Trying to bring an edge to my writing

[greybeta]

I'm starting to believe that I'm too nice to be an opinion writer...I can't choose a side for very long and I digress way too much.

Forgive me for lapsing into first person on this one. I couldn't help myself. I will have plenty of time to change this article accordingly to my criticism.

I know, I should google more stuff to check my facts but I'm a bit behind on some other stuff right now. In regards to SQ711, I live in Oklahoma.

Flames are welcome.

---

In defense of marriage
Daniel Tu

State Question 711 preserves the sanctity of marriage against the left wing social revolution. Adding Section 35 to Article 2, SQ711 defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. Other states’ same-sex marriages become invalid in Oklahoma, and people who are not married cannot receive the benefits of marriage. It also makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.

What do those who oppose SQ711 say? There is no need to explicitly define marriage. I wish I could agree with them, but I cannot when a fundamental part of humanity is being taken for granted. Jesus Christ said in Mark 10:6-9, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” There’s a balance to nature that we must choose to maintain.

Notably, the Chinese believe in the philosophy of the yin and the yang. The yin is dark, cold, and female. The yang is light, hot, and male. So the yin and the yang oppose each other to keep the world in equilibrium. Pairing yin with yin or yang with yang upsets this delicate balance, yet homosexuality promotes doing just that. Don’t get me wrong, I do not advocate hate crimes against gays or lesbians. Rather, I see homosexuality as a perversion of nature.

Once we accept same-sex marriages, must we not also accept teaching same-sex marriages as normal? Look at our current culture. Coming out stories fill television shows and Internet ads. Biology claims that homosexuals are naturally inclined to be attracted to people of the same sex rather than of the opposite sex. We should accept people for who they are. The way somebody chooses his or her significant other is a personal decision that should be respected. We shouldn’t outlaw homosexuality because that would disregard America’s passion for equality.

People are people. If pricked, we all bleed. If the homosexual community is adamant on getting the same rights given to married couples, then they should work on getting civil unions. As I understand it, when one half of a same-sex couple gets hurt in a car wreck, the hospital denies visiting rights to his or her significant other. Civil unions could give them these kinds of rights without overstepping the bounds of marriage.

Conservatives preserve the status quo, so they will defend the traditions that have built our society. Marriage is the union between one man and one woman, so same-sex marriages should be banned. That’s the way it’s always been taught and always should be taught. In order to protect our sacred traditions, vote yes for State Question 711.

Comments

[paranoidgrl.livejournal.com]

Research the visiting hospital parts; that actually varies from staff person to staff person at hospitals. You might also look into whether civil unions affect the ability to inherit property from one another; spouses can automatically inherit property from a deceased spouse whether there's a will or not; unmarried couples cannot, and wills are often overturned by a gay person's family to prevent the parent from inheriting. What other legal rights does a civil union in your area grant? If your position is that civil unions grant the same rights as marriage, what legal rights does marriage grant, and how are civil unions comparable?

You may also want to include a statement about whether civil unions should be available to heterosexual couples; if so, how does that affect the sanctity of marriage?

[renough.livejournal.com]

From what I understand, a quick way to circumvent that (land transfer) is to give it as a 'gift' before one dies. That way, as long as the deed what physically given to the 2nd party before the 1st party's death, then it is legally binding in ownership to the 2nd party...

...at least that's what my law class taught me.

[paranoidgrl.livejournal.com]

True. But there are tax consequences for that (I think you can only gift up to $10,000 tax free; but then, I skipped most of my tax law classes). You can also co-title items requiring title (cars, homes, IRA's), but both these require a level of planning that may not have occured at the time of death, especially if sudden. But yeah, solutions, just not automatic ones.

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

You cannot co-title an IRA. The "I" stands for "Individual" and the IRS gets really pissed if you forget that. :)

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

That's a good idea. I'll encourage my aunt that if she is ever about to be in a fatal accident of some sort, she should give her possessions to her partner as a gift just before it happens.

[renough.livejournal.com]

I never said it was a fix all solution... Sheesh, I'm just trying to help out. No need to jump down my throat.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

It isn't a solution at all.

The fact is that in cases like this, families have challenged the "gift," and won in court, thereby depriving the deceased of such a fundamental thing as being able to designate to whom their estate and/or belongings pass.

Except in extreme cases (e.g. Anna Nicole Smith), families can be almost guaranteed that any challenge to property passing to one's spouse is destined to fail.

But transfers accomplished through wills, gifts made during fatal illness, &c. are very commonly overturned in favor of the blood relatives, rather than the chosen partner.

So not only is it unrealistic to say "give it to your partner as a gift," because death can come suddenly and unexpectedly, it is also unrealistic to advocate any transfer other than at fair market value, because it is likely to be overturned in court should the family challenge the transfer.

You propose a simple solution to a complex problem, and as in the majority of such cases, the simple solution is unsatisfactory.

[renough.livejournal.com]

Well, when you mix someone who is taking a course in business law with someone who just wants to help how they can... you get me. I'm not saying I know everything, I was just saying what I know about the laws of 'gifts.' I am even prosecuting in a mock trial dealing with said issue of giving a gift post mortem.

All I'm saying is that I'm just trying to help with what little knowledge I have of the law. No reason to belittle me for it.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

You were the one who stepped up with a suggested solution apparently without doing your research.

When you talk about a subject you don't know about, you should expect to be informed by those who do.

Don't take this personally. I'm not trying to belittle you personally. I'm pointing out to you the flaws in your argument - many of which are well-tread ground - so that you can refine your views, and if the facts warrant, change your position. At the very least, you will be prepared to have a more informed discussion on the subject.

Granted, my patience is a little short on the subject, precisely because I see so many people make the same arguments you made. I will try to be less irritable.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

These are all good questions...I'll try to find a way to incorporate them into my article.

Extending civil unions to heterosexual couples...this makes a lot of sense to me. Before that, though, I do need to define what rights a marriage grants in my area.