Yuku free message boards

That's a very good comment from Harvey Fierstein.

You know, I didn't realize that domestic-partner health insurance benefits are considered taxable income under federal law. (There's a page on that here.) Unfortunately, that would not have changed even if same-sex marriage has remained legal in CA, because federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages (or civil unions) even when they are legal in states. This is because of the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" of 1996 (spearheaded, incidentally, by Bill Clinton). Obama has promised to repeal it. I guess we'll see what happens -- I really hope that the passage of Prop 8 and the gay marriage bans in the two other states are not going to be seen as a signal that there's no popular support for fairness for same-sex couples!

Btw, trancegem, I'm a bit confused about the situation in England. Wikipedia says that same-sex marriage is illegal in the UK but civil partnerships offer all of the rights and benefits of marriage.

Well, in some cases the government can regulate who can have children. There have been a few cases in which women convicted of either child abuse or child abandonment have been ordered by the courts to have a contraceptive implant, though I believe there have been legal challenges to that. Also, I know of at least one case in which a guy who was a chronic deadbeat dad was given a suspended jail sentence on the condition that he not father any more children, and was then sent to jail after fathering another child. I'm not sure what I think of that. On the one hand, I really don't like the idea of the government intruding in such a personal area. On the other hand, I can certainly see the reasoning for doing something to keep child abusers and people who breed without taking responsibility for their children from having kids.

But that's kind of off-topic.

I think that the argument for gay marriage should stress that the government should treat all couples equally, not that the government shouldn't be able to regulate who can marry whom. Because if you say that, it open the way to arguments like "if we legalize same-sex marriage, we'll have to legalize polygamy and incestuous marriages" -- if the government can't regulate who you can marry, then it shouldn't be able to forbid you to marry two or three people or to marry your sibling. (In half of all states, it's illegal to marry your first cousin.) Actually, marriage is all about the government regulating relationships -- like, if you're married, the government can tell you how much of your property you have to give your partner if you break up.

So I think it's equal treatment that needs to be stressed, not regulation.

Well, I agree with you in principle, but churches and religious organizations are allowed to speak out on all sorts of issues whether they have a religious aspect or not. Though I do think it's a bit ... odd that they should be able to enjoy tax-exempt status while engaging in what is basically political lobbying.