California Prop 8 overturned

[Peter Parka]

It;' scary that some people are so backwards and stupid that they think marriage is homophobic and religious. Pull your head out of 100 years ago, people! Jesus fucking Christ!

 

[Minor Axis]

It;' scary that some people are so backwards and stupid that they think marriage is homophobic and religious. Pull your head out of 100 years ago, people! Jesus fucking Christ!

I don't think it's bad that religious people think marriage is a religious experience. However it might be interesting to research the history of marriage and find out if the institution started as a blessing from God or as simply a recognized civil arrangement within society describing a commitment between two people. Something tells me that organized religion took this concept and adopted it as their own.

My impression is the Bible speaks of the sanctity of marriage, but there is still a situation where it was human beings who associated marriage with religion and God's blessings.

 

[Louis]

There is not one reason why two homosexuals can't be married.
"What I am need no excuses"
We are all equal and dserve to be happily married.
You can't choose who you fall in love with.
x

 

[Accountable]

I'm having trouble lining up your statements in your previous post responding to me. I never said anything about needing protection for or from a church wedding. I said a civil marriage document is needed to protect peoples rights to get married , without having to go through a church. That is all, a very simple process once the requirements are set, such as who can get married to whom. Marriage is all about legalities, responsibilities, rights, custody, and ownership of property. Even the church marriage requires a marriage license, a government document. The civil marriage is a must imo. I know you know this.

* Are you really advocating only being able to get married in a church? If so, why?
* Is your deep seated mistrust of government is so severe, you would not trust the local Justice of the Peace to marry two people- why? I imagine if government can't handle this job, then according to you, government should be totally dismantled and we might as well rely on anarchy which might make Ed happy.

I thought I've made myself crystal clear over the several times of posting my opinion, but I guess not. I'm saying that the government should stop recognizing marriage in any form.

The church comes in when religious people who value marriage still want to marry in the eyes of God.

It's not that people would only be able to get married in a church, but that there wouldn't be a government (legal) recognition of the marriage. People could swim out to the middle of a lake and be recognized by Poseidon, if they want to.

What is the purpose of marriage in today's society?

 

[Accountable]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate with your post. Please don't feel that I'm attacking you personally.

There is not one reason why two homosexuals can't be married.

Are there two? :jk

"What I am need no excuses"

Agreed.

We are all equal and dserve to be happily married.

Why? What does "marriage" mean to you?

You can't choose who you fall in love with.
x

True, but you can always choose how to react to the feeling. Imagine if you fell in love with a person already committed to a different relationship.

 

[Godsloveapples]

That sucks :thumbdown

 

[Tim]

I thought I've made myself crystal clear over the several times of posting my opinion, but I guess not. I'm saying that the government should stop recognizing marriage in any form.

The church comes in when religious people who value marriage still want to marry in the eyes of God.

It's not that people would only be able to get married in a church, but that there wouldn't be a government (legal) recognition of the marriage. People could swim out to the middle of a lake and be recognized by Poseidon, if they want to.

What is the purpose of marriage in today's society?

Even I'm not sure what you are saying or your stand on marriage. Are you saying that there should be no legal recognition of marriage by the state or federal government? That it should be solely between a husband and wife recognized by the church?
Then how would we deal with some of the following issues if the state no longer recognizes marriage as a matter of law? Should all of these things be done away with?

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

 

[Minor Axis]

What is the purpose of marriage in today's society?

You seem really stubborn on this topic. I've all ready told you legalities, responsibilities, rights, custody, and ownership of property. This is not important to you? What would you replace marriage with?

 

[Accountable]

You seem really stubborn on this topic. I've all ready told you legalities, responsibilities, rights, custody, and ownership of property. This is not important to you? What would you replace marriage with?

It doesn't need to be replaced.

That list Tim provided (thanks, Tim) can be handled in a variety of ways, through contracts, trusts, etc, just like single people do today. Marriage provides special protection to a certain group of people in a country that boasts Equal Protection of the Law.

Are you saying that there should be no legal recognition of marriage by the state or federal government? That it should be solely between a husband and wife recognized by the church?

That's exactly what I'm saying, except that the church isn't necessary unless the spouses want it. A politician isn't necessary to declare undying love, either. People cohabitate without licenses every day. Churches likewise bless marriages without civil contracts. The legal construct is not necessary.

 

[Tim]

It doesn't need to be replaced.

That list Tim provided (thanks, Tim) can be handled in a variety of ways, through contracts, trusts, etc, just like single people do today. Marriage provides special protection to a certain group of people in a country that boasts Equal Protection of the Law.

That's exactly what I'm saying, except that the church isn't necessary unless the spouses want it. A politician isn't necessary to declare undying love, either. People cohabitate without licenses every day. Churches likewise bless marriages without civil contracts. The legal construct is not necessary.

You sound more like a crack pot every day... and I mean that in the nicest way. But you are pretty far out in left field on this one. Just saying.

 

[Accountable]

You sound more like a crack pot every day... and I mean that in the nicest way. But you are pretty far out in left field on this one. Just saying.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/07/why-is-the-state-involved-in-marriage-at-all/

Why is the state involved in marriage at all?

http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?...the state involved in marriage at all?&src=sp
posted at 10:10 am on August 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey


Now that a judge has issued an incoherent ruling that the federal government has a 14th Amendment interest in the definition of marriage after more than 140 years of apparent disinterest, it may be time to reconsider government involvement in marriage entirely.

 

[Minor Axis]

It doesn't need to be replaced.

That list Tim provided (thanks, Tim) can be handled in a variety of ways, through contracts, trusts, etc, just like single people do today. Marriage provides special protection to a certain group of people in a country that boasts Equal Protection of the Law.

That's exactly what I'm saying, except that the church isn't necessary unless the spouses want it. A politician isn't necessary to declare undying love, either. People cohabitate without licenses every day. Churches likewise bless marriages without civil contracts. The legal construct is not necessary.

I disagree. You believe the government no longer needs to recognize marriage. What difference would it make? Marriage is a simple, convenient, and specialized contract. All government does is issue a license. People cohabitate and in some states that is an implied contract after a period of time. When the contract fails, the rest is handled by lawyers in a courtroom, just like any other contract. I don't understand why you are advocating replacing one contract with another? I don't really see your objection to the concept of marriage unless you view it as a means for your spouse at some point in the future to steal your hard earned possessions and wealth. But if you had signed an alternative "contract" you'd still be in the same boat.

And so why did you get married?

 

[Azazel]

 

[Accountable]

I disagree. You believe the government no longer needs to recognize marriage. What difference would it make? Marriage is a simple, convenient, and specialized contract. All government does is issue a license. People cohabitate and in some states that is an implied contract after a period of time. When the contract fails, the rest is handled by lawyers in a courtroom, just like any other contract. I don't understand why you are advocating replacing one contract with another? I don't really see your objection to the concept of marriage unless you view it as a means for your spouse at some point in the future to steal your hard earned possessions and wealth. But if you had signed an alternative "contract" you'd still be in the same boat.

And so why did you get married?

Ending marriage as it stands now would be an incredible hardship for me unless they grandfathered it, which is common when canceling a privilege. The current system, as I said, provides special protection to a select group . That's unfair. Why can't other pairs of people other than a man & woman marry?

• Sisters who have outlived their husbands and decided to move in together.
• Best friends who have outlived their spouses, regardless of sex, and decided to move in together.
• Confirmed bachelors who decide to be room mates for life and be each other's permanent wingman.
• Business partners who share a total devotion to their endeavor.
• College room mates who see their married classmates getting big tax breaks and want an equal cut of the action.

Like the article points out, civil marriage has nothing whatever to do with love, commitment, or procreation, so why continue the illusion? Open it up to everyone and at least be true to the Constitution.

 

[Minor Axis]

All of the things you mentioned can be handled by one of those alternate contracts you alluded to. However rights of parents regarding their children is a different category that marriage conveniently covers as the assumption is that most parents want responsibility for their kids.

 

[Accountable]

All of the things you mentioned can be handled by one of those alternate contracts you alluded to. However rights of parents regarding their children is a different category that marriage conveniently covers as the assumption is that most parents want responsibility for their kids.

Married parents can make do with the same rules single parents follow.

Did you read the article?

 

[Minor Axis]

Married parents can make do with the same rules single parents follow.

Did you read the article?

The unmarried father of a child has very limited rights as compared to the married father. In the case of single parents, most of the rights and responsibilities automatically, except for paying child support go to the unwed mother.

Just looked at it. I don't know why the author seems to think marriage is not a contract.

 

[Accountable]

The unmarried father of a child has very limited rights as compared to the married father. In the case of single parents, most of the rights and responsibilities automatically, except for paying child support go to the unwed mother.

Sounds like you're starting to agree with me. The married father has special protection not offered to single fathers. All fathers deserve equal protection under the law.

Just looked at it. I don't know why the author seems to think marriage is not a contract.

Let’s first dispense with the idea that the government protects the sanctity of marriage. It doesn’t; if government ever did that, that ended with no-fault divorce. Marriage, as run by the government, is the only contract in this country that can be broken by one party alone with no adverse consequences. (Well, that and professional sports contracts, I guess.) Partnership agreements in the business context would disintegrate without at least the threat of government enforcement of its provisions. Marriage as run by government has been disintegrating for decades, as the divorce rate shows, and that has nothing to do with gay relationships.

 

[Louis]

Why? What does "marriage" mean to you?

I don't really want to get married, I dont think I could be with someone forever, but I would like the same rights as a str8 person. Why can't gays be unhapply married for 50 years to?

True, but you can always choose how to react to the feeling. Imagine if you fell in love with a person already committed to a different relationship.

You can't really compare the feelings of liking someone in a relationship to "Gay feelings".

 

[Minor Axis]

Sounds like you're starting to agree with me. The married father has special protection not offered to single fathers. All fathers deserve equal protection under the law.

I agree, but don't see it as something that precludes marriage. I also suspect, maybe prejudicial or historically, that when it comes to single men fathering children, they have a bad track record as in not wanting the responsibility.

Maybe I am naive, but I don't see marriage being run by government. It is being run by the courts, but they, the courts would be in the middle even if we were talking contracts which is what you are advocating. So I really don't see a revelation here.