CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by emilynghiem, Jul 1, 2016.

  1. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Thanks Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +2,760
    Same Sex Marriage, Single Rights and the Abolition of Marriage

    This tread started with the question Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from government and still protect people equally.? This would, of course mean that there would no longer be legal or secular marriage since only government can confer legal rights. It is about time that someone actually presented some facts rather than continuing to bloviate about what one thinks could be accomplished, how it could be done and what the ultimate outcome would look like.

    I never really took the subject of the abolition of marriage very seriously, but the notion keeps coming up and apparently is not going away. I will start by saying that I discovered, while I have been dismissing it as a product of the lunatic fringe who are motivated by denying gays legal marriage, or have an ax to grind over the admittedly shoddy treatment of single people, there are some who do in fact take it very seriously and there is more momentum for it than I though. My most startling discovery was there is this strange convergence of the issues of same sex marriage, singles rights and the demise of marriage as we know it. Case in point- a piece written by someone who does in fact believe that same sex marriage will lead to the demise of marriage itself via the single rights “movement” but with dire, unintended consequences and is therefore saying that we need to rethink support for marriage equality:

    She continues


    So theory has it that same sex marriage will, Or at least may, lead to the demise of marriage itself. However, is it by design on the part of pro-gay and/or single rights activists, is it being pushed by the anti-gay activists, or as the result of some sort of spontaneous combustion process? The article continues:

    So this author thinks it’s the gay rights activists with the help of single advocates:

    She is again saying that there will be dire consequences if marriage is abolished which will come about as the result of singles demanding rights because of the expansion of marriage rights to gays, but so far has not substantiated the claim made earlier that it is the gay marriage advocated that are the primary force behind abolishing marriage


    And


    In that earlier article in the Federalist by the same author and referenced above, she wrote:

    And again discusses the down side of abolishing marriage:
    And the signs that this is upon us…..



    Regardless of the meaning of any of this, I find it questionable that these forces are formidable enough to add up to the abolition of legal marriage or that the LGBT movement would be to blame if it did come to that. Finally, while some legal theorists believe that there is no constitutional right to marriage, I continue to stress the belief that the idea of abolishing legal marriage is politically and socially wrongheaded, and will not solve any issues or make life better in any way.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2016
  2. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550

    If you really think that is the sole means by which that may be accomplished, you've chosen to take a very narrow view of how the asked about objective might be accomplished. Try thinking just a little bit outside of the box and you might find other things which may be "meant" beside the single meaning you pontificate is also the sole meaning by which the end may be achieved.
     
  3. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Thanks Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +2,760
    I have no idea what you're talking about and I don't think that you really do either. Interesting how you cherry pick the opening line of my lengthy post- reply with some convoluted and cryptic riddle -and ignore the rest of it.
     
  4. 320 Years of History
    Offline

    320 Years of History Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    6,060
    Thanks Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    Ratings:
    +2,550
    Okay...TY for letting me know.
     
  5. Fair&Balanced
    Offline

    Fair&Balanced BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    8,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +6,516

    Sonny, you are clearly out of your depth. Isn't there a Hello Kitty forum around here you can post in?

    Private entitites enter into contracts all the time without government intervention. The government only comes into it when there is a breach that leads to dispute that must be settled.
     
  6. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Thanks Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +2,760
    Sonny!!?? You called me sonny!! You have no idea how fucking stupid that is!!

    Now, go back and read it again WITH COMPREHENSION> The points that you are not getting are:

    1. When people enter into private contracts, those contracts are regulated by contract law and therefor the government is still involved

    2. Private contracts will not compel the government or any third party to provide benefits that go with legal marriage.

    You're another one who likes to cherry pick opening lines but can't seem to come up with comments on the overall post.
     
  7. Fair&Balanced
    Offline

    Fair&Balanced BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    8,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +6,516
    OF COURSE a private contract could provide benefits from the government.


    It's simple, a law stating "any valid contract is accepted as an agreement to file joint tax statements" etc etc. See, no mention of the word marriage, none

    And in point of fact the IRS does NOT verify whether you are actually married or not when you file as married. AND they respect common law marriage as marriage in states that recognize common law marriage.

    The actual fact of the matter is the IRS doesn't care on whit about the state issued marriage license.
     
  8. TheProgressivePatriot
    Online

    TheProgressivePatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2015
    Messages:
    6,252
    Thanks Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
    Ratings:
    +2,760
    1.Only a few states recognize common law marriage

    2.You seem to be suggesting that large numbers of people defraud the government by filing joint returns when not actually married.

    3.But if legal marriage as we know it were abolished, the feds would know that they are not married.

    4. By your own admission, a new law would have to be passed to substitute "contracts" for "marriage" Good luck.

    You guys keep insisting on struggle to make this work, when few want it and no one stands to benefit from it.
     
  9. Fair&Balanced
    Offline

    Fair&Balanced BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    8,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,026
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +6,516
    1. Irrelevant

    2. I'm sure many do

    3. Irrelevant

    4. I never said otherwise.
     
  10. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,139
    Thanks Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,095
    Except that it gets the government out of marriage, and therefore allows people/entities to make the decision for themselves. I do not see how this would be harmful.
    As for the rest of your post:
    While it was an...interesting read, I still do not see how this will be a problem. I get the argument that it removes the so-called "wall of separation" between the individual and state, I not only disagree that this "wall" even exists, but that it is unnecessary if it does. What purpose would it serve, assuming it exists? Furthermore, why is a "wall" between the state and an individual necessary? Seems to me, if such a wall where removed, one would find a government by the people, and FOR the people would be much easier to attain and sustain.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page