Gay marriage opponents seek to reverse new law - Sentinel & Ent...

Just another example of the arrogance of Massachusetts imposing their laws on people in other states. No surprise at all...and of course, our legislators here are doing such a great job with this state, that they should be dictating what others in other states do to, right?

Bruce W Marien wrote:

Just another example of the arrogance of Massachusetts imposing their laws on people in other states. No surprise at all...and of course, our legislators here are doing such a great job with this state, that they should be dictating what others in other states do to, right?

Explain how this forces other states to honor Mass. marriage laws? If Mississippi, for instance, doesn't want to recognize the legal marriages of it's citizens who marry in Mass, it doesn't have to.

Gay couples and families are denied the same right that heterosexuals enjoy to have their marriages recognized accross state borders, by federal statutes.

Of course, that will eventually change. Specifically singling out one minority group for special discrimination usually fails in the end.

What type of people focus their energies on trying to take away other people's rights? Don't they have anything else to do?

Get a life, anti-gay activists.

This is the third time a gay marriage in MA thread has been made

I have no problem with gay marriages in fact I enforce it as long as they have the same rules and regulations heterosexuals have. For example does everyone not know that as long as you are gay and have a so called significant other (keep in mind your'e gay now; because heterosexual couples do not count); they can put each other on health insurance policies as long as they have the same address (which I know of that being abused too), nevertheless; where are our rights, in a long term relationship (man and woman of course) 9 years.......I could not put my significant other on my health insurance because we are of opposite sex, now I want to know if they are not being treated fairly because in my opinion they have been granted more than enough. They don't need to get married to have benefits and I am all for it as long as they are treated just like US !

Pathetic!

With all the other things going on in the world today, this is what people choose to focus on?

ALL people should be able to live as they want to live and not be harrassed by opposers and furthermore, "specific groups" of people should be not told how to live by our Government.

Get a new focus people. There are much bigger problems to solve than this.

Why do you people care? Mind your own business and stay out of theirs.....

Dani California wrote:

This is the third time a gay marriage in MA thread has been made

What exactly does this statement mean????

QEII wrote:

I have no problem with gay marriages in fact I enforce it as long as they have the same rules and regulations heterosexuals have. For example does everyone not know that as long as you are gay and have a so called significant other (keep in mind your'e gay now; because heterosexual couples do not count); they can put each other on health insurance policies as long as they have the same address (which I know of that being abused too), nevertheless; where are our rights, in a long term relationship (man and woman of course) 9 years.......I could not put my significant other on my health insurance because we are of opposite sex, now I want to know if they are not being treated fairly because in my opinion they have been granted more than enough. They don't need to get married to have benefits and I am all for it as long as they are treated just like US !

This is just a thought but maybe opposite-sexed couples are not offered benefits because the have the option of marriage. I agree, grant same-sex couples that same options (marriage) as opposite-sex couples and stop all partner benefits. Then they would be treated just like US!!!

George W in DC wrote:

<quoted text> What exactly does this statement mean????

Get Dick to explain it to you.

Dick?

haha

And i was mistaken, there's about 5. Do we need this many stories about the MA gay marriage vote?

the fact that they have been caught misrepresenting what the signatures are
for will never come up I'm sure.

Sounds like a bunch of people just BLOWING a lot of smoke to me.

It doesn't matter......the legislators know much better than anyone else.....they wouold overturn the vote, just like the original referendum.......C'mon people ....this is Massachusets.....Communistic land of Kennedy, ...uh corruption I meant..(same thing)

isn't it fit and fun in the gay world-who cares about this issue-I have a gay friend(c0-worker)

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Explain how this forces other states to honor Mass. marriage laws? If Mississippi, for instance, doesn't want to recognize the legal marriages of it's citizens who marry in Mass, it doesn't have to.
Gay couples and families are denied the same right that heterosexuals enjoy to have their marriages recognized accross state borders, by federal statutes.
Of course, that will eventually change. Specifically singling out one minority group for special discrimination usually fails in the end.

Hi Quest,

This would allow people from other states to marry here and then try to enforce that marriage in another state, otherwise, what is the point in them coming here to marry unless they move here?

QEII wrote:

For example does everyone not know that as long as you are gay and have a so called significant other

Not where I live & work. My partner and I used to have the option to do so thanks to our certified domestic partnership, but that was voided by the amendment that passed here (Michigan) in 2004, banning ANY form of recognition for a same-sex relationship.

The work-around was to create a policy that allows an employee to add another person to their policy WITHOUT that being based on a definition of their relationship to each other. Which might sound great on the surface, but they added a lot more restrictions on top of it, like requiring joint bank accounts, power of attorney, etc.

It's quite ironic - requiring proof that there's a relationship through the intertwining of finances and estate management, when the whole reason for ditching the old policy was that it relied on.....wait for it......

.....proof of a relationship through the certification of one's domestic partnership, which opponents of same-sex marriage said was akin to creating a marriage-like status for same-sex couples.

QEII wrote:

where are our rights, in a long term relationship (man and woman of course) 9 years.......I could not put my significant other on my health insurance because we are of opposite sex, now I want to know if they are not being treated fairly because in my opinion they have been granted more than enough.

The basis of your complaint is a system that relies on 'separate but equal' rules for different groups of couples. Given how much more one gets from marriage in a legal context as compared to a domestic partnership, I'm afraid I can't be all that sympathetic to your complaint. At least you have the option, as an opposite-sex couple, to get married. We don't, and the whole point of offering domestic partnership benefits exclusively to same-sex couples was as a remedy for that inequality.

YOU seem to be the one wanting special treatment, here.

Bruce, don't some states recognize Mass. gay marriages even if they don't perform such marriages themselves? I believe New York is one such state.

This isn't a thread about anti-gay activism, unless some of you choose to make it so. I would be just as opposed to ANY law that allows people to come to Massachusetts to make use of a law here that is contrary to a law in the state they live in. I'm sure some of you vocalizing how this is unfair to the gay community would be the first to say that allowing someone from massachusetts to go get a gun without being checked out shouldn't be allowed because it is against our gun laws. That is why different states have different laws. If gays want to marry, they should move here where it is legal.

Bruce W Marien wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Quest,
This would allow people from other states to marry here and then try to enforce that marriage in another state, otherwise, what is the point in them coming here to marry unless they move here?

They could just as well go to CA and get married and return to their state. They can go to NJ and get a civil union and do the same thing.