Posted on 08/04/2012 7:06:57 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family … Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.”
The words above come from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that made the state the first to authorize gay marriage. They are also part of a longer passage read last month at the Newport, Rhode Island, wedding ceremony of Gretchen Sisson and founding Facebook employee Andrew McCollum, who were among a growing number of straight couples turning to Goodridge v. Department of Public Health for a definition of matrimony that advances a philosophical, resonant, secular rationale for their heterosexual union.
The journey of Goodridge from law books to wedding programs likely began shortly after the case was resolved. In this first phase, couples included the ruling in their weddings to make an ideological statement. Conservatives had responded to the outcome in Massachusetts by placing anti-gay-marriage referenda on over a dozen state ballots. In the Kvetch forum of the now-defunct website Indiebride, lefty brides mulled “a way to include guests who were gay and couldn’t get married and show respect for them,” recalls Nina Callaway, who started as About.com’s weddings expert around the time. “It was about sending a message.” Someone suggested reading from the majority opinion by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, the most bracing passages of which—such as one assessing what it means for some citizens to go “without the right to marry”—did not wear their political objective lightly.
But other parts of Marshall’s opinion offered no such defiance. With a little deftediting
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
I’ve been wondering about something from a legal standpoint:
If a gay couple had their wedding, and then afterward they sit down with a lawyer and signed papers giving each other power-of-attorney, wouldn’t that essentially give them most of the legal benefits of a straight married couple?
I’m not that well-versed in the law, so maybe some FreeperLegals can help me out with this....
I think the big problem is hospitals. I think this is the one thing that created this entire disaster. Hospitals refused to allow a partner to go into the hospital to say goodbye or hold the hand during last breath, etc. They still cannot give any direction at all on the health of the person...it has to be a sibling or parent. I just don’t see what the hospitals can’t lift their crazy rules....If they did, gay marriage would be out the window. That is what this is all about.
Because mutual powers-of-attorney doesn’t enlist the power of law to force the rest of us to participate in their little farce.
poo poo. civil marriage is a contract, period. no?
It is all BS. Homosexuals can not consummate a marriage. It like all things Leftist, is a fraud.
I am not an attorney but I would assume it would. Although in the case of one of them dying the power of attorney might no longer be durable. Certainly you can name someone on the deed of your home, your business, and many other things which would allow for sharing and transfer of assests.
In addition, civil unions in some states seem to solve many of the techinical and legal problems which gays claim they need marriage for.
Therefore I am of the belief that what they really are attempting with “marriage equality” is :
1. To fully normalize homosexuality in the minds of the public - not to be tolerated, but to be fully accepted is the goal.
2. To transform the very basis of civilization so as to invert the meaning of many aspects of society. A “revaluation of all values” - a Trojan Horse under the banner of “Equality”.
I had been thinking of hospitals, too.
There is something to the effect with ICU units that only family - through blood or marriage - can visit or make medical decisions.
I still believe gay marriage is a smokescreen for something beyond itself, though.
Marriage belongs to Church’s . The Government got into the marriage business to make a buck on licenses.
Civil marriage means nothing except that the Government accepts it as a marriage.
Establish two diferent marriages, The Civil and the one by God. Any Church that engages in same sex marriage is merely going against the Bible and the marriage is meaningless.
And if we do not, we are the bigots.
That was proved this week for sure.
I don’t think that’s true. The activists keep using it as an excuse, but I spent last year in and out of the hospital. As a patient, all I had to do was fill out a form designating the people with whom medical staff could share my medical information. There was no requirement that the person or persons must be family or a spouse.
I even know someone who designated someone instead of her husband to make decisions for her.
I’ve been wondering if, maybe, the activists just want automatic control over their partner in a medical emergency. That is, if the patient has not drawn up documents in advance and can no longer speak for himself/herself, maybe the other partner wants to be the default go-to for all decisions. If that’s what they want, that’s not necessarily a good thing (for example, the Terri Schiavo case).
If gays wanted to come up with a domestic partnership agreement that met their needs - something creative and dignified, they could do it. I suspect gays would rather fight us because they have a low threshold for handling boredom... Time will tell...
I use to buy into that argument from the left because I saw it happen many moons ago with an old college friend and his ‘companion’. However looking back..it really wasn’t quite that way..at least at the end of my friends life. His companion was there and consulted every step of the way. I stumbled unto the scene quite by accident because my mom was in the hospital and I ran into him. We were both sleeping in the ICU waiting room for days at a time. He for my old friend and me for my mother. II saw the doctors come in at all hours of the night to keep him fully abreast of everything. I do know that he could not make health decisions for him though. My old friends sister had to be called in. It does seem that a simple legal document would suffice.
I don’t think this is the whole true argument though and there is a lot of validity to the argument that they really want us to condone their lifestyle choice. It is an impossibility for those of us that believe in God’s teaching.
The homosexual activists though are abhorrent and we have to stand up to them. We cannot condone them running around half dressed in the streets corrupting young minds. It is truly grotesque. I am sick of their in your face deviance.
BS. I work in a hospital every day. You can designate anyone of your choice you durable power of attorney for healthcare decisions. I have never seen a partner turned away. The only place difficulty might come in is if the I’ll person did not designate anyone power of attorney. In that case family is consulted. If family does not know and accept the gay partner, then there is a chance they could be shut out. That is the only way it could happen. I’m so tired of hearing the hospital argument I could scream! It’s totally untrue
Again, BS. The durable power of attorney for healthcare trumps all. You can name anyone you want and file the papers
blaming hospitals for following the nutty Congressional rulings?......ridiculous....
I’m not sure if every hospital has the same policy now, but I think so... At least, around here, it seems to be true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.