Gay marriage legal in MD

[Esprix]

In our Republic our elected officials (the judiciary is not elected) have not seen the need to legitimize something that is NOT the will of the people. One day perhaps the House and the Senate will all gather on the Mall and in a moment of divine enlightenment dance about in joyous celebration and make it legal. Until that time I guess you will have to lump it.

Lump it, or fight for what's right. Segregation was "the will of the people" at the time, but the courts were the ones that made things happen. Something about protecting the rights of those with the least power to fight for them.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

why not just let the christians keep the marriage title since it was first a christian thing, and just let everyone else refer to their union as a domestic corporation. since, that is what it is in the eyes of the government.

I could then refer to my wife as my wife
and other could refer to their partner as their corporate partner in the
Smith/Tyler Corp.

or whatever the last names might be.

The terms are "civil union" or "domestic partnership."

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

should gays be allowed in the restrooms with others of the same sex?
how about the shower at school?
its obvious that we cant put a gay guy in the shower with the girls, every guy in school would suddenly be gay.

If we have to keep men and women seperated in this instance, why do we not need to keep the gays separated from who they might find sexually attractive?

Gays really dont fit into the world as we see it, now do they?

Funny, I have no problem sharing space with other men without turning into some sort of hormone-induced sex fiend. No doubt the countless number of gay men you have undoubtedly shared such facilities with in the past feel the same, so could you stop being so paranoid? I'm sure it's not good for your health.

and yes, if they are born that way (something I doubt in most cases) then they are living with a mental illness. So, why dont we try to treat them?

You'll excuse me if I agree with every major psychological institutions' conclusions, which have decades worth of research and information under their belts, and not yours.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

If gay marriage is legalized, then gay couples just might appreciate and improve on the institution of marriage for the rest of us.
Think about it....finally getting the right to do something that most everyone else takes for granted. Am I really talking about the people of the United States of America

I've always felt that way - here we are fighting for the right to be included in this institution, which means many of us take it very, very seriously. I won't go so far as to say that every same sex marriage will be perfect and last forever (already some of the couples married in Massachusetts are filing for divorce), but I will say that when you're with someone for 5, 10, 25, 30, even 50 years and you're suddenly allowed to be legally wed, you tend to have a bit more respect for it when you've fought so hard to get it.

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

I have no choice about being straight, because the thought of gay sex nauseates me. I doubt that gays feel any differently about denying their sexuality.

I see three main reasons that people are anti-gay. First is that they aren't able to get beyond their own disgust, so they label anything different from their view as sick. Second would be those who are not confident in their sexuality and fear that they might be "deviant" and want to eliminate the temptation. Third are those who have been taught intolerance and justify it with their religous views.

I don't see how the government belongs in this debate. There are plenty of deviant hetero marriages that have nothing to do with procreation, so why are they legal? If two people want to make a legally binding contract, why should the government stop it?

One of the big anti-gay arguments is the very publicized promiscuity, and the inherent public health risks. Doesn't an exclusive relationship negate that stereotype? While marriage does not guarantee monogamy, it allows legal recourse and can be one more factor in discouraging promiscuity, thereby promoting public health.

I agree with something Vrai said. A marriage before god is a covenenant. Whether or not marriage is based in religion, it is no longer a religious institution. Look at the divorce rate and you can see that.

Well said! Thanks!

Esprix

 

[BuddyLee]

In times of great turmoil we need not devide into numerous factions.

Land of the free...or so it should seem.

 

[Esprix]

That is simply not true. Millions of people have been married in civil ceremonies. I do not see marriage as a religious institution or I never would have done it. It is a legal designation - that's it.

You can SAY it's a religious institution, but that doesn't make it so.

As I said before, I agree with you that although technically marriage is considered a legal institution and requires no religious intervention for its existence, it's also true that, in the popular mind, marriage is also a religious institution since it has been comingled with the law of the land for centuries. From a legal standpoint that doesn't really matter, but from a cultural standpoint it obviously does to a lot of people.

Esprix

 

[Hessian]

Blood test

its been twenty+years since my marriage certificate...um, do states require a blood test before issuing a certificate?

and if so....why?

 

[MMDad]

its been twenty+years since my marriage certificate...um, do states require a blood test before issuing a certificate?

Not for us in Delaware in '97.

 

[BuddyLee]

its been twenty+years since my marriage certificate...um, do states require a blood test before issuing a certificate?

and if so....why?

Not an expert (not married) but I believe they still do. Isn't it to ensure health...i.e. Aids just in case your partner doesn't contract unless he/she already has?

 

[MMDad]

its been twenty+years since my marriage certificate...um, do states require a blood test before issuing a certificate?

and if so....why?

From nolo.com


Are blood tests still required before marriage?

A handful of states still require blood tests for couples planning to marry. Most do not. (For information on which states require them, see Chart: State Marriage License and Blood Test Requirements.

Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease. You will not be tested for HIV, but in some states, the person who tests you will provide you with information about HIV and AIDS. In most states, blood tests can be waived for people over 50 and for other reasons, including pregnancy or sterility.

If either partner tests positive for a venereal disease, what happens depends on the state where you are marrying. Some states may refuse to issue you a marriage license. Other states may allow you to marry as long as you both know that the disease is present.

 

[Esprix]

its been twenty+years since my marriage certificate...um, do states require a blood test before issuing a certificate?

and if so....why?

According to http://www.courts.state.md.us/faq.html#marriageinfo, it doesn't mention anything about a blood test.

Why do you ask?

Another interesting tidbit posted there:

Maryland no longer employs Justices of the Peace to perform civil ceremonies. Instead, only a judge, a Clerk of the Circuit Court or an appointed, designated Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court may perform civil ceremonies.

Esprix

 

[SAHRAB]

Not an expert (not married) but I believe they still do. Isn't it to ensure health...i.e. Aids just in case your partner doesn't contract unless he/she already has?

We got married (in Maryland) in 2002 we did not have to take a Blood Test

 

[nomoney]

Not an expert (not married) but I believe they still do. Isn't it to ensure health...i.e. Aids just in case your partner doesn't contract unless he/she already has?

no blood tests in md. but i thought for those that did do them it was not for aids, etc....it was to make sure you weren't related

 

[MysticalMom]

no blood tests in md. but i thought for those that did do them it was not for aids, etc....it was to make sure you weren't related

Well in that case..it's a good thing they don't do 'em in St. Marys.

 

[tirdun]

Eight states require blood tests, which were given to check for diseases and hereditary issues such as sickle cell. The test that determines how closely related you are to someone else requires DNA testing, and is quite expensive. If you lie on the form and marry your brother/sister, the marriage is void whether you get a license or not.

 

[Hessian]

Notice how political correctness even imperils our health?

They won't conduct a simple test to reveal HIV/Aids but they'll test for sickle cell?

WHY ISN'T OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CONCERNED WITH THE SPREADING OF A FATAL DISEASE?

Aids testing at a marriage blood test would be required if people weren't afraid of the gay lobby..or horrified at having their behavior exposed.
Thus...the disease (which could have been diagnosed) will continue to spread.

Once Blood tests are required again....
Go ahead...issue civil unions to gays: unless they test positive for HIV/AIDs in the mandatory blood test. (might as well include std's too)
Or, the state is giving sanction to the spreading of debilitating & fatal diseases.

 

[MMDad]

Notice how political correctness even imperils our health?

They won't conduct a simple test to reveal HIV/Aids but they'll test for sickle cell?

WHY ISN'T OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CONCERNED WITH THE SPREADING OF A FATAL DISEASE?

Aids testing at a marriage blood test would be required if people weren't afraid of the gay lobby..or horrified at having their behavior exposed.
Thus...the disease (which could have been diagnosed) will continue to spread.

Once Blood tests are required again....
Go ahead...issue civil unions to gays: unless they test positive for HIV/AIDs in the mandatory blood test. (might as well include std's too)
Or, the state is giving sanction to the spreading of debilitating & fatal diseases.

Why single out AIDS? There are a lot of contagious and hereditary diseases that could be screened for, but why is that the business of the government in the marriage process? What's next? You and your fiance are both recessive for Colon Cancer, so you can't marry?

If there is a public health threat, the government has a responsibility to take action, but what does that have to do with marriage?

 

[tirdun]

I'm not sure how this counts as "political corectness". The most recent list I could find had DC, Indiana, Mass, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Connecticut (may have recently been revoked) and Georgia requiring blood tests. Here's a quote from one source (Nolo.com)

Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease. You will not be tested for HIV, but in some states, the person who tests you will provide you with information about HIV and AIDS. In most states, blood tests can be waived for people over 50 and for other reasons, including pregnancy or sterility.

If either partner tests positive for a venereal disease, what happens depends on the state where you are marrying. Some states may refuse to issue you a marriage license. Other states may allow you to marry as long as you both know that the disease is present.

I would strongly suspect that HIV is not on the list more out of inertia than political correctness. Most states have eliminated the tests, the remainder probably don't have any pressing reason to change marriage laws that have been on the books since pre-WWII.

 

[vraiblonde]

They won't conduct a simple test to reveal HIV/Aids but they'll test for sickle cell?

WHY ISN'T OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CONCERNED WITH THE SPREADING OF A FATAL DISEASE?

Because the chance of a heterosexual non-IV drug user contracting it is next to nothing. And since gays can't get married, and you typically know if you're marrying an IV drug user, it's not considered a big risk. Lesbians don't even get AIDS - just gay guys and drug shooters.

They test you for AIDS if you give blood, but that's about it.

You, Hessian, should not spend one second of your life worrying about AIDS.