AZ Prop 105

[PHX31]

Here's a dumb question.

Do people that want gay marriage only want it to be "equal"? Or are there some marriage benefits (maybe monetary) they don't get because they aren't "married"?

If you can be in a "civil union" or whatever they call it, and get all the same benefits that a married couple gets, who cares if you can technically get married? Unless it's just the fact you don't feel you have equal rights.

I don't really care either way, if people want to get married, get married. Hell, get married to a sheep, or horse, or house (as I've seen on TV).

[combusean]

^ You don't get all the benefits of a married couple if you are in a civil union. Namely, other states aren't forced to recognize the union, thus denying the partners' legal standing to each other in a whole host of matters.

Also, from a GLAAD write up: "According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bringnone of these critical legal protections."

http://massequality.org/ourwork/marr...ivilunions.pdf has a whole bunch more topics on the subject.

I'm opposed to 102 for two reasons: 1) Marriage is not the government's business. 2) We had laws like this before, except that the churches and government were using them against interracial couples, non Christians, etc. Nothing's changed.

And PHX, "getting married to a sheep, or horse, or house" will always be illegal. The evangelicals love to use that as a scare-tactic against legalizing same-sex marriage, what they don't understand is that none of those entities have the capacity to enter into a contract, which is what marriage or civil unions are at the fundamental level.

[PHX31]

/\ Good information, thanks.

I just said the sheep/horse/house thing because to me, what other people do is their business. Just like I don't want people all up in mine.

[Vicelord John]

I'm not referring to people wanting to change the rules. I am referring to those peoples attitudes. They are often elitist, obnoxious, and seem to have trouble controlling their PDA.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by combusean

1) Marriage is not the government's business.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! I hope to someday live in a world where the government has nothing to do with marriage. What two (or more) consenting adults choose to do is up to them, it ought to be a religious or social ceremony, not a governmental one.

[PHX31]

The only thing is there are governmental benefits to being married. So, if they're giving benefits to you, I suppose they can reserve the right to have a say.

Right and wrong, they have no say, but giving or not giving, I'd think is different.

To get even more elementary (obviously, like I said, I don't know much about the subject), what are all of the "1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government"?

Do some of them deal with things a same-sex married couple can't do/provide? ie, child birth?

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by PHX31

The only thing is there are governmental benefits to being married.

Right, but there shouldn't be. The governments job is to protect us against force and fraud and protect our liberties, not make up a bunch if inane tax loopholes for people of varying lifestyles.

[PHX31]

That may be true... but everyone wants to take advantage of them...

It seems to be a much more complex subject than simply same sex people really wanting to say they're "married". If it was that simple, then of course who wouldn't be for allowing people of all gender preference to get married? Who cares? (besides extreme religious peeps).

[combusean]

This document breaks down the 1000 or whatever benefits thing a bit more.

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.GAO.pdf

198 taxation statutes,
287 Civillian and Military service benefits,
104 veteran's benefit statutes,
106 social security statutes,
63 "Federal Natural Resources" statutes--I had to paste it because I had no idea: More than 40 of these provisions extend life estates to individuals and their spouses owning homes on property which the government has purchased for national parks, monuments, battlefields, and other federal lands. Other statutory provisions in this category consider interests of both
husband and wife in determining property ownership eligibility for government leases of irrigation water and mineral rights.

There's a whole bunch more. Marriage to me is a right, a responsibility, and a privilege. Maybe it is the government's business who you're married to, but that's not to say they should have the final say, especially when that decision is being propped up by one single element of society that is beyond reason and intellectual debate.

[Tfom]

Not to beat this dead horse, but I had a thought that the whole fiasco with ACORN employees registering Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck just to make a buck should add some further fuel to making sure this fails miserably.

[PhxPavilion]

I would certainly hope so.

[Don B.]

Interesting sidebar to the Prop. 102 debate:

I tried to set up a debate between proponents and detractors of this proposition at the law school. I managed to reach the chair of the No on 102 campaign, state representative Kyrsten Sinema (through their scheduling coordinator and vice-chair), and she tentatively agreed to come on Monday, October 27. I then contacted the Yes on 102 folks. Two important differences:

1. The No on 102 folks had a phone number to facilitate things like this much easier. The Yes on 102 people only had an e-mail contact.

2. The Yes on 102 folks refused to play, even though we offered free media publicity, an open to the public venue on campus, and 400 people from a more conservative law school than ASU or UofA to attend.

Their stance baffled me. I think they felt they had nothing to gain by joining in the forum discussion. I noticed they are running heavy TV ads and I think they are going to rest on their haunches on this one. Quite sad...

That being said, it was all re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We gays are going to lose our asses on this one. The polls are showing significant support in favor of the Prop. I predict a 60/40 pass rate. The tyranny of the majority is alive and well.

--don

[trigirdbers]

But if the government is to have nothing to to with marriage, why not vote yes on 102? If marriage really is a private institution, what business does the government have in sanctioning ANY marriages, gay or straight?

[HX_Guy]

Huh? A vote of yes would mean the government does have the right to say that only marriage of one man and one woman is allowed.

[DowntownDweller]

Originally Posted by PhxSprawler

Also, the payday loan reform will prevent the override from expiring that limits the annual percentage rate to 36% on payday loans. The complex wording doesn't describe well that the loan stores will benefit, and be allowed to continue charging nearly 400% interest.
.

A yes vote on 200 would extend payday loans the ability to operate in AZ indefinetly. If no such legislation is passed, payday loan stores will cease to exist in 2010, which would make me very happy.

[trigirdbers]

Right, but at least it limits the amount of "marriages" that the government sanctions. If you believe that the government has no business defining what a marriage is, surely it is better to limit the scope of their power with the goal of one day rolling back their present governance of straight marriages as well. Otherwise, you put the government in a tricky spot because there are other groups with a better claim to marriage rights (such as polygamists who many judicial scholars believe have a superior constitutional claim to marriage rights than gays, etc.)

[HX_Guy]

Majority Rule initiative not favored by voters, poll says

http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...ll1028-ON.html

Good, I hope it gets defeated on Nov. 4th. Also, Ankarlo is taking about the proposition tomorrow morning on the 8:30 show...I'm curious to hear his take as well as people who call in.

[PhxPavilion]

I urge everyone to vote no on props 101 through 300 this election as they are all designed via special interests.

On the topic of 102, marriage is ultimately a religious concept and as such I can see where opposition lies to that which is ultimately frowned upon in said religious groups, however I also believe in the freedom of two individuals regardless of sexual orientation the right to government related benefits that other individuals otherwise recieve.

[Don B.]

Remember, remember, the 4th of November
Equal rights, prejudice, and plot
I see no reason
why the discriminatory season
should ever be forgot.
VOTE NO ON PROP 102

--don

[Turkpbr]

Originally Posted by Vicelord John

sorry dude I gotta vote yes on 102. It's not about the marriages, it's about the attitude of the people wanting to change the rules.

I vote no. If I have to suffer through marriage, then so do those who choose same sex partners.