Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

I agree.  I believe people should be able to have a contract, civil union, that is recognized in the same legal manner as a marriage but marriage should not be re-defined.

Precisely what I am thinking.

Government should recognise civil unions of any type or form (between two people) and possibly allow anyone to be a member of more than one such union and "marriage" should mean what it always meant.

That way everyone gets what they want and we conservatives get to keep our world too.

So basically, what you are saying is you believe that the Gov't should only be part of the situation of a marriage when the situation is similar to that of a contract between, say, a person with another person, a person with a business or a business with a business, but that when it comes to the concept of marriage itself, the Gov't should have no say what so ever?

If so, then I agree.

Yes.

"Marriage" is a matter of linguistics, not law; I think. The word means something.

Marraige - No

Civil Union - Sure why not. Also let people claim their pets on taxes (have you seen the vet bills?)

It won't be long before some crack pot is arguing for spousal rights for human/annimal relationships. Their arguement will be gays are allowed, who's right is it to stand in the way of love.

A married couple is family and they should have all the rights and benefits that being a family deserves.

I hate to spoil the vast right-wing conspiracy alarmist view of JU  . . shouldn't someone be speaking out about the desecration of America? 

I think the government should refuse to grant marriages, and instead grant only civil unions. If marriage is a social institution incorporating a clear and historically based discrimination, even if that is somehow considered to be a good thing, the government should have no part in it.

Was there a marriage license and/or certificate involved?  Do you have authority by the state to officiate in weddings?  Does the marriages you performed require the state to recognize the marriage in official activities? 

If so then how can you say the state had nothing to do with them?

You say that the state has nothing to do with the marriages you perform, yet you insist the Federal government should?

Holy double talk Batman!

Parated2k . . I should have been more clear.

1. I had to register at the local courthouse
2. I had to sign a marriage certificate for each couple
3. I meant to say that the government had no value add to what I did.  They weren't central to the ceremony.
4. I believe even that much is too much and I believe that they should not be involved in marriages at all.  They should record the "civil union" contract for the reasons stated above.

Thanks for pointing out my gaps.

You didn't tell us what you thought of the whole thing.   ???

So what you're saying is, you want to be able to create a contract between two people and the government, but you don't want the government to have any say at all in their part of that contract?

It's simple, if you take the government out of it then you have to remove any government guarentees or benefits that go with it.

In other words, no filing taxes jointly, no family income levels, no community property, no automatic custody of or right to make decisions for children...

If you don't want government recognition of marriage, you don't want the family unit at all.

What do I think about it?  I think Stalin and Lenin had the same idea.

How is this any different than any other attack on the family institution?   Satan would love it!

and loves you for championing his cause.

but other than that, I have no feelings either way. :~D

I don't care whether it is called marriage or civil unions but whatever it is called I think the same benefits should be extended to heterosexual and homosexual couples.  Traditionally marriage has mainly about making it easier to exchange property.  Look at what marriages were done for in medival times, often they were done to signify a truce between two warring parties or to combine kingdoms, etc.  Love was no where in the equation.  So why not allow the same to happen today, allow a couple to join together in a union so that they can file joint taxes, have medical power of attorney in the case of their partner getting ill, etc.

Those who are concerned that allowing homosexuals to get "married" means that the various religious institutions would have to recognize the relationship need not be concerned.  Just like a catholic priest can refuse to officiate over a wedding involving any non-catholics he can also refuse to officiate over a homosexual wedding. 

There is a religious (or maybe not so religious) event when two people promise to be together before their god  and/or their friends.  That's a marriage.

Separately . .there could be a contract designed to confer rights, privileges, and a framework for child protection.  That's a civil union.

I think that the second one is the government's business at all levels and the first is not.  And I think that people should be able to do one or the other or both and get the seperate benefits as they apply.

marriage is a religious institute, civil union contracts should be open ot anyone of any gender, and espouse equal benefits, which is, none at all whatsoever; but if you have to give some privilages, they should apply to gays as well... but not by redifining marriage, but by revising the laws to give equal rights to civil unions.

In fact, stop tracking marriages alltogether. Leave it for the church, have states ONLY track civil unions (married hetrosexuals can be civil unioned... or they can choose not to register with the state)

But currently marriage does provide benefits.  Married couples are allowed to file taxes jointly, spouses are the medical proxy in the event that one is incapacitated, upon death the spouse automatically inherits the estate, etc.  Those same benefits should be extended to same sex couples.

Speaking strictly on the economic impact to couples, didn't Joe Biden state that it was patriotic to pay more taxes? Isn't this a good time for homosexuals, who probably on average support Democrats far more than Republicans, to be the uber patriotic of their party? Isn't the goal to redistribute the wealth? Sounds like evil capitalism at work to me. They are not being team players.

Which is what I said in the same sentence. I said that if you MUST extend benefits to married couples they should also be given to civil unioned couples... right there, same sentence.

This reminds me... the absurdity of kicking gays out of the military is that it is perfectly acceptable for straight men to die for their country, but we don't want any homosexuals on the front lines? I guess its more of the fear that they might weaponize a threatening group... it would be hard to set up concentration camps when a general and a sizeable portion of the chain of command is meant to go there.

Of course that just requires the extra step of firing them a few years in advance... hitler showed how you can do it one step at a time...

BTW... how come its acceptable now for a man to have another man as a wife, but not have two wives? I want two wives dammit!

But nooooo...

The satan has won another battle in his war against the family.

[quote]I heard on the news this morning that the lawyer that got gay marriages recognized in Massachusetts is bringing suit against the federal government to recognize legal marriage by the states and provide equal benefits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html?ref=us)[/quote]

Same gender 'marriage' is absurd.