greeney2 wrote:No, next up is why if anyone can marry anyone now, why the Morman's can not have several wives again, if it is mutual consent? Why isn't that unconstitutional to not allow that, there reliogion allowed it?
Like I said before, marriage has responsibility and limits. Now gay married couples will be responsible for each other debts, where nothing made them responsible as single couples, like catostrophic hospitial bills and taxes. Secondly, programs they qualify for as single people now, will have a new criteria as married status, and many benifits will end. Hospice, medical, other things keyed to income of a single will all change with marriage.
greeney2 wrote:I didn't say I was in favor of either polygamy or same sex marriage, but if you are going to allow one becasue it discriminates and is unconstitutional, how can you deny the other, for the same reason. You ask what reason is there for not allowing same sex marriage, what reason would you have for not allowing polygamy, if they are all consenting adults? If the one doesn't affect me why does the other? Pretty obvious we have thrown out any religious teachings, when it comes to any laws for Constitutional rights, and that is the primary argument against either.
As far as the adding of "dependants", that definatly was one of the reasons partners formed civil unions, when the Federal law was passed allowing declared partners, to be added to group insurance coverage. And it was a scam of the system, that violated people with conventional marriages and families, who negotiated those rights as benifits with their companies. Dependants had to be legitimate, such as a spouse or lawful child. It most definatly was a primary reason for doing so, in order to get major medical treatment, for partners who were otherwise uninsured. It was one way of getting coverage without being turned down, because group medical can not put preexisting or time limits for certain things like private policies can. Coverage would be instant, with the civil unions, and you could declare your partner, just as if you were a newly married man and woman, regardless of preexisting conditions. The end result is companies further take coverage away, becasue of these laws requiring them to insure people they never intended, driving our cost of insuring legitimate families up.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest