Since I know you're all obsessed with Maine politics...Follow

By the way... since you already admitted that you're not qualified to judge legal arguments? I do indeed plan on asking for actual proof of the legal arguments you make. If you can't provide it, maybe it's a hint that you shouldn't be making those claims.

A Medical Power of Attorney absolutely grants that capability and in fact supersedes that of family members. Anyone can include this in a contractual agreement (or any two people with each other). That's essentially what is happening in a marriage contract anyway.

That's part of the contract and always has been. Now the issue gets a little muddled because the state imposes a default contract on anyone seeking a marriage license who doesn't have their own qualifying contract. That's to ensure that everyone receiving the benefits has bound themselves contractually to eachother. This does not mean that is the only way to obtain said contractual agreements. Any contract that is legal is legal regardless of whether the state compelled you to enter into it as a prerequisite for some state status or if you choose to enter into it yourself.

You need to enter into that sort of contract to qualify for the benefits, but you do not need to qualify for the benefits to enter into that sort of contract. Thats what I've been saying about the logic being backwards. It's like if your insurance company gives you a rebate if you apply waterproofing to your house, it does not mean that you can't apply waterproofing to your house unless you have a policy with the insurance company. Frankly, I'm baffled why so many people continue to fail to grasp such a basic logical concept.



Health insurance is a separate issue and is in fact one of the state benefits. As you pointed out, it's "helpful", but not necessary to have this if you are married. That's why it's a benefit.



Yup. The "benefit" is that the government will allow spouses and dependents on an insurance policy to be non-taxed. So while many insurance companies will allow you to put same-sex partners on your coverage (heck, anyone you want really), you're going to pay a bit more.

Edited, Nov 6th 2009 2:08pm by gbaji

And a marriage license is the application for the state status of "marriage", which in turn grants the benefits. Are you really this dumb? Or just pretending?

Yeah. You realize, of course, that this is why I actually cite things such a court cases? Because I'm not expecting anyone here to say "Well, Jophiel would know 'cause he once called himself an Internet Lawyer and now he is one!"

Defining a set of criteria to qualify for a set of state issued benefits does not define the entirety of "marriage". I've been saying this over and over for 3 pages now.


I'm the one arguing that we should *not* equate marriage to whether or not one qualifies for those benefits. I'm the one arguing that marriage is about more than that and people enter into marriage for a whole lot of reasons which may have nothing at all to do with the government.




Yes. Absolutely. But does "getting married" require that one fill out a form and obtain benefits from the government? Or is it something else?


I say it's something else. I say it's about the relationship of the two people, and their decision to share their lives with each other. Traditionally, this was just about the people and their friends and families. In our modern world, we also tend to require a contract to "prove" that the socio-economic relationship they have entered into exists and to ensure that others recognize it. But we don't need the benefits to be married. Those are separate bonus things the government hands out. They're nice, but not required for two people to be married.


So yeah. Let them get married. I'm asking the same question. Why don't the gay rights folks save millions of dollars on political contributions and instead hire a few lawyers to write up some marriage contracts, then just let gay couples sign them and file them? Wouldn't that accomplish what they want? Isn't that a much more sensible way to do this than fighting battles in the political arena which don't really need to be fought and which don't actually get them what they need?


It's the marriage contract which provides the legal legitimacy of a marriage. It's what forces other to accept and respect it. That's what they should be doing. Why then are they going after a relatively minor set of benefits instead? It's silly.

I honestly haven't had any idea what gbaji's been talking about at all in this thread. Before, he was able to pick a stance and *kind of* stick to it. But this time... wow.

I don't even know where to start.

I need a drink.

Does being a doctor actually require a license? I think it means something else.

I mean, if I believe I'm a doctor, and you believe I'm a doctor, what's stopping me from performing open heart surgery?

But.. they want to be married and receive the same benefits as heterosexuals. Because, you know, we're all citizens of the United States of America, and we all pay in the same amount of taxes, and we all have the capacity to raise a child.

I threw that last one in there just for you.

Why is that hard to understand...?

Edited, Nov 6th 2009 4:26pm by Belkira

It's not. I'm a single male. I meet all those requirements as well. I'm a citizen. I pay taxes. I have the capacity to raise a child.


Why don't I get the same benefits as those currently granted to heterosexual couples who marry? Why are my rights being violated!!!


Hint: That's not why we grant the benefits

Edited, Nov 6th 2009 2:28pm by gbaji

Why would you assume it wouldn't? Last I heard, signed and notarized contracts are legally binding. Aren't they?

And hey. If the gay rights folks spent a tiny fraction of the money they've spent fighting pointless political battles hiring a few contract lawyers to write good solid standardized contracts, it would pretty much be a slam dunk, right?

Edited, Nov 6th 2009 2:25pm by gbaji

Hahahahaha... yeah. That's cute. Except that, if you're married, you will qualify for the benefits and -- by just saying "I'm married!" -- you won't.


Yeah, except that little logic game doesn't apply to this situation.

"All legally licensed drivers are authorized to operate a motor vehicle pertaining to their license class. Not everyone authorized to operate a motor vehicle of their license class is a legally licensed driv--- oh wait, except that yeah they are."

Maybe you should have gone on past logic preschool and joined us ages ago in logic kindergarten and beyond.

it appears that gbaji agrees with my previous statement that "if i think I am a doctor and write up a contract saying so, then I am"