And I have a cousin whose partner died of AIDS, and even though this man's family had disowned him because he was gay, they were legally able to take all his belongings. They were legally able to decide what happened to his remains and his estate, despite not having even spoken with him in 25 years. That is flat out wrong. I have a deep moral objection to anything that endeavors to take rights AWAY. I will be voting NO on 8, you can bet your ass on that one.

Now, I've been married three times now, done the health insurance paperwork and all that. Each and every time they're pretty clear, coverage is for spouses and family. So, unless your insurance is radically different, you are in essence defrauding the insurance company if you're telling them that you're legally married when you aren't.

Finally, you and your wife already have the RIGHT to marry if you choose. You two have CHOSEN not to. What gives you, or anyone, the RIGHT to tell others that they cannot marry simply because they are not in a heterosexual relationship?

__________________

guess he'd never heard of a "will".
Will (law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)



it's not a gay issue for me. i'm not against people doing there thing. it's a man and women and marriage thing. is there nothing sacred anymore? nothing left in this world unchanged? so what do you want to call it when a male and female devote there lives to each to procreate children in the name of the species. it is it's own thing. a man and women devoting their lives to each other and "making" babies, not adopting but actually CREATING NEW LIFE. what will you call that?

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

sorry fdd :d i was on lortab.

but my mothers gay so thats why i went off..

and it should be tought because it how some people are. eveyone should know

marrige is not only a actof love , and a safety for prooperty , 2 gays in love live together earn things together buy things together.

when one die's the other gets nothing because they arnt married but if a regualr couple does. they get what the both worked for.

Frankly, that's a completely smart-ass and condescending response. Considering that both men had (have in the case of my still-living cousin) advanced degrees, I'd be willing to bet that they'd heard of wills. Family still trumps "friends" in the court's eyes, though.
Yes, you are wrapped up in the gay thing. Otherwise you wouldn't be so wrapped up in who's fucking whom. It's hypocritical of you to first state that you and your wife aren't married despite having made at least two children together (by my last count) and being together for 20 years and then ask if nothing is sacred anymore. Where you draw your line is different from where others draw their lines, and there are plenty of people who would say that you and your wife don't hold your relationship or the legitimacy of your children sacred, too. I'm not one of them, but you're picking and choosing your argument poorly here.

This is about people's rights. People have a right to happiness and its pursuit as long as they infringe upon no one. So, how would my two dyke friends marrying be an imposition on you? You are supposing to first define marriage, and then going on to essentially rip it apart by your own living situation. I see that as cognitive dissonance.

I'm not bashing you for how you vote, either. I am calling you out, though, for being a hypocrite and endeavoring to take away the rights of an entire group of people to do their own thing and make themselves happy. A lot of people prefer to live according to the law, in that regard and in other regards. You don't have the right to tell them they can't or shouldn't, just as no one has a right to tell you you're fucked up for not committing to your wife and marrying her.

It's all in your perspective, and yours comes off as straight homophobic. Is your marriage to your wife only about fucking and making babies, or is there something more to it? How about Dave and I? He can no longer reproduce, and soon neither will I. Is our marriage therefore not valid in your eyes because WE are not about making babies?

__________________

i have 1 child. i'm neutered. i chose not get get married. i never said it was required. if a man and a woman choose then fine. my choice is irrelevant in this. my wife and i aren't married. we are out NOTHING. we are perfectly happy. no need to demand our "maritial rights", whatever that is. you didn't address this. a will holds in court if done right. didn't some rich lady just leave all her money to her dog? and i'm pretty sure nore than one wife or husband has lost to oppisite family in will diputes. you can't say it only happens to gay people. i think your wrong about a lot of what you just said. in fact, your facts of me are waaaaay off. i have no need to ague them. i know who i am and where i've been. you obviously don't.


"fucking and making babies"? is that what you and dave do? "fuck"? i'm sorry to hear that. i hope some day you can experience "love". and do you need a piece of paper to prove it?

you said "dyke".

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

I want to know how you can be on the same insurance without being married? I can't have my own kids on mine because they are over 19 and not full time students.

Miss Hester, the only way you can do it is to lie to the insurance company. Health insurance availability on a family policy, at least through an employer, is usually restricted to spouses and under-age dependents. We've wanted to put Dave's dad on his insurance, but cannot because, despite the fact that he is our dependent, he is an adult and so must purchase separate insurance.
Fdd, I simply took your lead. If you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't have chosen that tack. And that tack included who is having sex with whom. I simply used what I saw as the same sort of language you decided to start with. Fucking, banging, semantically they're both pretty close. And that was one of the very first things you mentioned, along with homosexuality being touched upon in sex education class.

You made the argument that marriage is about men and women committing to having and raising children together. I brought up Dave and I because we are not making children anymore. I guessed at the number of kids you have because I remember you remarking about a son and I thought I recalled you commenting about a daughter, but that was quite some time ago. Is the number of children relevant to the concept, though?

What I am saying is that, irrespective of whether or not you and your wife choose to "make it official", any consenting adults should be able to marry if they so choose. Your implication that it is something profane is offensive to me on a very deep level. You did imply that when you said this, whether it was your intention or not.You're apparently trying to argue the point that allowing gays to marry will somehow not help the economy (I don't know where that one came from, but.. ok) and that anyone can enjoy the benefits of marriage without actually being married. This is incorrect. For if it were, then why would homosexuals be working so hard to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals?

What it comes down to, though, what you don't seem to get or accept or whatever it is that you're experiencing, is that the government has no right "defining" marriage as anything. If it simply must define it, and we live in a culture where it does, then it should only be between consenting adults. I will not even say it must only be between two adults, because a happy marriage can be had in many situations and, while not my thing, do not negatively impact me. I do not have the right to tell people that they don't have the right to be married to whomever they choose in whatever manner they choose. You, though, seem to think you do have that right. I disagree, vehemently.

You can make all the attempts to crack on my relationship and marriage that you want, which was indeed made official by a ceremony and words spoken and hugs and kisses and laughter and tears and pictures and the breaking of bread, and absolutely, YES, a piece of paper that was signed by all, including the officiating minister and those who witnessed the ritual. Your attempts to diminish our relationship, though, do nothing of the sort. The point you're missing completely here is that you and your woman have the choice and freedom to exercise that choice. An entire group of people should also have that choice.
Hmm.. I'd call that the reaction of a homophobe. Not saying you are, but you sure sound like one. I don't know. You tell me, since this is what you and your "wife" have done by making a baby and not making it known to the world that it's a marriage (remembering, again, that we live in a culture in where the government defines what is a marriage and what isn't). Again, there are those who would ask you the very same thing, is nothing sacred? How old-fashioned is it, really, to do what you're doing?

But, hey, go ahead and dismiss the idea.

__________________

I'd highly recommend you retract your statement.

you've called me a liar, hypocrite and homophobe. all i said was i'm not married and i'm not experiencing any losses. what gives me the right to decide? well, it's on the ballot isn't it?

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

YES on 5.


Proposition 5:

• Requires California to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
• Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation.
• Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole.
• Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes.
• Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation.
• Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions.

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be