Isn't it easier for gays just to move, rather than try to fight off the views of everyone around them? There are plenty of places where stuff doesn't suck for gays; just go to one of those places for a while.
Even if I were to accept the notion that people should just move (which I absolutely do not), where should they move to? DOMA means that there are about 1100 privileges associated with civil marriage on the federal level which are only granted to opposite-sex couples. Getting married in, say, Massachusetts doesn't get you those 1100 privileges, such as exemption from the estate tax, being your spouse's official Next of Kin in military records (so you're informed if they die), etc. So moving would have to mean leaving the US. I haven't read up enough on the international scene to know where to, but I'm sure there aren't many countries with equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Had black people in the 1950s had the means to move, then sure, why not? In todays society, moving to a different country is a few days of work at most. If I was in a place where there was a chance of being raped for walking out after dark, that would also be enough reason to leave. Sure, some battles are worth fighting, but it's been fought and won before. Now go reap the benefits. We were far from the first to do so, but ever since 1972, it was legally the same exact thing if you were marrying person A or B, regardless of gender or ethnicity of either party. So if you're gay, you can stay here. Or most other places for that matter. Just not where all the religious people are, because that is dangerous, and you shouldn't wanna deal with that.
Edit: While looking up dates, I realized we've had women in government for longer than America has existed. Yey us.
Going to another country is a few days work. Moving to another country takes a whole lot longer.
Indeed.
First, you'd need to get the proper visas, work permits, etc., to move there. That's even assuming you'd be approved by whatever government entity controls immigration to begin with. If you're a skilled doctor, engineer, scientist, etc., then it might be easier, but if you're just another unskilled laborer, well, good luck.
Second, you'll need to figure out how to find a job and a place to live in said new country once you do have all the paperwork in place. Sometimes, you cannot even get said paperwork without already having a job lined up.
Third, you'll need to find a way to convert all your financial assets to the new country's currency.
Fourth, you'll probably need to sell/give away many of your physical possessions and take the financial loss. For one thing, shipping them to the new country may be prohibitively expensive. For another thing, they may not be compatible with the new country's infrastructure -- i.e., 120V appliances in a country using 220V as standard, etc.
This also is assuming you even have the financial capability to travel to the new country to begin with. Again, if you're just an unskilled laborer, odds are you won't have the cash necessary to buy a plane ticket there, let alone to go through all the rigmarole of what needs to be done in order to move.
I love the, "they can just move" argument is so fucking ridiculous. I'm not even sure why anybody is even trying to convince anybody who is stupid enough to believe that shit that they are full of shit. They argument that they just don't like gay people or whoever else they don't makes more sense.
That reminds me of my middle school science teacher who said that the starving Africans should just move because we have airplanes now. Not even joking. He's also the one who didn't believe humans evolved from apes, so I guess its not surprising.
So, not only is Rand Paul about as smart as a brick, he's also able to withstand an astounding amount of cognitive dissonance - He views the DOMA as NOT being Federal interference with state's rights about Gay Marriage(which, of course, Mr Liberty-and-freedom-for-all-Jr is strongly against), but views any attempt to remove the federal ban on gay marriage as federal meddling.
In another astounding display of missing the point, he proposes a flat tax for GLBT people, instead of the ability to get married. Because he also wants to remove the tax break for married people, and therefore it would be completely fair, because taxes are the only reason gay people want to get married.
I call bullshit. Rand Paul wants to get rid of a tax break? Ludicrous.
Yeah, to replace it with a flat tax for everybody, regardless of income or marital status. So, your rich asshole pays as much tax as you do, minus what he can get out of. So, practically none, one assumes.
Funnily enough, the Paul family happen to be some of those very rich assholes who get out of a ton of tax...
Edit - I know you're being facetious, before you decide to put me on your tumblr again.
Thought: if there were not so many clear legal and tax benefits to marriage would there be such a strong push for same sex marriage?
Other thought: If there were not so many clear legal and tax benefits to marriage would there be such a strong push for opposite sex marriage?
Seeing as how that is the current status quo? Do we really even need marriage anymore at all?
Following thought: Since there are so many clear legal and tax benefits to marriage, why isn't there a stronger push for having 3+ person marriages?
Here here! I'm all for that! Not in the one male many female way but the gender neutral version.
Back to my original point, if government was marriage neutral (no different treatment based on marital status) would there be as big of a fight over same sex marriage?
Back to my original point, if government was marriage neutral (no different treatment based on marital status) would there be as big of a fight over same sex marriage?
So if there were no legal institution for marriage what exactly would there be to fight over?
Edit: I think reversing the question and asking "If there were not so many clear legal and tax benefits to marriage would there be such a strong push against same sex marriage?" might be more revealing.
Back to my original point, if government was marriage neutral (no different treatment based on marital status) would there be as big of a fight over same sex marriage?
So if there were no legal institution for marriage what exactly would there be to fight over?
Edit: I think reversing the question and asking "If there were not so many clear legal and tax benefits to marriage would there be such a strong push against same sex marriage?" might be more revealing.
Yes, if government were out of the "marriage business" so to say, would this even be something to fight about?
Back to my original point, if government was marriage neutral (no different treatment based on marital status) would there be as big of a fight over same sex marriage?
So if there were no legal institution for marriage what exactly would there be to fight over?
Edit: I think reversing the question and asking "If there were not so many clear legal and tax benefits to marriage would there be such a strong push against same sex marriage?" might be more revealing.
Yes, if government were out of the "marriage business" so to say, would this even be something to fight about?
Probably. I married for love. The practical aspects are a minor concern.
Back to my original point, if government was marriage neutral (no different treatment based on marital status) would there be as big of a fight over same sex marriage?
So if there were no legal institution for marriage what exactly would there be to fight over?
Edit: I think reversing the question and asking "If there were not so many clear legal and tax benefits to marriage would there be such a strong push against same sex marriage?" might be more revealing.
Yes, if government were out of the "marriage business" so to say, would this even be something to fight about?
Probably. I married for love. The practical aspects are a minor concern.
Really? The practical aspects are my primary motivator. Love can exist outside of a marriage. So can kids.
The problem is that the "practical" aspect is so heavily entwined with our culture that it's effectively impossible to separate. If we didn't have all of those benefits? We'd very likely have a different social structure.
Really? The practical aspects are my primary motivator. Love can exist outside of a marriage. So can kids.
The problem is that the "practical" aspect is so heavily entwined with our culture that it's effectively impossible to separate. If we didn't have all of those benefits? We'd very likely have a different social structure.
Yep. We wanted to have a demonstrable, public showing of our commitment to each other. The practical reasons didn't particularly need us to be married. The only real bonus was being able to file taxes together, and that didn't really get us any more advantageous tax breaks.
I mean, love definitely exists outside of marriage, and not everyone wants the hassle of a wedding or the public scrutiny that comes with the word "marriage". However, we liked that sort of public thing. It also was a fun party for our friends.
To me, as a college student, the only way marriage would actually benefit me is that it would allow me to file as an independent on my FASFA. I've actually toyed with the idea of getting married for that sole reason... If only I could be as awesome as Krieger.
Really? The practical aspects are my primary motivator. Love can exist outside of a marriage. So can kids.
The problem is that the "practical" aspect is so heavily entwined with our culture that it's effectively impossible to separate. If we didn't have all of those benefits? We'd very likely have a different social structure.
Yep. We wanted to have a demonstrable, public showing of our commitment to each other. The practical reasons didn't particularly need us to be married. The only real bonus was being able to file taxes together, and that didn't really get us any more advantageous tax breaks.
I mean, love definitely exists outside of marriage, and not everyone wants the hassle of a wedding or the public scrutiny that comes with the word "marriage". However, we liked that sort of public thing. It also was a fun party for our friends.
You can have that party without getting legally married. You can also get legally married without the hassle of that party. The only reason to get legally married is to get the legal benefits. You can have a wedding any time you want, but for the government to recognize it you have to do the paperwork.
To me, as a college student, the only way marriage would actually benefit me is that it would allow me to file as an independent on my FASFA. I've actually toyed with the idea of getting married for that sole reason... If only I could be as awesome as Krieger.
There's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it joke, the title of the book she's reading is a reference to a woodcut that's considered the first instance of tentacle porn.
I think we should put it to a vote in each state, and if at least twenty-six states legally recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage, then it should be the law of the land. And don't make it a one-time thing; once 26 states have it on their books then it become de jure
I think we should put it to a vote in each state, and if at least twenty-six states legally recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage, then it should be the law of the land. And don't make it a one-time thing; once 26 states have it on their books then it become de jure
Oh look, an optimist, how adorable -- and look, he cares about social issues! How cute, someone take a picture.
I may be quoting your avatar, I'm not sure, but wow, sarcasm how original. It's punks like you that stop progress. If you care so much get out there and DO something. MLK didn't advance civil rights by sitting at home complaining.
Comments
Some battles are worth fighting.
Edit: While looking up dates, I realized we've had women in government for longer than America has existed. Yey us.
Moving to another country takes a whole lot longer.
First, you'd need to get the proper visas, work permits, etc., to move there. That's even assuming you'd be approved by whatever government entity controls immigration to begin with. If you're a skilled doctor, engineer, scientist, etc., then it might be easier, but if you're just another unskilled laborer, well, good luck.
Second, you'll need to figure out how to find a job and a place to live in said new country once you do have all the paperwork in place. Sometimes, you cannot even get said paperwork without already having a job lined up.
Third, you'll need to find a way to convert all your financial assets to the new country's currency.
Fourth, you'll probably need to sell/give away many of your physical possessions and take the financial loss. For one thing, shipping them to the new country may be prohibitively expensive. For another thing, they may not be compatible with the new country's infrastructure -- i.e., 120V appliances in a country using 220V as standard, etc.
This also is assuming you even have the financial capability to travel to the new country to begin with. Again, if you're just an unskilled laborer, odds are you won't have the cash necessary to buy a plane ticket there, let alone to go through all the rigmarole of what needs to be done in order to move.
In another astounding display of missing the point, he proposes a flat tax for GLBT people, instead of the ability to get married. Because he also wants to remove the tax break for married people, and therefore it would be completely fair, because taxes are the only reason gay people want to get married.
Fuck's Sake.
Funnily enough, the Paul family happen to be some of those very rich assholes who get out of a ton of tax...
Edit - I know you're being facetious, before you decide to put me on your tumblr again.
Back to my original point, if government was marriage neutral (no different treatment based on marital status) would there be as big of a fight over same sex marriage?
Edit: I think reversing the question and asking "If there were not so many clear legal and tax benefits to marriage would there be such a strong push against same sex marriage?" might be more revealing.
The problem is that the "practical" aspect is so heavily entwined with our culture that it's effectively impossible to separate. If we didn't have all of those benefits? We'd very likely have a different social structure.
I mean, love definitely exists outside of marriage, and not everyone wants the hassle of a wedding or the public scrutiny that comes with the word "marriage". However, we liked that sort of public thing. It also was a fun party for our friends.