also thing that if more of us spent less time worrying about what others are doing in their private lives none of this would be an issue.
In regards to child rearing. I honestly believe that a gay/lesbian couple can raise a child just as well as a hetero one. The impact to the child comes people who question this or condem it because it doesn’t conform to establish social norm. To quote Bob Dylan “The times they are a changin’” and as a society we need to as well.
In response to Ben’s point, the increase in tax base is not guaranateed, even with hetero marriages as many forgo having children in lieu of careers, medical conditions or just plain don’t want them.
Just my $.02
I just don’t get it? Anyone can get married up here in Canada, if you want to marry a bear you can! ok maybe not that part but I know so many gay people that are married and have adopted kids or “found” a way to have kids.
Kim works with kids and sooooo many of them have “main mommy” or “daddy ken” and it works. Man I love my Country. “OH CANADA OUR HOME AND…….
ryc: I wanna see Ghost rider too!!! I’m going with a gay couple and thier kids!(I’m not but that would be funny)
whytwolf: Just to clarify – I think that the government already justifies a great deal of special priviledges to married people (regardless of whether they have children) and in particular to families with children. I am not saying that this notion should be used as a barrier to same sex marriages, merely that the government has for a long time already justified preferential treatment of one group over other groups. And that this is (in my opinion) the only “good” argument which can be raised for what is clearly a discriminatory practice. But this isn’t how our current government is approaching the subject. And I am not suggesting that it is a “good enough” reason to continue to be discriminatory in this fashion. However, once you open a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can. To what extent we want to engage this issue and deal with it so that we aren’t discriminating with regards to peoples life choices, I think that much of the current rhetoric has to go away. And we need to discuss the real issues. And as you note there are always exceptions. We already discriminate against other specific kinds of marriage. You can’t marry multiple spouses. You can’t marry close relatives. My suggestion is that we stop talking about it in terms of these loaded words and instead focus on the real issues – stop trying to define what the meaning of a word is and start looking at the impact of these relationships and how to make them more equal in terms of benefits, of rights, of priviledges.
Whoa.. If I was not so hung over I would be able to muster an intelligent, informed comment. However, in the meantime – I do not think it fair to deny homosexuals the right to make a commitment to a partner for life and have it recognised in the eyes of the law. The problem seems to be when we hold hetrosexual marriage on a pedestal as something infallible and sacred - as such we thereby seem to suggest that homosexual unions’ could never share the pedestal and will always fall short, or be lacking in something when it comes to being the perfect environment in which to raise a child. Why do we assume that gay unions will be less stable than male/female unions? Has anyone seen the divorce rate recently??
Hungover ramblings over.
well kids are a tax write off, but that has nothing to do with Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I think whatever you situation if you are a working person you are contributing to the economy, Im straight im in an almost common law relationship
I dont have little people, am I not good for the economy, because Im doing the same as a gay couple making a choice not to adopt
I have quite a few gays and lesbians in my family and from watching them in their relationships, they seem to be a whole lot more picky and once they find a partner, they’re stuck for life. Doesn’t seem to be as much cheating as there are in hetero relationships. Just my observation.
And there are a whooooooole lot more gays and lesbians in the world than people think. Aaaaaaaannnnnnd, just because someone is married doesn’t mean they’re not hiding a huuuuuuuge secret!!
Wow, I just let a whooooooole lotta skeletons out of my family closet!!
Anyway, I agree with your opinion, Oh Wise One!
Sitting on the fence…Boy the view is GREAT from up here *grin*
Wow. And here I thought I was in the minority in supporting the idea of gay marriage. This is one area where the U.S. is truly way behind the rest of the world. To be honest, I’m not particularly wigged about whether it’s called “marriage” or “civil union” or whatever… as long as gay couples are given the same legal protections, rights, and benefits as heterosexual couples get when they choose to legally join. As far as increasing the tax base, um… need I point out that not all heterosexual couples decide to have children? Fewer gay couples do (although many in my own community & church have children); but that’s not necessarily because they don’t want to, some are just not up for all the hurdles they have to cross to GET to adopt or have children.
But, the real debate and issue in the U.S. is about the MORALITY of gay marriage, not the legal part. The reason people are rushing out to add constitutional amendments forbidding it in different states is because they’re convinced that Bob & Steve’s relationship (or Sue & Jane’s) ”undermines traditional marriage/family.” It’s a complete crock of you-know-what, but that’s the general agreement; and those amendments have passed with large margins in almost every state where it’s been on the ballot. (God bless Arizonans for having some sense!)
Now, I think you know that I’m smack dab in the heart of the Bible belt, I’m active in a church (have been for years), and I try my best to live out my faith. I’ve studied what the Bible says about homosexuality; and it flat out doesn’t say what I’ve been hearing for years. And where it DOES say negative things about homosexuality is almost always taken out of context (one verse pulled out that sounds good & damning without any understanding of who wrote it, who it was written to, and what was the situation it addressed), it’s almost always from the Old Testament (the “law” that Jesus says he came to replace!), is juxtapositioned near other verses that everyone has long since decided aren’t to be literally applied in the modern era (Leviticus comes to mind–where it says we should stone our children if they are disrespectful to their parents and not cut the hair at our temples), AND the people who use those verses as weapons of hate and isolation go against the most important commandment Jesus himself gave to people: to love one another.
Whew. I’ll take a breath now. Ya think I might have strong opinions here? I mean, come on… even if you’re not sure if being gay is right or wrong in God’s eyes, wouldn’t you rather err on the side of too much love and forgiveness than not enough? I know I would.
i dunno….
your asking a Spazz in a Tigger suit for her opinion¿¿¿
this is way to much thought for me.
gay marriage I think is necessary for those couples together because of the legal entanglements. If you are not a spouse can you visit your significant other in the hospital? How about when someone dies and they are leaving assets? How about medical benefits on the job? How about life insurance? Marriage is a social contract but more importantly a legal one and for gay marriage having that legal would go a long way to clarifying partner benefits and entitlements that through the law need to be clarified…
Ang, I’m not on the fence on this one. I spiritually am completely against gay marriage for me. I’m also spiritually against a lot of things this country deems legal. However, and this is very important, I believe that gay couples should be allowed the same legal advantages of any married couple, i.e. taxes, medical benefits, etc. I say if two people are willing to commit to building a relationship and life together, let them.
Same sex marriage is morally wrong. It is an abomination before the Lord.
That being said, we cannot legislate to prevent sin, been tried and it just points to our inability to do anything about it. I don’t think we should (as a country) condone same sex marriage. Think I may have come close to breaking one of my rules, gonna run and repost them as a reminder to myself
I’m not on the fence on this one either and I say if you’re lucky enough to find someone who you want to spend the rest of your life with…then good for you and it shouldn’t matter what sex you are or what sex they are. You actually WANT to sign a piece of paper that will tie you to that person legally??? Well, more power to you. As for the moral issue…anyone who says they take the bible 100% literally is not telling the truth. I can’t stand it when people pick and choose what to believe in the good book. It says “Love Your Neighbor As Yourself,” too.
hmmmm….to be honest, I dunno if I even have a real opinion on this subject. Personally, it doesn’t affect me. I don’t believe in denying anyone their happiness. So, I dunno, I guess I don’t care either way, gay marriage, fine with me, straight marriage, fine with me. If it is about “STUFF”, you can leave a “WILL” if it is about insurance, that is just a stupid ass reason to get married anyway weather you are straight or gay! Having kids…adopting kids, that doesn’t seems to be an issue since so many folks have been doing it.
My feather’s aren’t ruffled in either direction on the subject.
Boy this is deep! I thought and thought about this before I commented and I really don’t know. If your gay your gay,if your not your not. I don’t think gays should be treated any different than anyone else. I think that for reasons of health insurance and legal issues is a big reason they are pushing for same sex marriage. Personally I don’t like to see public displays of affection. There is a time and place for it and if you are gay you don’t need to announce it to the world-Look at me,I’m gay! Just live your life and be happy.I never thought about the tax issues because of children.Hmmm!
I think my point about taking verses out of context was just proven by Captive Man. Know where it says “Abomination to the Lord?” That would be Leviticus, Ch. 18, verse 22. Gee, just one chapter later (Ch. 19) it says “Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it” and “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” Along with “keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord.” (There’s tons more; but that’s the highlights.)
So, if you believe in ONE verse in Leviticus as still having relevance and/or application to today, why do you ignore so many others from the very same book? Okay, you know I don’t mean YOU in this comment; but it aggravates me to see people using the Bible to advocate discrimination, hate, and anything but loving our neighbor as ourselves.
Wow.. who knew that in order to find such generalizations, stereotypes and hatred I’d only have to come as far as Xanga.
Everyone should have the right to marry and build a family with whomever they choose so long as no one is being harmed. I only add that last part in case someone wants to argue the “everyone” part with me. Laws should be put in place to protect people so I’m happy that there are laws against minors getting married.
In my field, I see all sorts of family dynamics and the only kinds of families that I don’t want to see out there are the neglectful abusive ones. I don’t care who’s raising a child as long as that child’s life is filled with love and respect.
Superb point. I always said that by not allowing gays to marriage we are denying their right to pursue happiness. About adoption for gays… there are some people who would rather see them returned to the orphanages because they fear the kids will be encouraged to become gays themselves. It would be silly if not so scary.
We don’t have laws saying childless marriages are null and void.
When I was married we were a DINK couple…no tax breaks. Now I’m single (but taken
) and there are no tax breaks. It’s hard enough for people to stay committed to each other long enough to raise children together. There are very few Americans that can afford for one spouse to stay home to raise the children…gay or straight. The so called “tax break” would not come close to paying for child care and support for one child, let alone several children. I say…let’s give tax breaks to couples who can flippin’ stay married…children or not. Give us a tax break for every year of marriage. I say $500 a year for every year that you stayed married. Ang….don’t get me started!!!!!!!! LOL 
RYC.. just some of the comments seem to be based on hate. Or perhaps ignorance is a better word.
And yes, the barber belongs to me.
My opinion on gay marriage is this: They are infringing on my rights – the right to have the definition of marriage to be between a man and woman. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. lol
Did you happen to notice that I did not give my opinion one way or another about same sex marriage? It’s not because I don’t have one, but I prefer to discuss it privately.
RYC: Yeah, as long as she is not too crestfallen to come back. I do hope she does…I think she was good.
I support gay marriage.
my opinion? :
they’re all a bunch of jealous bitches…
Call me overly practical, but if we were all homosexual, there would be no human race! Very provocative discussion. As a dyed -in-the-wool heterosexual, I find that I am kept so busy dealing with our family, grandchildren and our issues, I pretty much don’t spend much time thinking about homosexuals and their issues. The tax thing is interesting. Of course people are entitled to equal rights. Our country is dedicated to that proposition.Biblically, God calls for us to multiply and replenish the earth.This is certainly thought provoking and brings forth great debate. RYC: You are very sweet, I look forward to your comments and your blog.
i only meant it in the nicest possible way…
I’m not giving my opinion here – its too much of a debate for me!
Just wanted to say hi and apologise for being AWOL – work work work and little time for play…..and everytime I am about to come to your site, then something else happens that requires my immediate attention – weird, huh? It sucks – LOL!
Have a great day!
Happy Valentines Day…
The goverment pisses off most of our tax money anyway.
What folks do in their own home is nobody’s business as long as both parties agree.
Happy Valentine’s Day to You and Ben.
Ryc – My young man forgot my card!! I forgave him as he is taking me to Barcelona in three weeks time for no aparent reason?? I am a lucky girl sometimes. Have a great day.
Wow– deep topic today. I have a cousin who is gay, plus my BIL left my sister for another woman (Talk about hurt!). I guess I just don’t see why so many people get so worked up about gay marriage. Live and let live.
I think there are many very good reasons to allow gay marriage, but I think that it might be more successful if we first started by allowing civil unions.
And I agree with Siennachartreuse – the government allows marriage between two heterosexual people who never want children, so that “reproduction” thing wouldn’t really be a valid argument against gay marriage.
Happy Chocolate day. lol
will you marry me?
Happy “VD” …opps that doesn’t sound right…to you to!!!
Two words: civil unions. Marriage is a religious thing as well as a legal one. Gov nor gays should be allowed to define it.
Personally I believe gay marriage is wrong, but its one of those power topics that gets people on both sides of the fence. I have gay friends and I suppose I want them to be happy, but am definatly against gay marriage. Have a wonderful day today! – Bek
I am for gay marriages. I just don’t want to see or hear anything involving the graphic parts of your sex life. Of course…that goes for the straight couples as well. My brother’s gay and I wish him the best in life. I would love for him to settle down one day and marry the love of his life. I was going to be a surrogate mother for a gay couple…that would have been awesome but it didn’t go through because they said that they were’nt quite ready. When I told some of my church friends/acquantices (sp)…I did get hell for it. If I had followed through with the surrogacy..would they have still talked to me? Hmmm…I doubt it. It makes me sad.
Thehomemaker
Fence Sitter – NEVER! Angie…You have way too much to say…and we all are waiting