<p align="center"><img border="0" src="http://somd.com/news/kingscorner/images/king-head.GIF" alt="King's Corner" width="336" height="143"></p>

I have been delinquent in coming up with a completed work lately. Not that there is a lack of suitable material, because there is a ton of it, but mostly due to arguing myself out of the position I started with. I hate that. I’ll have a position on a topic and get about two-thirds of the way through an article and the next thing I know is that I have discovered a piece (or pieces) of information that makes me re-think my entire view and typically results in a reversal of the position I started with. It almost drives me crazy. Anyway I have been helped along my path this month be recent events in the news and some of the reactions to that news. Here goes.

In just a few days we will celebrate the 227th anniversary of our Independence where our founding fathers clearly stated that we, the people (soon to be of the United States of America), had an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That phrase has meant a lot of things to a lot of people and, in my mind, was further amplified with the recent decision by the Supreme Court to declare the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html). The impetus of that decision was that the law was restrictive to the liberty of consenting adults within the privacy of their home.

Now, because of that decision, some feel that this has opened the way for same sex marriages. Reactionary responses to the decision have grown to where there is a push in Congress to amend the Constitution to declare that only marriages between a man and woman would be recognized in the United States. Any such amendment, I feel, would be an overstepping of the authority of the Federal government into the rights previously held by the states and protected by the 10th Amendment.

Our states have routinely and regularly determined what is and is not a marriage and I feel that the states should retain such authority. In Maryland the law states that the only valid marriage is one between a man and a woman. I fully agree that our state has the right to make that determination, but I feel that the state or, maybe more appropriately, the Federal government must realize that there are other forms of relationships that exist beyond what is considered the norm.

Personally, I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to live as they choose (no matter how incomprehensible that lifestyle is to many of us) without fear or loss of rights within our country. Our laws are such that persons choosing to live together outside of marriage aren’t always afforded the same access to insurance, the benefit of filing taxes together, even accompanying the significant other in areas of hospitals where married persons are regularly allowed to comfort and attend to their “spouse”, and many other areas of our everyday life have been or are denied to them.

While we may not agree or accept the lifestyle these people have chosen we most certainly should tolerate their right to live as they choose. Please understand that my views on this are strictly concerning behavior of consenting adults and in no way should it be taken to include activities with minor children or forced activities, which are crimes. It seems to me that by blocking the ability of same-sex partners to establish a “civil union” is a direct violation of the protection afforded by our Constitution as it relates to equal protections under the law (14th Amendment).

As I see it there is an easy way to “fix” this problem. That being that the Federal government should allow and sanction “civil unions” between same-sex partners that carries equal benefit as to what is afforded to opposite-sex couples that marry. These “civil unions” could be looked upon as many states now view their common law marriages. Additionally, this application could extend to cover other couples (besides same-sex) that choose not to enter into wedlock but chose to simply live together. They should be allowed to enter into a “civil union” recognized at the Federal level and honored by the states. People that live together, versus being married, should not be subjected to differing standards of laws (and taxes) as those that chose to marry.

I’m sure that many of you will disagree with this view of mine, which is fine. I seem to have a knack for taking a position against the masses when I think a fundamental wrong is being done. All I ask is that you help me understand why it is that only those that chose to enter into wedlock should be able to provide health coverage for their entire family (meaning either same-sex partner or their significant other that they are living with), that only those that are married can make a decision for an incapacitated spouse/significant other, and that only those that are married can claim one another on their taxes and file jointly. It seems absurd to prevent or block a couple from many of these “rights” when so many are living as if married, just without a piece of paper from a state that says they are.

I'm all for same-sex marriages! :cheers:

:yay:

I definitely agree with this whole-heartedly!

Originally posted by SxyPrincess
I'm all for same-sex marriages! :cheers:

:yeahthat: Why should the Federal Government regulate personal affairs such as this? As long as nobody is getting harmed....I don't care!

I'm against federally endorsed shacking up. You're either married or you're not. The way people move in and out on each other, there must be some distinction and, as an employer, I'm not willing to give health benefits to whoever my employee is shacked up with this month.

That said, I think it's high time same-sex marriage (the real kind, not some civil arrangement) gets some exploration. I've said before that I don't know how you can deny marital rights to taxpaying adult citizens. It doesn't have to be religious - I wasn't married in a church either time.

Same for me with gay adoptions. Not sure how someone can make the case that living in a foster home or an orphanage is better than having parents who love you, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Larry's across the desk from me typing furiously - I'm positive he's posting in this thread :lol:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
That said, I think it's high time same-sex marriage (the real kind, not some civil arrangement) gets some exploration. I've said before that I don't know how you can deny marital rights to taxpaying adult citizens. It doesn't have to be religious - I wasn't married in a church either time.

Same for me with gay adoptions. Not sure how someone can make the case that living in a foster home or an orphanage is better than having parents who love you, regardless of their sexual orientation.

:yeahthat: :yay:

Originally posted by cariblue
:rolleyes: Kwillia, Em, Pixie, Mig and I will finally have a chance at marital bliss...:bubble:

Originally posted by SxyPrincess
Kwillia, Em, Pixie, Mig and I will finally have a chance at marital bliss...:bubble: You'll have to move to Utah.

Originally posted by Kyle
You'll have to move to Utah.

I'm already packed! You guys ready yet??:cool:

Originally posted by ememdee19
I'm already packed! You guys ready yet??:cool: You don't have to ask me twice...:cool:

Originally posted by SxyPrincess
Kwillia, Em, Pixie, Mig and I will finally have a chance at marital bliss...:bubble: If we include LMR and marry each other as couples and then swing on the weekends we won't have to become bigamists :bubble:

...you Godless, sodomite, pagen heathens...

I, Captain Virtue, am here to save you from yourselves.

All I ask is that you help me understand why it is that only those that chose to enter into wedlock should be able to provide health coverage for their entire family

This is a false statment. You can provide all the health insurance you want for anybody you want. What you are after, obviously, is for a company to pay for the significant other just like a spouse.

It's changing. Companies are starting to offer "significant other" type coverage. Wal-Mart and others are leading the charge. Matter of time.

I, however, think it should be illegal for a company to provide health insurance to homosexuals.

:diva:

Oh. Huh. Guess those aren't roses you are tossing at me, eh?

Try this one then you dirt people: I think it should be illegal for companies to provide insurance for ANYBODY. You enter into a contract, you get paid, you pay your taxes AFTER you get paid and then buy all the insurance you want. If the market is there (and it is) businesses will cater to that market. End of stigma. End of unfair treatment and YOU control it.

Next.

that only those that are married can make a decision for an incapacitated spouse/significant other, and that only those that are married can claim one another on their taxes and file jointly

Got me there. There should be a civil recognition of rights and responsibilities, IE a marriage-like social contract. Shacking up? No rights or privileges. Committed? Sign here. Then we can have gay divorce. Gay pre-nups, true equal rights.

The women in here are for gay marriage for one reason only: They love going to weddings.

Therein lies the rub. Are we really gonna have gay marriages in churches, tuxes and white dresses with big receptions, limos and rice, cute little kids bearing rings, flowers and Uncle Festus, smashed, doing the Macarena?

The answer is: Yes.

My brother has an ex who we all loved and I'll be Goddamned if he wouldn't do it.

I'm thinking about the whole friggin bouquet and garder thing and I need a drink.

And, who, (whom?) precisely, get's given away, Mr. Justice for All??? And who has to obey whom in Methodist gay weddings???

Can of worms sez I.

Well?

Originally posted by cariblue
Larry...

:killingme Yeah, you should hear the conversation we're having right now. :duh:

MADRID, Spain, July 2 — Scientists in the United States have created hybrid human “she-males,” mixing male and female cells in the same embryo, in a move that has outraged fertility experts and anti-abortionists. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/934076.asp?0na=x2202230-)

...if we evolve to some sort of "civil union" it must be identical to marriage in scope and legal authority or it will violate the very equal protection we are purportedly trying to rectify.

If it is some sort of "marriage-lite" civil contract then everybody will want one and be entitled to it under equal protection statute and then we will have traditional male/female couples wandering around this new legal status and grandmas far and wide will wonder what the hell is going on.

All will be unpredictable chaos for awhile, unintended consequences running their course, all in an effort for some simple legal rights?

That said, it is clearly (and rightly) a matter of time for some sort of recognition to become reality and some serious thought needs to go into this first.

"Here comes the...groom(s)?"

...everybody thinks this is some big joke!

All y'all can frolic around this issue, all happy and ga...er...uh. Dammnit, you know what I mean!

One minute you're taking it up the tailpipe, the next you're abandoned and stuck with the credit cards bills.

This is serious!

Everyone talks about the rights that should be afforded same sex couples, what about the responsibilities?

For example: A homosexual couple can chose to have a child through adoption. However, because they have no legal status as a couple, what in fact happens is ONE person adopts the child as a single parent (on paper) and the couple raises it together. What happens if the couple breaks up? The adoptive parent gets custody but shouldn't the other pay child support? They had a verbal contract to support this child jointly, shouldn't both contribute to the financial welfare of the child.

Speaking of welfare: This is a true story and it happened in St. M's county. There was a lesbian couple who decided to have a child by artificial insemination. The biological mother decided to become a stay-at-home mom. They owned a very nice house and nice cars together. The employed partner made in excess of $100K (10 yrs ago) and her company offered health insurance to domestic partners. They qualified for welfare because there was no father in the house, the mother was unemployed with no income and since all physical assets were jointly owned by someone not in the "welfare family" they couldn't be counted against the mother. They were careful to keep all liquid assets in the employed partner's name. They received full welfare payments and never lied about anything. It was such a good deal, they had a second child. If this couple could be recognized as a "legal" couple or if the employed partner were a man, they would never have qualified.

By all means, let them get married.

I think homosexual marriage and adoption should work exactly like traditional ones do. If you get a divorce, your beloved can take you to the cleaners. If there are children involved, you're responsible for them. The marital system we have now seems to be working okay - just take out the whatever that says it must be between a man and a woman.

Well said, Ken.

I have a few friends who might quibble over semantics on a couple of points, but I won't. While some could learn from such a discussion, it's basically moot in light of the big picture.

If anyone is interested in knowing what a gay marriage--or partnership, or civil union, etc., whatever you're more comfortable with (a rose by any other name)--is like, I'll gladly offer a brief word-picture, for I'm part of one, right here in SOMD.

Originally posted by cariblue
Is there something that makes it any different than a male/female relationship? I mean, outside of the obvious, isn't it still a relationship with responsibilites, give and take, disagreements, good days, bad days? :yeahthat: :confused:

I think part of why people don't like the idea is the image of the ceremony, and religion and all that.

If gays have a 'civil union' that has all the perks of marriage, sounds good enough to me.

Ok, I have to admit, I'm not crazy about seeing a man walk down the aisle in a bridal gown, even if it is Dennis Rodman. I'm probably not ready to see the wedding kiss. I guess I think, let them do it, but I don't want to watch it.

...Ok, please, if you would, speak as an authority on the subject;
what would you like to see happen???

Thanks!

This is a false statment. You can provide all the health insurance you want for anybody you want. What you are after, obviously, is for a company to pay for the significant other just like a spouse.
Yeah, I wasn’t very clear here, my intent was to say pretty much what you said, that those that are able to obtain health coverage via their employment should be allowed to include their same-sex partner or significant other. Restrictions as to how long they must be an established “couple” is something I hadn’t really thought about. Many marriages don’t last as long as some folk that simply live together, but the married folk have the option to be covered under most insurance plans offered by employers.

It's changing. Companies are starting to offer "significant other" type coverage. Wal-Mart and others are leading the charge. Matter of time.

I, however, think it should be illegal for a company to provide health insurance to homosexuals.
You’re right it is changing but isn’t it time to treat everyone as equals in regard to health coverage?

Try this one then you dirt people: I think it should be illegal for companies to provide insurance for ANYBODY. You enter into a contract, you get paid, you pay your taxes AFTER you get paid and then buy all the insurance you want. If the market is there (and it is) businesses will cater to that market. End of stigma. End of unfair treatment and YOU control it.
Well, if they kick into my salary their portion of what is paid for health coverage I could live with that. Would they do it is another story and how high insurance costs would become is another, once you are no longer in a company negotiated package.

And, who, (whom?) precisely, get's given away, Mr. Justice for All??? And who has to obey whom in Methodist gay weddings???
Does anyone have to be given away? Courthouse ceremonies don’t do that and some church ceremonies don’t.


And furthermore...
...if we evolve to some sort of "civil union" it must be identical to marriage in scope and legal authority or it will violate the very equal protection we are purportedly trying to rectify.
Agreed and that is what I think the “civil union” should be, equal to a marriage.

If it is some sort of "marriage-lite" civil contract then everybody will want one and be entitled to it under equal protection statute and then we will have traditional male/female couples wandering around this new legal status and grandmas far and wide will wonder what the hell is going on.
Not sure I’m following you here. I think there would still be many people that would choose not to commit, a lot like what we have now. And give the grandmas some credit, they have seen many changes in society and have adjusted to most of them fairly well.

Originally posted by cariblue
cmac, it doesn't sound like this particular couple would have gotten married anyway. They're looking for ways to scam and marriage wouldn't have fit in the scheme. A male/female couple could have pulled the same crap.

They took advantage of the loopholes in the system, but never pretended anything else. But I think the non-biological mother would've assumed a legal parental role if she could b/c by all reports, she was a devoted parent figure. A male/female couple could've pulled the same thing except that they probably would've skipped the artificial insemination and done it the natural way. As a result the biological father would bear some responsibility financially.

Originally posted by cmcdanal
They took advantage of the loopholes in the system, but never pretended anything else. But I think the non-biological mother would've assumed a legal parental role if she could b/c by all reports, she was a devoted parent figure. A male/female couple could've pulled the same thing except that they probably would've skipped the artificial insemination and done it the natural way. As a result the biological father would bear some responsibility financially.
Interesting branch of conversation, it spawned the following question. If a “standard” couple (male and female), with the male being sterile, obtained an offspring by artificial insemination and then divorced, would the “biological father” (the donor) be financially responsible in any way for the child that he helped create?

Originally posted by Ken King
Interesting branch of conversation, it spawned the following question. If a “standard” couple (male and female), with the male being sterile, obtained an offspring by artificial insemination and then divorced, would the “biological father” (the donor) be financially responsible in any way for the child that he helped create?

Such donors generally sign a contract releasing them from responibility (annonymous ones always do). The courts have upheld this. A traditional couple will usually also sign a contract where the man assumes legal responsibility before the procedure is done. Some states require the man to then "adopt" the child to solidify his rights, but I don't think MD does.

You know what I think is interesting? When people or groups bandy words about in order to avoid calling something what it really is.

Why bother with new classifications like "civil unions"? How will it differ from true legal marriage? And if it won't, why not just call it "marriage" and be done with it?

They do this with abortion too and it drives me crazy.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
You know what I think is interesting? When people or groups bandy words about in order to avoid calling something what it really is.

Why bother with new classifications like "civil unions"? How will it differ from true legal marriage? And if it won't, why not just call it "marriage" and be done with it?

They do this with abortion too and it drives me crazy.
Well, when you have some (like Senator/Doctor Frist) talking about the “sacrament” of marriage and protecting it, wouldn’t it be right in line with our over exuberant desire to be politically correct to create a separate term?

Originally posted by cmcdanal
Such donors generally sign a contract releasing them from responibility (annonymous ones always do). The courts have upheld this. A traditional couple will usually also sign a contract where the man assumes legal responsibility before the procedure is done. Some states require the man to then "adopt" the child to solidify his rights, but I don't think MD does.
"Generally", "usually", but nothing absolute? Sounds as if there is wiggling room for the right lawyer to get around this and stick the biological father with financial responsibility. There are many scenarios where I think a man could later challenge the validity of fatherhood derived from artificial insemination. Like say the woman shows up pregnant again without the knowledge of the sterile man, thereby leaving a challenge as to the origin of the previous child.

Originally posted by Ken King
"Generally", "usually", but nothing absolute?

Nothing is ever absolute. There have been cases of sperm donors later becoming sterile and wanting to reclaim their samples, some used, some unused.

There is a story on tonight's CBS News about a girl seeking her biological father, who was an anonymous donor.

There was a story last year about a little girl who was the result of a donated egg, donated sperm, surrogate mother and the people who contracted to get all these elements together. She was made a ward of the state until they could sort out in court who was legally responsible for her and who could claim custody. There were 10 potential parents (all the donors, contractors and their spouses) and all but one was willing to take custody. The one who didn't want her was the man of the couple who contracted for her. The couple had divorced after signing the papers but before the child was born. He denied responsibility since he was not the biological father and only signed the contracts because his wife was obsessed with having a child. In the end, he was forced to pay child support and refused to ever see the child. The donors, the surrogate mother and their spouses all claimed that they either didn't know what they were signing, didn't fully understand, or the facts were misrepresented to them.

Originally posted by Ken King
Well, when you have some (like Senator/Doctor Frist) talking about the “sacrament” of marriage and protecting it, wouldn’t it be right in line with our over exuberant desire to be politically correct to create a separate term? It's also interesting to note that marriage is a State/Federal legal arrangement, yet Frist is bringing "sacrament" and God into it. Whatever happened to separation of Church and State?

The quicksand cometh!

wouldn’t it be right in line with our over exuberant desire to be politically correct to create a separate term

Then, wouldn't somebody have a legitimate gripe that they now are excluded from this new status? Wouldn't a specific "gay marriage" stati be the same problem that many now say hetro marriage is, exclusionary?

Originally posted by Larry Gude
The quicksand cometh!



Then, wouldn't somebody have a legitimate gripe that they now are excluded from this new status? Wouldn't a specific "gay marriage" stati be the same problem that many now say hetro marriage is, exclusionary?
Would a "civil union" be exclusionary? I'ld say no as it would just allow a choice for anyone seeking to formalize a relationship into a partnership. You could get "hitched" by marrying or by having the civil union.

And Granville, it's hard to take you serious when your avatar has a character wearing a beret. One might think that you are all for civil unions. :lmao:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It's also interesting to note that marriage is a State/Federal legal arrangement, yet Frist is bringing "sacrament" and God into it. Whatever happened to separation of Church and State?
Yep, that took me back too when I heard him say that and that he would support a Constitutional amendment declaring that a marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.

Originally posted by cmcdanal
Nothing is ever absolute. There have been cases of sperm donors later becoming sterile and wanting to reclaim their samples, some used, some unused.

There is a story on tonight's CBS News about a girl seeking her biological father, who was an anonymous donor.

There was a story last year about a little girl who was the result of a donated egg, donated sperm, surrogate mother and the people who contracted to get all these elements together. She was made a ward of the state until they could sort out in court who was legally responsible for her and who could claim custody. There were 10 potential parents (all the donors, contractors and their spouses) and all but one was willing to take custody. The one who didn't want her was the man of the couple who contracted for her. The couple had divorced after signing the papers but before the child was born. He denied responsibility since he was not the biological father and only signed the contracts because his wife was obsessed with having a child. In the end, he was forced to pay child support and refused to ever see the child. The donors, the surrogate mother and their spouses all claimed that they either didn't know what they were signing, didn't fully understand, or the facts were misrepresented to them.
So depending on the circumstances of the case (which I really like, resolving an issue on its merit) nothing in the contracts that they signed was an ironclad guarantee for not later being held responsible.

...then, if you will discriminate against me...

it's hard to take you serious when your avatar has a character wearing

...based soley on who I am as a human being then I have no choice and will seek recourse. I give you the "Beret Wearers are People as well" act of 2003 or BWAPAW.

Now, the thing about some sort of civil union that isn't marriage, then won't everyone want one? Two kids shacking up for a few months that want benefits? If so, and I think this is the obvious outcome, then how does this serve the stated purpose of legitimacy and equality when it will clearly be used to "game" the system in manners probably at odds with the stability of the society at large?

The concept of same sex union as legal entity for legitimate purposes is easy to swallow. Go ahead, I'll wait while you make big joke. Ha ha. ...The actually "married" part is going to take some getting used to which is why I see some sort of "don't ask don't tell" idiotic bastardization heading our way.

Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1910-2003Jul2.html

It's the first time in his professional career Mikey has ever had anything intelligent and thought provoking to say. Ever.

I'm waiting to hear what SCBaby has to say. She is an interested party, as it were.

I'm just afraid that the sight of men frolicing about in white gowns when they clearly aren't even virgins will make my testicles ascend. I don't want that.

Hmmm...we're not being very conservative in here, are we? I'm scared Jesse Helms will swoop down and confiscate my VRWC membership card. :frown:

One thing: What would be the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
... One thing: What would be the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"? Alimony vs. Palimony.

Originally posted by Kyle
Alimony vs. Palimony. What's the difference?

50-75%.

Depending on the judge.

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...then, if you will discriminate against me...



...based soley on who I am as a human being then I have no choice and will seek recourse. I give you the "Beret Wearers are People as well" act of 2003 or BWAPAW.
Okay, we’ll leave you French looking folk alone. :roflmao:

Now, the thing about some sort of civil union that isn't marriage, then won't everyone want one? Two kids shacking up for a few months that want benefits? If so, and I think this is the obvious outcome, then how does this serve the stated purpose of legitimacy and equality when it will clearly be used to "game" the system in manners probably at odds with the stability of the society at large?
I don’t think everyone will want one; hell we have people on this forum that can’t even find someone to date. And people “game” the system all the time. It used to be popular to marry in December and divorce in January as some thought that they could have the advantage for tax season and dump their partner right after and go back to free living.

The concept of same sex union as legal entity for legitimate purposes is easy to swallow. Go ahead, I'll wait while you make big joke. Ha ha. ...The actually "married" part is going to take some getting used to which is why I see some sort of "don't ask don't tell" idiotic bastardization heading our way.
Okay, no swallowing jokes, I’ll leave that to the others. Bastardization is the American way isn’t it? To paraphrase a line from Stripes, As Americans our founders were the dregs that were kicked out of every decent country in the world.

A reasonable rule or thought gets modified to meet the needs of whoever feels it will benefit them. I simply think that it is time that we allow for the union, marriage, or whatever you want to call it and get beyond this BSing around.

Got to go, we just got an early secure, I’ll pick this up later in the evening.

Happy 4th of July to all, be safe, and make sure that you come back after the holiday.