Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

[pedroh 21]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

yeah.. damn those discount cards

[Danno 1,228]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

What is this constant reference we keep hearing about emergency and hospital visits.

If this is a big concern for gay-folk (as it should be) why not march on any hospital who has such a policy?

I suspect this is nothing more than a little "tug at the heart" excuse for ** Marriage, because they could fix this situation quickly if it is an existing policy at many hospitals.

I have been to the Hospital and no one ever made me "prove" I was a relative to anyone.

Again if this is a real ongoing offense to the Gay community, they could change that policy quite easily without wasting all this time waiting for **-marriage.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd imagine that "**-marriage" as you put it, would solve many of these types of issues at once. Granting a legally recognised spousal stats to the partner grants a whole range of "benefits", as Platy indicated. More than the one that you homed in on.

[dalegg 143]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

If it wasn't for the fact that you and your SO are from different countries, but lets say met in the local supermarket, and you had been together (as man and wife) for ten years, would you still want to get married?

No.

[dalegg 143]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

[SonoranSongbird 3]

The reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:

1. file taxes as married.

2. Ability to be "next-of-kin" for emergency and legal reasons.

3. Family insurance (the partner is a professor, and therefore has good health insurance while the guy who was our friend first has minimal - if any - health insurance.)

Our country offers benefits to married people. As such, our government is discriminating against certain citizens by denying them those same benefits. It's like those damn discount cards at supermarkets.... It's $3.99 if you have a card - $5.29 if you don't.

#1 doesn't really take a change in marriage laws. The government could amend the tax code and solve that issue without offending anyone.

#2 can be solved with a legal writ I would think. If it can't, again a simple amendment to make those legal statements most binding would solve the problem.

#3 - well, at least with my insurance that is already the case. Significant others have every right to the same insurance coverage as wives and children. The answer there is to change insurance companies.

Of course, you could use that logic to argue against heterosexual marriage just as readily.

[fozzie 41]

People are still promiscuous though...

That's what the nightclub scene is all about...

True, albiet not quite as acceptable, as it once was, and much more "restrictive" as to the possible outcome for the evening. Even the gay community has become much more monogamus, which puts us back on topic. But, too late for Freddy Mercury!

Mags and I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for 10 years. That's about as monogamous as you can get - longer than many hetero marriages, even.

I'm curious about couples like this. Do they intend to get married if it is legal? If so, is there something specific they are looking for by getting the marriage certificate that they don't have now, or is it just to say "we're married"?

If it wasn't for the fact that you and your SO are from different countries, but lets say met in the local supermarket, and you had been together (as man and wife) for ten years, would you still want to get married?

No.

So are you just getting married because you have no other choice?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

This ####### still going on??? wow.

[almaty 19]

terrible..i think all we need is illegal gay muslims to make it as long as a Ken's thread

Edited April 6, 2009 by almaty

[SonoranSongbird 3]

terrible..i think all we need is illegal gay muslims to make it as long as a Ken's thread

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

still @ it?

jeez, live and let die man

[Danno 1,228]

I'd imagine that "**-marriage" as you put it, would solve many of these types of issues at once. Granting a legally recognised spousal stats to the partner grants a whole range of "benefits", as Platy indicated. More than the one that you homed in on.

Using marriage is one way to solve the problem but a very slooooow way to resolve it... if a hospital visit was really the goal.

Usually when I have a beef with a business, I take it up with them, I don't try to force UNWANTED change on everyone else.

So My neighbor has one wife and a woman living as a second wife (true story) all together, unfortunately she can't get wife no2 health insurance, how do we remedy this problem?

Using your logic, we need to allow these three to marry, this would not only give insurance (not to mention hospital visitation rights) to this family but their children would not grow up with the social stigma that those in these situations live under.

If you deny them the right to marry, tell me why you hate those kids?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

terrible..i think all we need is illegal gay muslims to make it as long as a Ken's thread

not going to happen - we know what happens to gay muslims.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=189593

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd imagine that "**-marriage" as you put it, would solve many of these types of issues at once. Granting a legally recognised spousal stats to the partner grants a whole range of "benefits", as Platy indicated. More than the one that you homed in on.

Using marriage is one way to solve the problem but a very slooooow way to resolve it... if a hospital visit was really the goal.

Usually when I have a beef with a business, I take it up with them, I don't try to force UNWANTED change on everyone else.

So My neighbor has one wife and a woman living as a second wife (true story) all together, unfortunately she can't get wife no2 health insurance, how do we remedy this problem?

Using your logic, we need to allow these three to marry, this would not only give insurance (not to mention hospital visitation rights) to this family but their children would not grow up with the social stigma that those in these situations live under.

If you deny them the right to marry, tell me why you hate those kids?

But that isn't *the goal*. The goal is a variety of legal rights that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples (of which that is but one).

And thanks for injecting polygamy back into the debate - as if it has anything to do with what you quoted above

Get some new arguments Danno - this polygamy thing angle is getting very stale.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But I imagine you've "settled down" since then.

Conventional relationships aren't for everyone, but most people end up with a life partner or two.

Redefining our laws to accept a marriage involving several partners would be almost impossible. Again the reasons for this are obvious.

Sure. Like I said, fear of STD's, mainly HIV-AIDS, had a lot to do with it. Experimentation without consequence is one thing, but when a lifestyle starts killing people, then the party ends. It was more than just settling down. Society changed. People changed along with it.

That lifestyle you described, the hippy commune was never exactly more than a fringe activity though, it was never mainstream. Only people with a very different view of society and relationships ever joined them. I don't think I know anyone who ever joined one and I don't know where there was or are any either in the UK or the US. The mainstream has been coupledom and will be for the foreseeable future - not least because of the safety net that being a member of a family brings.

It was never mainstream, that was for sure. But slip into the canyons around Los Angeles, and onto the surounding foot hills, it was not as uncommon as you may think. Rural communities and hippies still seem to go together along the West coast.