Austin Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
clicky poll! let's get things going
what's your opinion on gay marriage?
please be respectful of each other's opinions - no flaming.
Re: clicky poll! let's get things going
My perspective is slightly different than "gays should be able to marry" but I went ahead and voted there bc it's closest to my opinion.
I do appreciate the religious foundations of "marriage" and how it can be considered a violation of the Bible (for lack of better term) for two people of the same sex to marry. However, having a gay BFF, I think they should be provided the same legal rights as marriage, whatever you want to call it. There is so much legal ramification to a marriage including property rights, health rights, etc, that I think it's unfair to deny someone bc they aren't attracted to who the Bible says they should be attracted to. There is a legal union that is possible, but it costs a lot of money and is very difficult to get out of.
I know many gays want full marriage rights, but so many would be appreciative of the legal right for a similar union and that's where I think the middle groud should meet.
that's kinda where i was going with the state (should have said government?) staying out of marriage. i don't think married people should be given rewards. and i think anyone should be able to assign a loved one the duties/responsibilities/benefits of next of kin. like, if we end up like the golden girls and for some reason don't have kids, we should be able to declare our best friend as next of kin! i don't understand why the government gets to determine who we're closest to. and i don't think those rights should be limited to romantic love.
i think marriage is a public testimony and celebration, and the government should stay out of it. let people celebrate what they want, with whom they want.
i'm rambling.
I totally agree with this!!
i do think there should be some restrictions on who can marry. should minors be allowed to marry? i can't think of many situations in which children should be allowed to marry. should senior men be allowed to marry teenage girls? generally, i would say no way. should siblings be allowed to marry? my first response is ewwwwwww, no.
Without standards and protocols for determining next of kin, hospitals and probate courts would be in chaos. The government/law has to be involved to the point where it sets a protocol for determining this information in the lack of proper documentation. You can declare any one you want as your power of attorney, executor, etc. But like pp said, all of that does cost money, but it is an option. About the only thing you can't do with anyone you want is declare them a spouse for health insurance purposes. (FWIW, a non-relative can be determined next of kin by the court based on a platonic relationship if there is evidence to support it. 2 women once lived as sisters and the survivor wanted to stay in the deceased's rent-controlled apartment and eventually won because she proved herself to be the intended next of kin.)
So I can't agree with the statement that the government should stay out of marriage entirely, But I do believe that they shouldn't be able to dictate that it is an institution only between a man and a woman. There is no emotional, medical, or physical harm in two people of the same sex marrying, so the government should not prevent it from happening.
My Bio (wedding pics added 7/6)
My 101
There wouldn't be a need for it to be written. Laws generally don't allow things, they restrict things. So, in our state, to allow gays to marry, we'd get rid of the constitutional amendment making it illegal. Churches are not forced to marry anyone now, weren't prior to the constitutional amendment, and wouldn't be if it got repealed.
Ahh okay, that makes sense. The only law class I ever took was Business Law
I read an article a couple of years back that listed over 1,000 rights that legal spouses have (including tax breaks, access to medical information, etc.) that partners don't. It was interesting, I will try to find it.
Also, the power of attorney form is statutory and can easily be found on the web and doesn't cost a penny. OR, I can email anyone the form if y'all are interested. Its a good idea to have that form, the medical power of attorney, and the living will. All are statutory (meaning they are just forms made by the legislature and aren't drafted from scratch by attorneys) and are free.
1) I think gays should be able to marry
2) I think separation of church and state is almost always a good idea. However, since marriage is also a legal issue, that is not really possible in this scenario. If straight people can be married by a judge/officiant, then gay people should be able to do that too. At this point, it doesn't bother me if churches won't allow it. I wish they would, but I can see why they don't.
3) It boggles my mind that this is such a humongous issue. But same with environmental issues. Both seem like no-brainers to me.
BFP 12.20.2010 :: missed m/c 1/2011 around 8 weeks
BFP @ 9dpo 5.24.2011 :: missed m/c 6/2011 around 7 weeks
positive for ANAs (1:40) with a speckled pattern
MTHFR c677t mutation (heterozygous)
*folic acid, baby asprin, Prometrium, acupuncture, Lovenox*
BFP @ 9dpo 2.1.2012 || HCG = 8 : Progesterone = 19.2
2nd HCG @ 11dpo = 40 || 3rd HCG @ 21dpo = over 5000!
Stick, little one, stick! EDD October 15, 2012
agreed, but i don't think that standard/protocol should be marriage. that discriminates against widows, divorcees, etc. the standard could be as simple as having a line on your tax return where you write-in a name, or on your driver's license, or....
but that's where california ran into trouble. people were suing churches (i think it was the mormon church? or maybe catholic, i don't remember) for refusing to marry them, denying them a legal right.
yes please! jessica at somethingtocelebrate dot com
See, I think the issues can be seperated. I don't think churches want the government to define what marriage is to their church or their congregation. Government can define what legally constitutes a marriage or a union or besties who want do kick it Golden Girl style. Church and state can be seperate, even in this issue, because its two different things. One is a legal status and one is a spiritual and religious union.
I had a friend who was catholic and married in the church. She and her hubby refused to file the marriage certificate with the county because she felt that she didn't need the government's approval to be married. Because they are a male and female couple, the state doesn't care, and they get all of the legal rights that a "registered" married couple would get. It would be different if a same sex couple went around claiming they are married and wanting to be granted the rights of married couples. And, they don't have the option of marrying.
Hmm... I didn't hear of that. I don't understand how they'd have standing considering that Churches don't grant legal rights. I'll look it up. Yes, I am a dork.
I love you.
I'd also be curious to know if the divorce rate would change if gays were allowed to marry. just curious - I don't know if it would go up, down, or stay the same.
Eek! Don't even get me started on that issue! I watched Colbert last night and he showed clips of (1) a Texas legislator who firmly believes global warming is a money-making scheme by scientists (I've heard this theory before) and (2) some crazy woman on Fox (nuff said) who said global warming was a conspiracy to lower the living standards of Americans to that of less sophisticated countries. That was a new one for me! Oh, and there was the gentleman whose argument against global warming was that it snowed in Houston.
My Bio (wedding pics added 7/6)
My 101
I saw some pickup truck with two bumper stickers on the back - one saying, "I
waterboarding" the other saying "I 
global warning." it took all of my might not to give him the finger. 
Ok, I've looked and I can't find any actual suit that was filed. I did find on many anti-gay marriage sites where there was speculation that suits such as these would be filed, but no actual lawsuits.
hmm.... i'll look. i remember first hearing about it on a radio show on 94.7.
haven't found the california one but here's one in new jersey:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
that's actually a really interesting article. the part i found most interesting (because i'm in the industry) was about the photographer who was sued (and lost) because they refused to photograph a gay wedding, stating it was against the photographer's religious beliefs.
I agree, I cannot believe this is still an issue! "Marriage" is a legal issue, and the government has no right to tell gay people they can't have those rights just because in the eyes of some churches they have sinned. Hasn't everyone?
Now ... the church should have the option to deny marriages in the church to whomever they want, but should not have any say so over the legal rights of those people.
Use whatever terms you want - "legal partnership" or "marriage" or whatever ... if it's easier and more respectful to church, you can split those up. Call unions in the church a marriage and call legal unions something else .... but gay people should have every legal right the rest of us (sinners) do.
I watched that too and that's what was on my mind. Ludicrous.
BFP 12.20.2010 :: missed m/c 1/2011 around 8 weeks
BFP @ 9dpo 5.24.2011 :: missed m/c 6/2011 around 7 weeks
positive for ANAs (1:40) with a speckled pattern
MTHFR c677t mutation (heterozygous)
*folic acid, baby asprin, Prometrium, acupuncture, Lovenox*
BFP @ 9dpo 2.1.2012 || HCG = 8 : Progesterone = 19.2
2nd HCG @ 11dpo = 40 || 3rd HCG @ 21dpo = over 5000!
Stick, little one, stick! EDD October 15, 2012
Two consenting adults (adult = 18) of the same or different genders should have the legal right to marry with full respect for that status given in all 50 states and relevant U.S. territories. Legally married couples should also be given full rights and recognition equal to those rights and recognition currently given to heterosexual couples.
Futher more, if the state should "stay out of marriage" then the state should also repeal any legal or financial protections that married couples receive, from tax breaks to hospital visitation rights to survivor benefits and anything in between.
"Separate but equal" didn't work for African Americans and it won't work for gay Americans.