The Church's Changing Position on the Legalization Same-Sex Marriage

[DU Ute]

My question is simple, and I've asked it several times. What significant legal benefits ("rights" as you say) are you looking for that a gay couple desiring to "merge their lives together" can't get in the state of Utah, for example.

I've been asked what I'd do to give them those legal benefits. I can't respond unless I know what benefits you are looking for.

There are plenty. Start with spousal immunity

[UtahDan]

There are plenty. Start with spousal immunity

He can't be serious with that question.

[Jacob]

There are plenty. Start with spousal immunity

Seriously? That's one of the significant legal benefits gays are looking for? That's at the top of your list?

He can't be serious with that question.

Of course I am. And the only thing anyone has come up with so far is spousal immunity? I've already discussed the federal tax rules, which cannot be considered a benefit.

[RobinFinderson]

Seriously? That's one of the significant legal benefits gays are looking for? That's at the top of your list?

Of course I am. And the only thing anyone has come up with so far is spousal immunity? I've already discussed the federal tax rules, which cannot be considered a benefit.

Mocking the order of his list doesn't address the argument.

[TripletDaddy]

I've already discussed the federal tax rules, which cannot be considered a benefit.

lol, knock it off. You didn't "discuss" the federal tax rules and your brief reference to it was based on a scenario that married gays would be dual-income high wage earners with zero children.

[UtahDan]

lol, knock it off. You didn't "discuss" the federal tax rules and your brief reference to it was based on a scenario that married gays would be dual-income high wage earners with zero children.

I can rattle of a list of benefits as long as my arm right off the top of my head. But I think it will benefit Jacob more if he does a little bit of his own research.

[creekster]

I can rattle of a list of benefits as long as my arm right off the top of my head. But I think it will benefit Jacob more if he does a little bit of his own research.

The scope or tyef benefit isnt really the issue. The question is why should the state withold ANY benefit from such unions.

[UtahDan]

The scope or tyef benefit isnt really the issue. The question is why should the state withold ANY benefit from such unions.

Agree.

[Jacob]

He can't be serious with that question.

I can rattle of a list of benefits as long as my arm right off the top of my head. But I think it will benefit Jacob more if he does a little bit of his own research.

Funny. That seems to be the answer every time. Only the other side has to justify their argument.

[DU Ute]

My question is simple, and I've asked it several times. What significant legal benefits ("rights" as you say) are you looking for that a gay couple desiring to "merge their lives together" can't get in the state of Utah, for example.

I've been asked what I'd do to give them those legal benefits. I can't respond unless I know what benefits you are looking for.

FIFY

[UtahDan]

Funny. That seems to be the answer every time. Only the other side has to justify their argument.

Should I chew your food for you too, junior?

[Indy Coug]

Should I chew your food for you too, junior?

No, I think you should extend this thread out as much as possible.

[Jacob]

Conclusion based upon responses received today:

Gays are protesting in the street because gay couples might be forced to testify against each other if one partner confesses to the other that he or she has engaged in criminal activity.

[old_gregg]

Conclusion based upon responses received today:

Gays are protesting in the street because gay couples might be forced to testify against each other if one partner confesses to the other that he or she has engaged in criminal activity.

estate taxes. 401k and ira. social security benefits. fmla protection. insurance. hospital visitation. taxation (despite your extremely thorough analysis). etc...

[Pheidippides]

The scope or tyef benefit isnt really the issue. The question is why should the state withold ANY benefit from such unions.

This is the exact question. One could argue that segregation deprived African Americans of no benefits too, and many people did at the time. In retrospect that seems ridiculous.