The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct. 3, 2002
    Location
    Boogerville, USA
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    ... Having been the friend who had the pick up truck used in a Lesbian Move Out, OMG, don't do it. More vicious that a hetero break-up by an order of magnitude.
    BTDT, many times! OMG Do NOT even get in between them. Stay in the truck; you'll be a little safer.



  2. #22
    Join Date
    May. 12, 2000
    Location
    NE TN, USA
    Posts
    6,201

    Default

    They'll probably allow it.

    SCOTUS is made up of lawyers, so think about how much the lawyers are going to make from all those additional divorces that will result.
    “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.”
    John Adams



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct. 3, 2002
    Location
    Boogerville, USA
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sketcher View Post
    I had a divorce atty tell me recently that lesbian couples were the easiest to divorce because it is typically amicable. So, while I've had a lesbian friend here and there over the years who probably would fit into the scenario above, I wouldn't say it is typical.
    Truly it depends on the temperament or mental stability of the gay or lesbian in question - as it would with straight people. All things being equal, females can be more vicious and devious than males.



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoForAGallop View Post
    Not exact stats, but numbers are very easy to find via Google. Though I'm not sure why it matters?

    I do know that here in MA, the home of the civilized (if slightly over-taxed), gay marriage has been legal since 2003. Somehow our cities have not burned down, our economy has not shattered, and here's a good one for the religious right to suck on....our divorce rate is one of the lowest in the country, oftentimes THE lowest from year to year.
    Yep, Mass is doing well on most fronts, 9 years later. DH and I were married in 2004, the same year legal gay marriages were allowed to start taking place. Our marriage license says "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "Groom" and "Bride" like my first one did.

    A lesbian couple in the neighborhood was married the same year. Both marriages are still doing fine .


    8 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    We kind of have an informal pool going around the legal dept. in which I work. Most people seem to feel that in both cases the court will avoid a decision on the merits--that is that the court will avoid finding that DOMA and Prop 8 violate the Equal Protection of the 4th Amendment clause.

    The majority speculate that in the Prop 8 CA case, that the people bringing the appeal to uphold Prop 8 do not have standing since they are just citizens who organized the initiative petition and are not California officials or their designees. This makes sense because if they could bring the appeal, they could also settle it, which means that they could bind the state of CA to an agreement that the state of CA doesn't want. And the people of CA couldn't vote them out of office--because they aren't in any office. So that looks like the best decision in that case.

    They could go the same way (lack of standing) in the DOMA case although the facts are different. The other procedural ground that they could decide it on would be federalism--that is that the federal government doesn't have any right to regulate the qualifications for marriage and that that is the exclusive province of the states. The court could go that way, but the danger is that states like Utah may want to legalize polygamy and the federal government would be powerless to stop it. Historically, Utah was only accepted as a state in the USA on the condition that it make polygamy illegal. With Islam being the fastest growing religion, polygamy may well be the next battleground.

    Polygamy is the real "slippery slope" fear, not marrying your dog. The only real way, I think to avoid a slide toward acceptance of polygamy is to decide both cases on the procedural standing issue. Or to find that prohibition of gay marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause, because gay couples are similarly situated to straight couples (one person marries another person.)

    Personally, I hope that they decide it on the merits and find that these laws violate Equal Protection. It is the right thing to do.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller


    5 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May. 10, 2009
    Location
    NC piedmont
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    I hope that they decide that just as racial segregation was illegal under the 14th Amendment, that disallowing couples the right to marriage based on their sexual orientation is also illegal...the 14th Amendment gives all Americans equal protection under the law.

    And for the religious zealots that whine about the Bible, I hope every one of them follows every other rule laid out in that Book--like keeping a Kosher table, for instance. If they do not follow every Biblical rule to the letter, they are hypocrites, plain and simple.

    Also, if a particular church does not wish to marry a same-sex couple, it should not have to, as that's up to each religion to decide..but ALL couples should have the right to get married in front of a JP or at City Hall. We don't have the right to tell people how they should be allowed to love each other. Nobody has that right.


    8 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan. 14, 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    5,763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nasalberry View Post
    Truly it depends on the temperament or mental stability of the gay or lesbian in question - as it would with straight people. All things being equal, females can be more vicious and devious than males.
    Yes, females can most definitely be more vicious and devious than males. You'll get no argument from me there.

    But we are talking about lesbians, and believe it or not, there is a difference much of the time. I have a wide circle of lesbian friends and am married to one myself and in my personal experience, women tend to break up with less animosity than hets. Can there be krayzee? Absolutely.

    I only mentioned it because I happened to be talking to a divorce lawyer who said she experienced lesbian divorces, out of the hundreds of divorces she has overseen, are often (obviously not always) more amicable than most - and this jibes with my personal experience over the last 30 years.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May. 10, 2009
    Location
    NC piedmont
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Statistically, same-sex couples are more likely to remain monogamous than heterosexual couples. Just a little food for thought.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryisBlaisin' View Post
    Statistically, same-sex couples are more likely to remain monogamous than heterosexual couples. Just a little food for thought.
    That and other that has been presented is really moot question.
    The real question here seems to be, why does anyone else but those involved should have anything to say about who they go with or marry?

    This is about certain personal freedoms that should be the same for all.
    This should not matter to anyone else but those involved, when they decide to become a family, be it of two or same sex.

    So what if same sex marriage had more divorces? That should not matter.
    They may be as happy or unhappy married as everyone else.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by supershorty628 View Post
    If you're ever in the Twin Cities, please let me buy you a drink (or a coffee or what have you).
    Or if either of you are ever in Tucson! I still do not understand how if two people whom neither I nor my spouse know are of the same sex and are married how that affects my marriage. Pretty sure I would still be married and no less married.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nasalberry View Post
    Truly it depends on the temperament or mental stability of the gay or lesbian in question - as it would with straight people. All things being equal, females can be more vicious and devious than males.
    I think horror stories abound for all sorts breakups and are not necessarily in relation to the sexes involved.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Dec. 1, 2007
    Location
    Gettysburg, PA
    Posts
    2,624

    Default

    I really hope that gay marriage is allowed and all people have equal rights. If you feel it violates your religous belief, then don't conduct the marriage in your church.
    Epona Farm
    Irish Draughts and Irish Sport horses

    Join us on Facebook


    6 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    May. 12, 2000
    Location
    NE TN, USA
    Posts
    6,201

    Default

    “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.”
    John Adams



  14. #34
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2000
    Location
    Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    23,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    All good, except!

    I'm sure, too, that insurance companies and perhaps employees are just as happy to not have to give discounts to gay couples as they do straighties.

    Insurance companies could care less, all they really care about is gaming the system - meaning you pretend someone is your "domestic partner" solely to get them insurance coverage for some condition. Recognizing the legal union would clear up some muddy waters and what insurance companies hate are muddy waters. Who marries who? notsomuch.

    In other words, insurance companies and national employers are waaaaaaaay ahead of the gub'mint (with exceptions made for places like Chik Fil A - tasty sammich, lousy morals).
    Definition of "Horse": a 4 legged mammal looking for an inconvenient place and expensive way to die. Any day they choose not to execute the Master Plan is just more time to perfect it. Be Very Afraid.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2010
    Location
    Westford, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMK View Post
    Insurance companies could care less, all they really care about is gaming the system - meaning you pretend someone is your "domestic partner" solely to get them insurance coverage for some condition. Recognizing the legal union would clear up some muddy waters and what insurance companies hate are muddy waters. Who marries who? notsomuch.

    In other words, insurance companies and national employers are waaaaaaaay ahead of the gub'mint (with exceptions made for places like Chik Fil A - tasty sammich, lousy morals).
    Yes. Some employers here in Mass were offering domestic partner coverage long before gay marriage was made legal here. It's actually made things much simpler. At first, domestic partner coverage was only available to same sex partners, because they couldn't get married. Straight, unmarried, couples then wanted it too, and some employers had to struggle with fairness on that issue...some offered domestic partner coverage to straight couples, some didn't. Then, there was the issue of proving domestic partnerhood. It's much more straightfoward with gay marriage...proving a marriage is relatively easy and the same rules can apply to everyone, across the board.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #36

    Default

    I think everyone on both sides is just going at this all wrong. Get government completely out of marriage. Everyone should file their taxes as individuals. Legal documents should be written up to cover medical directives, wills, etc... If I want my sibling, parent, partner, child, insert any person under the sun to make medical decisions for me and not my spouse, then that should be my choice. A marriage document should never trump that. A person's assets should not by default go to their marriage partner. There should be a document stating where their assets go.

    If we get government out of marriage, then people can marry whomever or however many people they want since there will be no government legal paperwork involved. Marriage will become a ceremony about commitment like it was meant to be rather than a legal contract. Then churches can support the types of marriages they wish. People can have their friend, parent, whomever marry them because it is only symbolic not legal. Insurance companies and businesses already choose how to hand out benefits, since benefits are just part of a total compensation package. The only thing that government would then get involved with is child custody and support which happens already in unmarried couples.



  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sporthorse Shop View Post
    I think everyone on both sides is just going at this all wrong. Get government completely out of marriage. Everyone should file their taxes as individuals. Legal documents should be written up to cover medical directives, wills, etc... If I want my sibling, parent, partner, child, insert any person under the sun to make medical decisions for me and not my spouse, then that should be my choice. A marriage document should never trump that. A person's assets should not by default go to their marriage partner. There should be a document stating where their assets go.

    If we get government out of marriage, then people can marry whomever or however many people they want since there will be no government legal paperwork involved. Marriage will become a ceremony about commitment like it was meant to be rather than a legal contract. Then churches can support the types of marriages they wish. People can have their friend, parent, whomever marry them because it is only symbolic not legal. Insurance companies and businesses already choose how to hand out benefits, since benefits are just part of a total compensation package. The only thing that government would then get involved with is child custody and support which happens already in unmarried couples.

    I have friends who are unmarried couples who have attempted to achieve a legal domestic partnership through written contracts rather than get married and automatically be subject to the rights and obligations that come with marriage. First, it was very expensive to have lawyers draft these agreements. Second, it was impossible to completely mimic marriage because so many federal benefits (like Social Security) attach to spouses.

    Call it what you will, but "marriage" is just another form of legal entity such as partnerships or corporations. When you enter into a business partnership or become a corporation, there are many rights and obligations that you are subject to automatically.

    Regarding health care--Right now in most states you can sign a health care proxy that will designate the person that can make decisions regarding your care if you should be incapacitated. Have you done that? What will happen if you haven't?

    You can have a will leaving your assets to someone other than your spouse. But what happens if you don't do that?

    My point is that most people don't or can't afford to hire a lawyer to draft documents that will memorialize their wishes. Usually the law only steps in to provide the answers where the individual has not provided for that in a written agreement or where the right or obligation concerns a government benefit.

    So it is easy to be glib and say that the government should get out of the marriage business, in practice it would cause lots of confusion and uncertainty.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller


    3 members found this post helpful.

  18. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectic Horseman View Post
    I have friends who are unmarried couples who have attempted to achieve a legal domestic partnership through written contracts rather than get married and automatically be subject to the rights and obligations that come with marriage. First, it was very expensive to have lawyers draft these agreements. Second, it was impossible to completely mimic marriage because so many federal benefits (like Social Security) attach to spouses.

    Call it what you will, but "marriage" is just another form of legal entity such as partnerships or corporations. When you enter into a business partnership or become a corporation, there are many rights and obligations that you are subject to automatically.

    Regarding health care--Right now in most states you can sign a health care proxy that will designate the person that can make decisions regarding your care if you should be incapacitated. Have you done that? What will happen if you haven't?

    You can have a will leaving your assets to someone other than your spouse. But what happens if you don't do that?

    My point is that most people don't or can't afford to hire a lawyer to draft documents that will memorialize their wishes. Usually the law only steps in to provide the answers where the individual has not provided for that in a written agreement or where the right or obligation concerns a government benefit.

    So it is easy to be glib and say that the government should get out of the marriage business, in practice it would cause lots of confusion and uncertainty.
    First, no benefits should automatically attach to a spouse. You are approaching the problem given the way marriages are set up today. If we abolish marriage legally then the government sets new guidelines for benefits. Second, you don't need a lawyer to draft basic wills or medical directives. Third, you are correct that the legal part of marriage is essentially a business partnership contract. So, if everyone, ie tens of millions of people, need basic legal help to form a partnership contract, then there will be a booming business for drafting easy cheap contracts. This doesn't exist now because domestic partnerships are rare.

    It takes all of a few hours to write up a basic medical directive and will. If someone doesn't bother doing that, then they really shouldn't complain when something happens. For health care and assets if you don't have the documents, then legally they can default to next of kin. If one didn't want that to happen, then they should set aside the TV remote and spend the couple of hours drafting the documents. People make such a big deal out of drafting these types of documents when they are very simple.

    If I get married, I don't want the government in my marriage... why would anyone??



  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sporthorse Shop View Post
    So, if everyone, ie tens of millions of people, need basic legal help to form a partnership contract, then there will be a booming business for drafting easy cheap contracts. This doesn't exist now because domestic partnerships are rare.
    I think that you are vastly overestimating the number of people who would have a contract, no matter how cheap and easy. There are relatively few people who even have a will or a health care proxy.

    So in the end, the government would still have to figure out who owns what. And if you have ever lived with anyone and paid jointly for household items--it is not that easy to figure out who gets what after the fact, and almost no one keeps track of it when it is still the honeymoon stage. One way or the other, the courts or the government would have to sort it out.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller



  20. #40
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    All good, except!

    1) Heard someone on NPR today talk about the Roe v. Wade decision and the way that created huge backlash. That was because of the issue but also because it raised the problem of state vs. federal power. Their point was that if the SC was premature in agreeing to hear these test cases for the gay marriage issue, they might be creating the same future cluster-f.

    OTOH, as someone pointed on the NPR show, the cultural acceptance of same-sex unions has been lickety-split-- much faster than abortions or feminism. No one under 30 "gets" the homosexual bigotry thing.

    2) And has anyone priced out the cost of extending the benefits and rights of marriage to gay couples? In the second case, (regarding the payment of $300+K in inheritance tax by the surviving spouse in a gay marriage), Uncle Sam loses some money. I'm sure, too, that insurance companies and perhaps employees are just as happy to not have to give discounts to gay couples as they do straighties.

    So, the advancement or decay of society aside, what's up with the money?
    Somebody threw out a ballpark figure of 100 to 200 billion dollars that could/would be spend if gay marriage would be allowed: all in just wedding expenses! Nothing to sneeze at and enough taxes to be had from that!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    3 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: Aug. 15, 2014, 08:34 PM
  2. What is your marriage like?
    By halter broke in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Dec. 26, 2012, 04:32 PM
  3. New Movie About the Fight for Equality by Women Jockies
    By Mike Matson in forum Off Course
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Jul. 17, 2011, 01:34 PM
  4. Marriage Proposal
    By Gray Horse H/J in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May. 29, 2011, 01:42 PM
  5. A small step for marriage equality
    By lizathenag in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Aug. 6, 2010, 01:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •