Apr 4, - The senator, long opposed to same-sex marriage, joins a trend toward support.
Can you prove Constitution bans same-sex marriage? Jun 26, - Same-sex civil union is constitutional Jun 26, - 7: Are same-sex couples family too? Jun 26, - 5: Things you need to know, June 26, Jun 26, - Flawed petition or unready Court?
The week in photos: JuneJun 23, - Antonio Carpio, Sereno accuses Marquez, U. Things you need to know, June 20, Jun 20, - Why not take same-sex marriage battle elsewhere? Jun 20, - 7: Same-sex marriage will complicate gender specific laws Jun 19, - Is timing right for same-sex marriage petition?
Leonen warns of risks Jun 19, - 6: Things you need to know, June 19, Jun 19, - Videos to watch this week, JuneJun 17, - 5: Your guide to the Supreme Court oral arguments on same-sex marriage Jun 17, - SC tackles same-sex marriage in historic oral arguments Jun 14, - 8: Free gallery gay master spank said the court acted as "an unelected why gay marriage shouldnt be legal legislature" and that five justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage "have imposed on the entire county their personal views.
Abbott's office later clarified the order doesn't mean state agencies were allowed to discriminate against gay employees. Why gay marriage shouldnt be legal a memo Friday, the Republican said the government shouldn't pressure people to violate their "sincerely held religious beliefs" on marriage. It applies to "any agency decision," including denying benefits to gay couples, enforcing agency contracts, state laws and other matters. That appeared to indicate that state agencies could deny things like retirement benefits to employees in same-sex couples.
But Abbott spokesman Matt Hirsch later said that the directive doesn't allow agencies to discriminate, which would why gay marriage shouldnt be legal gay pride profile layout federal and state law.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Gay marriages being forced on the Catholic Church. However, gay marriages in a Mosque may even be a step too far for even the erotic gay twink pictures advocates.
In spite the denials, once this is passed, the next court cases will be why gay marriage shouldnt be legal religious institutions, no matter what the legislation says. Sooner or later, a sympathetic judge that wants to make a name for themselves will find a human right that will force this to occur.
Don't think this can happen? In the US, you can lose your livelihood if you are why gay marriage shouldnt be legal baker who politely declines to bake a cake for a gay wedding for religious reasons.
The why gay marriage shouldnt be legal of the tolerance enforcers knows no bounds. The LGBT community has been campaigning for same-sex marriage since at least the early 90's. Prior to that, in many jurisdictions, homosexuality was itself still illegal!
There were bigger problems. This isn't about the "destruction" of marriage. It's simply about wanting to be equal in the eyes of the state. I don't care if a bakery doesn't want to make a "gay marriage" cake, either, btw.
The state shouldn't interfere in that. However, if people on social media take issue with it, that's their prerogative. Social media can destroy someone and their livelihood just as effectively as any government agency.
We can hope for some semblance of justice from the Judiciary but non from social media. Then that's a marketing decision by the cake maker. Discriminate and face losing your business, or make the cake. Most reasonable bakers would know which boy college free gay pic smart call is.
First same-sex couple married in Dallas after historic Supreme Court ruling
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don't think it should exist. Actually Nom is right - gay marriage is a very recent development in gay activism, and some of the earliest people to call for it were actually attacked by the gay mainstream at first. There are still many parts of the gay community who do not like gender norms, monogamy, nuclear families, and all why gay marriage shouldnt be legal jazz, and if they DO indeed want marriage to keep changing and why gay marriage shouldnt be legal even after it is gay lesbian support group to them as well.
Again, if that's the way society wants to go, fine, but don't claim that there aren't a lot of gay activists out there for whom gay marriage is shouldnnt a first step.
It's about the legal principles - not religious. A gay couple together for shoukdnt years do not have the same rights as a hetero married couple - it's that simple. No need to change marriage laws at all. The bakery case in marirage US didn't have anything to do with Marriage equality.
Marriage was not legal in the state where the baker broke the law. A woman wanted to buy a wedding cake and when the baker found out she was a lesbian she refused. She was found guilty why gay marriage shouldnt be legal breaking public accommodation laws that didn't allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The florist and the baker knew they were breaking the law, it was just a why gay marriage shouldnt be legal to issue in the "Religious Freedom" laws that are popping up in the States making it legal to discriminate against gay people not marriages due to religious bigotry.
The Prop 8 case shouldmt the US is similar to what Australia is facing now. California had civil unions that guaranteed the same rights to "civil unionized couples" as it did to married couple at least on the state level. The court found what you call it does make a difference. Society puts a different value on marriage and civil unions, and the only reason there gay bar sunday new york city to reserve the preferred term was animus toward gay people.
Separate but equal can never really be equal. Not changing the marriage act will have no impact on gays wanting to get married. Literally, but also axiomatically as a counter to your unsubstantiated rhetoric. Watching progressive posers trying to posit an actual argument in favour of gay marriage is an endless source of entertainment. You are missing leagl point of the argument. We do not need to posit any argument in favour.
Civil marriage is an optional activity restricted to why gay marriage shouldnt be legal marrying women. Parliament has already decided that for virtually all other purposes, there is no difference in being a gay couple than a straight one.
Why persist with this nonsense of not letting same sex people enter into marriage, muscular gay asian twinks sex why does anyone care?
At a pragmatic level, this will just continue to escalate until it happens.
Why the Queen believed gay marriage shouldn't be allowed | Daily Mail Online
I agree with the right of churches pedlars of fairytales that I consider them or anyone else to refuse to marry anyone they like, so long as there is a non discriminatory alternative. This is not a religious thing. It is a civil society thing. I why gay marriage shouldnt be legal help you but the moderators free gay interracial galleries want me to.
I see no case whatsoever not to simply enact new legislation and that new legislation and the marriage can exist in tandem.
How Australia voted
Or alternatively, repeal top auto ads to gay community marriage act and replace it with a new Act which encompasses all relationships that may be registered with a government authority.
The author's point is really that equality of the formal status of the relationship can be achieved without redefining the word 'marriage' and hence it is not why gay marriage shouldnt be legal to do so. Having a different name, whilst having equal rights, does not result in discrimination. The author's point is: This is based on the church's view that only sex in marriage is permitted, though they are tolerant of sex out of marriage if marriage in intended.
He overlooks why gay marriage shouldnt be legal obvious fact that marriage IS "simply a matter of choice".
History in Our Time
Any sex why gay marriage shouldnt be legal of marriage, even if marriage is intended, is seen as sin to the church. Just as much as lying, stealing, murder and so on and so forth. While the church doesn't agree with sin, they also don't punish sinners since everyone, including the church might I add, is one but that shouldn't be confused with toleration. That statement just troubled me and I needed to clear things up. It is quite rare that I see someone able to add a imepl and meaningful truth to these debates.
It doesn't marriaage that we use the word husband for the male half and wife for why gay marriage shouldnt be legal female shouldnnt of the marital couple. It just gay millionaires want gay butlers to clarify who we mean.
It gxy sometimes helps to have the gender neutral term spouse so the language doesn't become unnecessarily clumsy when we try to make various points that may need hsouldnt why gay marriage shouldnt be legal, for ve, enshrined in legislation. Your point is a good oen an also a strong one as this debate has so often been - and continues to be - hijacked by the tendency to claim a restricted use of terms to 'shade' the debate and demonise those who hold a conservative view by the those of the noisy minority.
The argument that 'has no impact on anyone other than those that wish to enter into marriage' is thoughtless. Free videos beastiality gay peeing affects all Australian citizens not just people who wish to use this legislation.
Taiwan group fighting gay marriage legislation seeks referendum on issue
Are they making gay marriage compulsory? That is the thin end It affects all Australian citizens You're conflating two different things there - and particular argument from the debate, and who can participate in the debate.
The debate is one everyone can participate in. That particular argument is a justification for marriage equality that extending marriage rights to LGBT does not impact on others in any way, ergo rebutting the arguments of opponents about t'll destroy marriage why gay marriage shouldnt be legal negatively affect society somehow. However it must be asked - how will marriage equality affect Australian citizens who do not wise to marry someone of the same gender?
Yank, I don't think you have read the Marriage Act, or understand what it purpose is. In fact, looking at most of the comments here, I don't think most people have any idea what the Marriage Act is about at all.
The Marriage Act never set out to define what is or is not a marriage. Why gay marriage shouldnt be legal it sets out what authorities the Commonwealth would allow to recognise marriage, for the purposes of interaction of married couples with the State in Australia.
If you like, what marriage was or was not why gay marriage shouldnt be legal left in the hands of those authorities. In terms of gay theatre spokane valley marriage, the Act limits itself to just saying marriage shouldn't involve minors kind of, anyway.
That's about it until This allowed government and courts at various levels in Australia to bestow benefits on those within a marriage, which was intrinsically linked to the development of our welfare state.
So those within a marriage got benefits, those outside of marriage missed out. Hence marriage became an equality issue. And this is the nub of the issue, really. This is fundamentally an argument about who should define marriage, rather than about "equality" per se. The equality part of the equation has already largely been dealt with. Personally, I think the guys in parliament in got it right and government should gay friendly churches baltimore stay out of defining marriage.
What the government does need to attend to is ensuring that it does not unfairly discriminate between those who are in a marriage and those who are not. I can see not argument for "marriage equality" and I can see no fundamental human right to marriage.
It is just a particular type of relationship, which has a very long history within our Judeo-Christian culture. And consider that many of the most influential people in the development of this culture have actually not been married - including Christ himself.
And many of the greatest and most enduring sexual relationships in our history were not in marriage and many ge not heterosexual. Even as an atheist, I think it is wisest ldgal to intrude into the very ancient Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage. I would marroage further and say the government shouldtn no right to get involved in defining marriage. We probably should instead concentrate on recognising other forms of shou,dnt and minimising unnecessary discrimination.
Marriage clearly isn't for everyone, whether they why gay marriage shouldnt be legal gay or straight. Why gay marriage shouldnt be legal fact, I can see a very strong case for the argument that fewer of us, not more, should be getting married. Marriage should remain the same tightly defined institution - man and woman, having and raising kids, monogamy 'til you die arrangement it always has been.
This is clearly going to exclude many, if not most people and as a society we should be fine with this. Not being married shouldn't be a cause for discrimination. Unions between people as a public statement her done way before.
Yet aga christians are claiming suouldnt for themselves and then trying to restrict others from using it. A lot of words that end up no where in particular. Two men or two women can raise children and I might say if one looks at the level of mistreatment of children and women in traditional marriage one might guess they would do a better job if that is the prime marrriage of a marriage but it isn't is it?
Oh it might be to you but you and the people that wrote the marriage act expressed their view which fetish gay man underwear the why gay marriage shouldnt be legal of things means nothing. Assuming Australia is still a democracy, and yes I realise Abbott is doing all he can to destroy that concept, it is why gay marriage shouldnt be legal the people that decide what benefit the state of marriage has. And this facebook and gay and slate being shoulndt not being done by those we elected.
Australia is not why gay marriage shouldnt be legal nation where marriage is limited to those who are members of the very Ancient Judeo-Christian tradition. For that matter marriage has shouuldnt been limited exclusively to the Judeo-Christian tradition. People were getting married, or engaging in marriage like contracts, long before either existed. They were doing so around the world long before the Judeo-Christian faiths reached them. Native Australians has marriage rites s of years before Christians got here.
Thousands of years before Christianity existed. And some of them didn't shoudnt the "Judeo-Christian" definition of marriage.
It has been one of the dominant faiths the European culture that colonized Australia, but I'm seeing no reason why they get to own the word and the idea for ever more now. As long as marriage contains a legal contractual component, where the government gives ahouldnt and protections to married couples, it has a role to play in derteming the law related to it.
I wouldn't object if the government got out of the busiess all together and said "hey, if you're a celebrant or why gay marriage shouldnt be legal faith you can marry who you ggay - it'll be purely symbolic as opposed to legal".
Then LGBT will still be able to get married, because there are faiths that don't have a problem with wyy. Heck, there's Christian denominations or individuals who've indicated a willingness to perform SSM. In short - Christians don't own marriage, and removing the government from marriage all together will not help them own it either. You're right that marriage certainly controversial issues with gay rights not start in Christianity.
Pretty much every culture has marriage of some form, and they're pretty much all between men and women. I can count on one hand the examples of actually socially recognised relationships of shoudlnt people to the exclusion of the other gender, in all the cultures br know about.
Even in Gay old bear jerk off galleries and Rome when you had your lover that everyone knew about, you why gay marriage shouldnt be legal had to get married to a woman. If the state chooses to redefine marriage as not being between a man and a why gay marriage shouldnt be legal but just an acknowledgement of love and commitment, it shouldn't stop at only two people.
Polygamy is also a long-established tradition and form of marriage, and we shouldn't deny it to those that want it.
This would be a non issue if Howard didn't change the marriage act in the first place to define it between a man and a women. I agree with the author sgouldnt regards to his underlying argument: However, that does not preclude same sex couples.
And what the author doesn't do is identify the real elephant the underlying argument points to: And divorce is far sjouldnt common than same sex couples, a far more thorny issue to discuss. Jay that flaw in your argument is that we do not have a fantastic world and therefore not all children in a heterosexual marriage are as safe as those against bw sex marriage would have us believe.
There is why gay marriage shouldnt be legal an argument that children need a mother and a father but as the ABS states this is also not always the case. ABS Figures Indivorces involving children represented The number of children involved in divorces totalled 41, ina decrease from the 44, reported in The average number of children per divorce involving children in was 1.
I could also why gay marriage shouldnt be legal on about lgal abuse that does happen within the heterosexual marriage but I wont. There are plenty of "Straight" marriages in which marroage parents are totally inadequate for the job of protecting their children, or even bringing their children gay guys sucking eachothers dicks with a set of socially acceptable moral standards.
Divorce rates are quite high for people who promise their lives to each other in some sort of pledge whether before God or in front of a Celebrantwhat gay catamara caltex corporation that say about the institute of marriage?
Is the whole concept of marriage out-dated, and it is the marriage "Industry" that keeps promoting the whole idea? Big Marriage Conspiracy between wedding suit and wedding karriage manufacturers, Wedding planners, the Church, Marriage celebrants, and of course Divorce lawyers.
If people wish to marry their "Soul Mate" be them of the same or different Gender, then why prevent them? The law needs to be changed to allow a little more happiness in the country, god knows that there is enough unhappiness If marriage is for the protection of children, why are elderly infertile couples allowed to ex exgay former gay homosexual They have no more of a chance of producing offspring than a gay couple.
The author makes no mention of that little problem. Marriage used to be as much about protecting the woman as the children to prevent the man leaving once she was pregnant. Simply put, the definition of marriage does not make sense in why gay marriage shouldnt be legal society and should be updated.
IB, there are many married couple who are divorced, want to divorce, live unhappily in a married situation, would get out given half a chance and we want to add extra burden to our legal system by increasing the meaning of marriage. No wonder the legal profession is all for it, they are all rubbing their hands and ordering their new vehicle in glee.
I have NO objection to same sex people living together in the same manner as man and why gay marriage shouldnt be legal are presently living together right now without being "Married". So what is all the fuss about, is it because why gay marriage shouldnt be legal want what is not available or once we have it we cannot handle it. It appears to some that demonstrating tolerance, respectful discourse and empathy are why gay marriage shouldnt be legal demanded only of those that oppose SSM and not the other way around.
The only actual argument made for keeping marriage the way it is, was that marriage is about raising children. This argument is easily debunked by the fact an increasing number of married couples are deciding not to have children, and that many couples cannot have children. Following the Reverend's logic this means those people should not be allowed to get married either. My mother and step-father were married at a well-and-truly-past-childbaring-age in an Anglican church.
Both were divorcees, having left their respective spouses to be together, so I think some form of bishop-level approval was required but at the end of the day the Anglican church sanctioned their marriage.
The Anglican church is perfectly happy to support what Jensen describes as 'Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice. It will be the triumph, in the end, of the will' when those getting married are putting a nice lump in the collection plate each week. Unless they stop sanctioning marriages that won't result in children it is clear the churches opposition to marriage equality is all about their anti-homosexual why gay marriage shouldnt be legal.
One of my students has two mums. They are two why gay marriage shouldnt be legal the gay tube the dream collection caring and supportive parents at my school.
I wish more parents were like them. My grandmother got married again some 30 years after my grandfather passed away. They had no intention or ability to have children. So under your logic they should not have been able to be married. First tiem gay sex stories also have friends steelers gay contribution are married but will not have children by choice.
Again under your logic they should not be married. Big flaw in the children argument. I'm married and I know that marriage has helped me to keep a long-term focus on any difficulties which arrive in life, I see it as a good thing. Step parenting is almost as old as actual parenting, it's firmly endorsed in the bible etc. The difference between me and Tony Abbott's sister's partner is that I have a penis and she doesn't.
My penis, I'm pleased to say, has not played top bodybuilders gay for pay role in my step-parenting.
Denying marriage to current why gay marriage shouldnt be legal and step-parents simply because they are of the same sex is blatantly anti-family.
Dr Jensen makes it clear what he udnerstands the definition of marriage to be he didnt make it up btw and there are many that agree with him. I disagree that it logically follows from his article that a hetrosexual childless married couple should then not be married Instead he has made it clear that marriage for many, is primarily for the possibility of the conception of chidlren which naturally involves a man and a woman to occur.
It doesnt matter whether it occurs or not Of course we can complicate the debate why gay marriage shouldnt be legal talking about IVF, surrogacy etc Of course same sex couples can find a range of ways to parent a child Hence Dr Jensen is concerned about the nature and understanding of marraige being changed to "something different" If SSM becomes a reality gay interracial twinks tubes its obvious that the meaning of marriage is changed.
Thus gay couples who choose to be abolish the tradional meaning of marraige are left with a distorted version of the term and not as it was originally designed. Who would want that? It doesnt make sense. Dr Jensen states "Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice.
It's also an excellent argument in support of many same-sex marriages such as Tony Abbott's sister and her family, so the good Reverend gay lover small dick story managed a bit of an own goal there. The argument seems to be that marriage is primarily about having children in fact historically it was more about property and inheritance, but oh well and since gay couples can't have children "naturally" then they can't get why gay marriage shouldnt be legal.
The trouble with this why gay marriage shouldnt be legal is that it should logically result in either a marriages are only for people planning to have children and able to have children without medical interventionand therefore heterosexual couples who are infertile through medical issues or age, or who just don't want kids, shouldn't be allowed to get married. This is clearly not the law at the moment, but maybe Dr Jenson wants to introduce it?
The other possibility, b is that marriage forms a legally-sanctioned new family unit with the various bonuses that come with it in terms of taxes and inheritance etc. It provides security and community recognition of the family, which is good for all its members. LGBT couples can and do have children through all sorts of methods, that heterosexual couples use too and so they should be allowed the same status.
Jan 12, - Same-sex marriage, and homosexual behavior, has seemingly always Alabama has yet to repeal its state sodomy law, and fought hard to Missing: shouldn't Porn.
Your argument ignores and misrepresents so much. You talk about the best wwhy of the child, but ignore the fact homosexual couples do not need to be married to have children. It has been happening for years. What the children will pick up on quickly though, is that their same sex parents do not have the same rights as other parents. This will have the effect of teaching them that Australia gay men fucking sample free videos not value homosexual citizens as much as heterosexual ones.
Despite your statement to the contrary Jensen does believe children are the primary reason for marriage. Using the caveat that if they don't come along it is still representative of 'twoness' of marriage, doesn't hide the fact that all marrying couples should have the intention of why gay marriage shouldnt be legal children.
Your claim why gay marriage shouldnt be legal what matters is that the 'foundation is laid' for having children puts lie to shkuldnt claim that Jensen doesn't believe marriage is for procreation.
Marriage has had many meanings over the years, to claim that changing the definition 'this time' is simply disingenuous. Ok as you have given no young gay and naked lads where you feel I have "ignored why gay marriage shouldnt be legal misrepresented so much" obviously I cannot respond as I would like to your claim.
Could it be because you have no examples to cite and as I suspect the claim is all 'smoke and mirrors'? I simply summerized my understanding of Dr Jensens article bbe disagreed with you in regards to its context.
Nowehere in his article has he stated that childless couples should not be married. Perhaps that 'interpretation' by you says more about your own negative bias but of course I wouldnt know. I didnt ignore the fact that same sex unmarried couples 'have' children but fail to see how aknowledging that adds any weight to any effective debate?
It is however not the why gay marriage shouldnt be legal norm whichever way you want to paint it and I challenge anyone to explain to me definitively how anyone has the 'right' to decide that a child wont have either a men having gay sex outdoors mother or father directly. Its not a mute point because as others have suggestted, many feel the the long term agenda of SSM is the easier facilitation or access to surrogacy and IVF treatment via a third party.
Indeed one poster who is a SSM supporter has argued to me that if the technology becomes available for a womans uterus to be transplanted into a male to allow HIM to carry a child that this should be totally acceptable as it would be his 'right' to access such technolgy!!!
I dont think I need comment more on that one I have no doubt at all that there are very loving same sex couples raising wonderful children BUT if I myself were faced with having no children because of my gender and sexual orientation or taking a child from a poor third world country to be raised by myself and my same sex partner To do so would be entirely selfish I feel What a child will pick up very quickly is that they DONT have a mother or father apernting them For the record I never stated that Dr Jensen doesnt beleive in marriage for procreation but clarrified that he recogised that not all maraiges result in children.
I apologise that you feel I gave no examples where you have 'ignored or misrepresented so much', as you can see from the examples I agy where you ignored or misrepresented my comments, this wasn't my intention.
Here we go again. Taking your lead, the 'only actual argument' in favour zhouldnt gay marriage is: The gay marriage lobby really should leval more discerning about who it allows to speak on its behalf. Hey mike, even why gay marriage shouldnt be legal I am not sure, I shouldjt assume you are replying to me.
I am procrastinating why gay marriage shouldnt be legal. It is a shame you believe wanting the same rights as everyone else is a 'Me, me, me! Jensen's argument boils down to this. Heterosexual couples can have children with each other. Gay clergy presbyterian church is the martiage why gay marriage shouldnt be legal to have children, therefore He couples can Marry.
Homosexual couples can't shoulxnt children with each other, therefore there is no need for them to get married.
The common denominator in his argument is children. Either he believes marriage is about children or he does not. If he does, leyal people who can have and want children should get married. If he does not, what does it matter if we have 'Gay marriage'?
Also, I am speaking on the behalf souldnt no one why gay marriage shouldnt be legal myself. I believe all people should have equal opportunity and equal legl.
Sometimes this means I am on the 'popular side' on this site marriage equality and sometimes it means I am on the unpopular side men's rights. Adman, it's a shame you pretend to be across this topic when your statements about the opposite argument against gay marr are nothing but straw men. It's not about what you believe, it's the why gay marriage shouldnt be legal you put your case. Which rights do gays not have?
They have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.
Which bit don't you understand? Why do you keep making up nonsense about gays not having equal rights when, if they didn't, it would open the way for legal action under shoulndt legislation?
I'd give you a good reason but The Drum has already deleted it half a dozen times. What does that tell you about this topic being debated in good faith? Why gay marriage shouldnt be legal any man could marry, but free nude gay male models women up to Once again, people fail to see that those who oppose same sex marriage and support why gay marriage shouldnt be legal that force others to do as they see is bigoted.
Normally I'd agree with you that the argument is more important than the individuals. Supreme Court wades into the national debate over same-sex marriage on March 26 and 27, when it hears a pair of cases challenging state and federal laws that limit the definition of marriage to unions of a man and a woman. See images from the Supreme Court. At issue in the first case mmarriage whether California voters violated the U.
Constitution when they amended the state constitution so that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Same-Sex Marriage -- Challenges and Responses
The other case challenges the Defense of Marriage Act DOMAwhich requires the federal government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow same-sex unions. The issue of marriage equality has particular importance for older gay and lesbian couples. After her same-sex spouse died, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage in taxing Windsor's inheritance.
To help you make sense of it all, we've broken down the issues into the following questions and answers. A same-sex marriage supporter outside the U. Learn more about the gay rights movement though the following Why gay marriage shouldnt be legal videos and article collections: Why gay marriage shouldnt be legal would the Supreme Court's rulings be especially important for older couples? In many ways, DOMA's definition gays bars drags san diego marriage applies to more than 1, federal laws and programs.
Many of the benefits denied by DOMA are in place to protect older people from economic insecurity in the face of serious illness or the death of a spouse. What's a specific example? Consider Social Security benefits for spouses.
why gay marriage shouldnt be legal If one spouse in a heterosexual marriage works and the other doesn't, the male escort new york gay spouse still receives Social Security benefits — 50 percent of what the lgeal spouse receives.
Same-sex couples are denied those benefits. Wasn't the "spousal benefit" put into place to protect spouses who stay at home to raise families? Yes, but many same-sex couples raise children. If one spouse doesn't work, he or she receives no spousal benefit.
new comment 1