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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

Yes, which is a problem. OTOH, if everyone is allowed to marry a consenting adult, then it makes the problem more easily digested.

Some of those rights and benefits apply unmarried couples with children too.

Is it unconstitutional to prohibit people who chose not to go to real-estate school from selling real estate and thus denying them the benefits and rewards of the profession?

 

[Divine Wind]

Is it unconstitutional to prohibit people who chose not to go to real-estate school from selling real estate and thus denying them the benefits and rewards of the profession?

First, the Constitution's Preamble says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

Licenses are approved by "We, the People" so that our families aren't operated on by quacks, killed by unlicensed drivers or cheated, in this case, by unscrupulous real-estate agents.

Second, as long as anyone can obtain that Real Estate license regardless of sexual preference, race, religion, etc, then it isn't a 14th Amendment issue.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Is it unconstitutional to prohibit people who chose not to go to real-estate school from selling real estate and thus denying them the benefits and rewards of the profession?

First, the Constitution's Preamble says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

Licenses are approved by "We, the People" so that our families aren't operated on by quacks, killed by unlicensed drivers or cheated, in this case, by unscrupulous real-estate agents.

Second, as long as anyone can obtain that Real Estate license regardless of sexual preference, race, religion, etc, then it isn't a 14th Amendment issue.

Right. I was just trying to out idiot the idiots here .

 

[Divine Wind]

Right. I was just trying to out idiot the idiots here .

Fair enough. OTOH, outing idiots here is like shooting fish in a barrel. Too easy.

 

[Slyhunter]

Pedophiles in our girls bathrooms to prove we tolerate gays.
Total disassembly of women's sports by allowing men to compete directly with them.
and more.

Pedophiles ? More of your horseshit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Little girl says man watched her using bathroom say police

Target's controversial bathroom policy
Is Target’s bathroom policy an open door to sex offenders?


SURPRISE. Convicted Sex Offender Was Behind Charlotte, NC's Boys-In-the-Girls Bathroom Law | RedState

Transwomen & Sexualized Violence

88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3).

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia, in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behavior.

Yes.
You should know better by now than to challenge me.

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing useful to contribute to the actual topic. All that you can do is to dredge up nonsensical and hateful propaganda smearing trans people. Pretty pathetic!

What I did was prove you were the one full of Horseshit.

I'm not bothering with you. You have nothing useful or remotely intelligent to say. All that you can do is spew bigoted propaganda and inane equine excrement. You are a blight on this forum where most people come to exchange ideas and to learn from one another. Buzzzzzz off!

You make a claim. I provide links proving you wrong. And you say im the one thats full of excrement. Funny.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be. CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

 

[oldsoul]

Those who are not married are free to get married . No one is discriminating against them.

Yes, unmarried people are free to marry, however, a person who is not married cannot, for example, file a joint tax return with a person they live with, something married folks can do, if they wish. Just one example. Here's another, an unmarried person has to draw-up and file paperwork for a person of their choosing to be the executor of their estate, married folks have chosen that person by marrying them. I could go on.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

 

[oldsoul]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

Couldn't have said it better, thank you.

 

[jillian]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

no

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

No, because you see , you can get married and receive those same benefits. Now if the government said "these are marriage benefits" and then proceeded to deny them to some married people, THAT would be illegal.

 

[jillian]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

the US government does not regulate matters of status. they do however have the right to make certain that status is not granted in a way that violates the equal protection clause.

for the record, the constitution and caselaw actually do not permit a federal court to overturn an election law finding made by the highest court of a state. yet that is what bush v gore did. (which is why the scalia and his buddies said it had no precedent in future matters)

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

the US government does not regulate matters of status. they do however have the right to make certain that status is not granted in a way that violates the equal protection clause.

for the record, the constitution and caselaw actually do not permit a federal court to overturn an election law finding made by the highest court of a state. yet that is what bush v gore did. (which is why the scalia and his buddies said it had no precedent in future matters)

Right, which is what I was saying earlier. A state COULD just stop issuing state marriage licenses and there isn't a damn thing the federal government could do about it. BUT if they DO offer marriage licenses, the USG can certainly via SCOTUS step in and say "no you aren't providing equal availability to everyone" if that state starts picking and choosing who they let have licenses.

Really in that regard marriage licenses are no different than public schools. a state can't pass a law against gay children attending public schools, neither can they pass a law against gay marriage. The difference being I think a state would lose in court if they tried to not offer public schools.

 

[oldsoul]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

No, because you see , you can get married and receive those same benefits. Now if the government said "these are marriage benefits" and then proceeded to deny them to some married people, THAT would be illegal.

Let me play "devil's advocate" for a moment here. As I understand it, it would be illegal to marry a first cousin. Does that, then, not discriminate based on family relationship? I mean, you can't control who you love. Right?

Government should get out of marriage all together, not sanction it, not recognize it. Nothing.

 

[jillian]

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

the US government does not regulate matters of status. they do however have the right to make certain that status is not granted in a way that violates the equal protection clause.

for the record, the constitution and caselaw actually do not permit a federal court to overturn an election law finding made by the highest court of a state. yet that is what bush v gore did. (which is why the scalia and his buddies said it had no precedent in future matters)

Right, which is what I was saying earlier. A state COULD just stop issuing state marriage licenses and there isn't a damn thing the federal government could do about it. BUT if they DO offer marriage licenses, the USG can certainly via SCOTUS step in and say "no you aren't providing equal availability to everyone" if that state starts picking and choosing who they let have licenses.

Really in that regard marriage licenses are no different than public schools. a state can't pass a law against gay children attending public schools, neither can they pass a law against gay marriage. The difference being I think a state would lose in court if they tried to not offer public schools.

marriage is a creation of the state. marriage creates over 1000 rights and obligations.

and whatever spin you give it, you want to do it to pacify the homophobes.

also in case you aren't aware, when you have a religious ceremony the person who presides does so "by the power vested.... by the state". there is no right to marry outside of state law. and frankly, if you take it out of the purview of the state, you're discriminating against people who do not want to be married by a religious entity.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Any law that gives one group special rights and benefits while denying those rights to another group violates the 14th Amendment.

Wouldn't that make any rights/benefits of marriage unconstitutional? It gives one group (those who are married) rights and benefits that others (those not married) do not enjoy.
Case closed.

No, because you see , you can get married and receive those same benefits. Now if the government said "these are marriage benefits" and then proceeded to deny them to some married people, THAT would be illegal.

Let me play "devil's advocate" for a moment here. As I understand it, it would be illegal to marry a first cousin. Does that, then, not discriminate based on family relationship? I mean, you can't control who you love. Right?

Government should get out of marriage all together, not sanction it, not recognize it. Nothing.

That is 100% my stance. The states and the federal government should have NOTHING to do with marriage. NOTHING.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

Ah, see you keep ascribing notions to me that are not mine. I did not suggest removing government sanctioned marriage for the purpose of appeasing those who oppose gay "marriage" I propose doing away with state sanctioned marriage because the COTUS does not give the USG the authority to regulate marriage. That doing away with such would coincidentally appease many who oppose gay "marriage" is of little consequence to me.

the US government does not regulate matters of status. they do however have the right to make certain that status is not granted in a way that violates the equal protection clause.

for the record, the constitution and caselaw actually do not permit a federal court to overturn an election law finding made by the highest court of a state. yet that is what bush v gore did. (which is why the scalia and his buddies said it had no precedent in future matters)

Right, which is what I was saying earlier. A state COULD just stop issuing state marriage licenses and there isn't a damn thing the federal government could do about it. BUT if they DO offer marriage licenses, the USG can certainly via SCOTUS step in and say "no you aren't providing equal availability to everyone" if that state starts picking and choosing who they let have licenses.

Really in that regard marriage licenses are no different than public schools. a state can't pass a law against gay children attending public schools, neither can they pass a law against gay marriage. The difference being I think a state would lose in court if they tried to not offer public schools.

marriage is a creation of the state. marriage creates over 1000 rights and obligations.

and whatever spin you give it, you want to do it to pacify the homophobes.

Wrong and wrong.

and as far as my belief Jillian, recognizing that we are not going to get rid of state sanctioned marriage I 100% disagree with those who want to keep gays from marrying. It's not anyone's business who marries whom.

Just because YOU are a partisan hack who never sees the other side of any issue does not mean I am. I call mdk as a witness to my feelings on gay marriage.