My overall point was supported earlier,and I missed it. Conservative government suppresses freedom to marry who you want because it is more responsive to "the church" than it is to the people.

 

Well, we are still on the fundamental natural right of association. The fact that so many government laws and policies are impacted by the status of married or not would seem to be the real problem.

 

I know various 'couples' of both sexual orientation who are long term partners but never got married in the eyes of the government. They simply saw no value in it. And in reality - if you are without children there is no real advantage to being recognized as married by the government when it comes to many or most aspects. In fact, being married penalizes you tax wise - the infamous marriage penalty of income tax. Of all these new gay marriages I would love to see how many new couples are filing under the status of married this April 15th!! Of course, the government helps most married couples who have children with tax credit for each child. I am not sure why or when the married tax status came about but the credits are a reward for doing something considered positive for society - having children and continuing the species. A classic example of the government encouraging behavior through tax policy.

 

I would like to see government get out of the definition of family and of 'next of kin'. By being inflexible in these areas government has hindered the basic right of association. It is best to let individuals define who their 'next of kin' is for purpose of things like inheritance and medical care, etc. But the cold reality is that government does not want to do that for a simple reason - it will reduce tax income!

 

It would be good to see marriage returned to the institutions who created it - the religious entities. If someone wants to join or start a religious entity that openly embraces and practices gay marriage - so be it. It is their right under the fundamental right of freedom of association - in my view. That being said another fundamental right is the petition the government on what you believe is good or bad for society and some individuals, leveraging their freedom of association, have petitioned the government to forbid what they consider a danger to society. And even if you do not agree with them - they have that right.

 

I never saw these officially unmarried couples of both orientations bemoan the fact the government did not consider them married. This drive to be considered married by a temporary entity - the government - is confusing.

Well, we are still on the fundamental natural right of association. The fact that so many government laws and policies are impacted by the status of married or not would seem to be the real problem.

 

I know various 'couples' of both sexual orientation who are long term partners but never got married in the eyes of the government. They simply saw no value in it. And in reality - if you are without children there is no real advantage to being recognized as married by the government when it comes to many or most aspects. In fact, being married penalizes you tax wise - the infamous marriage penalty of income tax. Of all these new gay marriages I would love to see how many new couples are filing under the status of married this April 15th!! Of course, the government helps most married couples who have children with tax credit for each child. I am not sure why or when the married tax status came about but the credits are a reward for doing something considered positive for society - having children and continuing the species. A classic example of the government encouraging behavior through tax policy.

 

I would like to see government get out of the definition of family and of 'next of kin'. By being inflexible in these areas government has hindered the basic right of association. It is best to let individuals define who their 'next of kin' is for purpose of things like inheritance and medical care, etc. But the cold reality is that government does not want to do that for a simple reason - it will reduce tax income!

 

It would be good to see marriage returned to the institutions who created it - the religious entities. If someone wants to join or start a religious entity that openly embraces and practices gay marriage - so be it. It is their right under the fundamental right of freedom of association - in my view. That being said another fundamental right is the petition the government on what you believe is good or bad for society and some individuals, leveraging their freedom of association, have petitioned the government to forbid what they consider a danger to society. And even if you do not agree with them - they have that right.

 

I never saw these officially unmarried couples of both orientations bemoan the fact the government did not consider them married. This drive to be considered married by a temporary entity - the government - is confusing.

 

It wouldn't be if you were the one sitting beside your lifetime partner of several decades on his/her deathbed and having the hospital say you can't visit anymore because you're "not a member of the family." Especially if "the family" had disowned the person on the deathbed.

 

Whether you guys like it or not, gay people can have monogamous relationships that last for decades. Who are you to deny the affections of two people you don't know?

It wouldn't be if you were the one sitting beside your lifetime partner of several decades on his/her deathbed and having the hospital say you can't visit anymore because you're "not a member of the family." Especially if "the family" had disowned the person on the deathbed.

 

Whether you guys like it or not, gay people can have monogamous relationships that last for decades. Who are you to deny the affections of two people you don't know?

 

I do not want to deny anyone anything. I advocate that the individual should be able to determine who is their 'family' and who is their 'next of kin' - not the government and not the hospital. Again, by having policies that pre-suppose a certain type of associations the fundamental right of freedom of association has been restricted.

 

What you cite is why eventually the courts and SCOTUS will likely come down on allowing non-traditional marriage through out the country. The basic right of freedom of association is the reason.

My overall point was supported earlier,and I missed it. Conservative government suppresses freedom to marry who you want because it is more responsive to "the church" than it is to the people.

Do you think the government has the right to tell the church they have to allow gay marriage?

Do you think the government has the right to tell the church they have to allow gay marriage?

 

My point is that the government shouldn't be telling anybody. My "church" would hold gay weddings, but they would not be sanctioned because the conservative government of Kentucky is more concerned about the corporate large body than it is about the individuals.

You would have to pay $1000.00 per year in property taxes for 108 years to cover the cost of educating one student for 12 years.

 

Soon to be insolvent social security? 2037 doing nothing. Imagine if the ss trust hadn't loaned the ameican people $ to balance the budget.

 

But we digress . . .

 

My overall point was supported earlier,and I missed it. Conservative government suppresses freedom to marry who you want because it is more responsive to "the church" than it is to the people.

 

Actually in KY the government, conservative and liberal, is being more responsive to "the people" since the last time I saw the numbers, 70% were against gay marriage. Now that was several years ago so it may have come down.