The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

[Minor Axis]

The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage-

Wow, this is an incredible article written by a powerful conservative Republican affiliated lawyer.

Summary: From a legal standpoint, there is no reason to prevent gay marriage. Case closed!

 

[Peter Parka]

If anyone is demeaning marriage, its people like Britney Spears and Elizabeth Taylor, maybe they should work on a bill to ban those two from being allowed to marry.

 

[Zorak]

It's a good article.

Any modern governments position on gay marriage should be self evident, to steal a phrase.

 

[nova]

I disagree on the grounds gov't shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

 

[Minor Axis]

I disagree on the grounds gov't shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

So you are saying there should be no govt sponsored justice of the peace types marriages? The family is an institution given legitimacy by marriage and laws. Many believe it should not be the exclusive bailiwick of organized religion, because we have separation of church and state. And there is a lot of law based on unions of committed partners in life, protecting and passing on family assets as well as family oversight privileges.

 

[Francis]

Marriage from the Government perspective is all legalities and tax issue in the form of a license really..

And where gays can get married, the Church is not forced to wed them at all, nor should it be..

That was not the intent..

The only reason the Government ( Justice of the Peace ) gets involved is to fill in the gaps where the Church cannot, will not or is not requested to perform the ceremony ( Wedding ).

But in actuality do you even need the ceremony to be married or is it just a formality ?

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Minor Axis]

But in actuality do you even need the ceremony to be married or is it just a formality ?

Legally, marriage makes a difference. One example if I got this right- person dieing in hospital. Spouse has a right to be there. A "gay" partner without extra legal steps has no right and is not afforded the same access as a spouse or parent would normally be granted without question.

 

[Francis]

Legally, marriage makes a difference. One example if I got this right- person dieing in hospital. Spouse has a right to be there. A "gay" partner without extra legal steps has no right and is not afforded the same access as a spouse or parent would normally be granted without question.

i realize you need to be "married", but do you need the ceremony is the question..

The discussion here a while ago was why waste a Judge's time when a person such as a certified administrator ( example ) can hand out the license..

Is the ceremony required with a Justice of the Peace..

This had nothing to do with gays but rather with bogging down the burdened justice system..

Our Judges have better things to do then marry people, gay or not, was what some were saying..

Not sure if I agree or disagree as there are many legalities..

 

[nova]

So you are saying there should be no govt sponsored justice of the peace types marriages? The family is an institution given legitimacy by marriage and laws. Many believe it should not be the exclusive bailiwick of organized religion, because we have separation of church and state. And there is a lot of law based on unions of committed partners in life, protecting and passing on family assets as well as family oversight privileges.

My argument is really a matter of semantics.

The concept of marriage is fundamentally a religious one, something the gov't has no legitimate interest in.

Where the gov't has interest is where we've essentially turned a religious institution into one carrying consequences under the law with it. Another way of putting it is we've turned a religious bond into what amounts to a contract.

I would like the contract portion separated out and opened to all as any legal agreement should be. Marriage can then be left to the church.

ETA

Just a clarify a bit, it would basically force everyone to go before a gov't rep if they want to be legally tied together. If you just want to get married "in the eyes of the lord" thats fine but it carries no legal weight unless you also go before a Justice of the Peace or similar...

 

[Accountable]

Marriage has always been a practical, political, and religious matter, separately or simultaneously, depending on the culture. In the US, marriage is quickly becoming a quaint custom of a shrinking minority. The real definition of marriage has morphed to include spouses & ex-spouses, step-families, adoptive siblings and multiple parents. There is religious marriage, legal marriage, common-law marriage, and cohabitation.

In short, marriage is damn near anything so long as you're not gay.

It's a useless pointless practice, from a legal point of view. It's time for civil marriage to be deleted from the lawbooks.

 

[Tangerine]

Just a clarify a bit, it would basically force everyone to go before a gov't rep if they want to be legally tied together. If you just want to get married "in the eyes of the lord" thats fine but it carries no legal weight unless you also go before a Justice of the Peace or similar...

That's precisely the system we already have.

 

[nova]

That's precisely the system we already have.

Except priests, preachers, etc are designated gov't reps, which kinda crosses some boundaries. I want everything separate

 

[Tangerine]

Except priests, preachers, etc are designated gov't reps, which kinda crosses some boundaries. I want everything separate

Only because they carry the "government" title of "Notary Public" That is all that is necessary to perform a marriage. Couples still must go before a separate "government" official to apply for a marriage license. Not sure how signing and notarizing a piece of paper crosses any boundries?

 

[nova]

No real legal backing to my opinion, just how I feel. I just think there would be less issue if there was more separation between the two sides of the equation and admit to what marriage is in a legal sense, namely a contract.

 

[Peter Parka]

If law was taken out of marriage then a lot of people would be getting a bum deal in divorce cases seeing there wouldn't be any law there either. Just something to think about.

 

[Accountable]

If there's no marriage there is no divorce, so no bum deal.

Any major change in law like that would naturally have grandfather clauses to protect the people. People married under the old laws would be protected under the old laws. But after that, no marriage, no divorce, no bum deal from divorce.

 

[Peter Parka]

If there's no marriage there is no divorce, so no bum deal.

An example. A couple could have been married for 40 or 50 odd years. The guy has a good job and is a millionaire. He's also an abusive drunk. The wife however puts up with this for the same of the 6 kids she has born him and because she is so downtrodden. The guy then finds some 21 year old bimbo who he'd rather shack up with so just kicks the wife out of his house and dosen't give her a penny. Seeing marriage is no longer a legal thing and there is no divorce court, the wife if screwed.

 

[Accountable]

An example. A couple could have been married for 40 or 50 odd years. The guy has a good job and is a millionaire. He's also an abusive drunk. The wife however puts up with this for the same of the 6 kids she has born him and because she is so downtrodden. The guy then finds some 21 year old bimbo who he'd rather shack up with so just kicks the wife out of his house and dosen't give her a penny. Seeing marriage is no longer a legal thing and there is no divorce court, the wife if screwed.

The British filters must've blocked the second half of my post:

Any major change in law like that would naturally have grandfather clauses to protect the people. People married under the old laws would be protected under the old laws. But after that, no marriage, no divorce, no bum deal from divorce.

Besides, keeping a bad law around because the odd one or two might be benefitting from it is not wise. How many farmers were hurt when slavery was abolished? How many black families suddenly found themselves homeless? Yeh, I know the example is too extreme to even fit in the conversation, but the British filters will block it anyway.

 

[Peter Parka]

The British filters must've blocked the second half of my post:



Besides, keeping a bad law around because the odd one or two might be benefitting from it is not wise. How many farmers were hurt when slavery was abolished? How many black families suddenly found themselves homeless? Yeh, I know the example is too extreme to even fit in the conversation, but the British filters will block it anyway.

Not at all, the new laws still dont protect couples who married after they came in, 40 or 50 years down the line, do they?

Slavery and divorce are two completely different things, I fail to see any comparison between them at all. :unsure:

 

[Accountable]

Not at all, the new laws still dont protect couples who married after they came in, 40 or 50 years down the line, do they?

Dunno, but it still doesn't justify keeping marriage around.

Slavery and divorce are two completely different things, I fail to see any comparison between them at all. :unsure:

Not slavery and divorce. Slavery and marriage. It's emancipation and divorce! :24:


Of course I'm kidding. I'm happily married over 24 years.