Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

What our incredibly long winded OP is saying...is that in his plan, nobody will be married. Two people who love each other will just draw up a series of contracts because the state government will no longer sanction a thing called "marriage".

Since a gay couple and a straight couple can both avail themselves of the exact same series of contracts, there will be no problem, dumb shit. That will be known as equality.

The OP likely thinks that some states......especially his backwater home....will make some or all of these contracts void if both parties are of the same sex....thereby "killing" the homosexual union business. Won't happen, dummy.

This is an incredible thread fail.

Make contracts void if parties are of the same sex? What the hell do you mean? How would anyone do that?

Thread fail or not, this is what you can expect to see happening across America in the coming years. The SCOTUS ruling didn't settle this issue for society... sorry... just didn't.

You think when all is said and done.....homosexual couples and heterosexual couples will be treated exactly the same by the state? Is that it?

Just as much as they are now or ever have been.

Are you OK?

You've basically suggested that gay people be treated the same as straight people. That makes you one of the people pushing the gay agenda. Welcome to the right side of history, dumb shit.

To my knowledge, gay people have never been NOT treated equally.

Well you are just establishing your ignorance or dishonesty.

Gay couples were treated unequally just as mixed race couples were treated unequally.

Which is why both Obergefel and Loving succeeded before the Supreme Court.

 

[Syriusly]

What our incredibly long winded OP is saying...is that in his plan, nobody will be married. Two people who love each other will just draw up a series of contracts because the state government will no longer sanction a thing called "marriage".

Since a gay couple and a straight couple can both avail themselves of the exact same series of contracts, there will be no problem, dumb shit. That will be known as equality.

The OP likely thinks that some states......especially his backwater home....will make some or all of these contracts void if both parties are of the same sex....thereby "killing" the homosexual union business. Won't happen, dummy.

This is an incredible thread fail.

Make contracts void if parties are of the same sex? What the hell do you mean? How would anyone do that?

Thread fail or not, this is what you can expect to see happening across America in the coming years. The SCOTUS ruling didn't settle this issue for society... sorry... just didn't.

You think when all is said and done.....homosexual couples and heterosexual couples will be treated exactly the same by the state? Is that it?

Just as much as they are now or ever have been.

Are you OK?

You've basically suggested that gay people be treated the same as straight people. That makes you one of the people pushing the gay agenda. Welcome to the right side of history, dumb shit.

If my solution resolves the inequity problem you perceive, then what is the big deal? Sounds like I've come up with a plan you can support. No more government sanctioned marriages for anyone.

LOL- the current solution resolves the inequity problem that had existed.

So what is the big deal? Government sanctioned marriages for couples regardless of the gender of the spouses.

No- you would prefer to tell all American that they can no longer get married.

 

[Syriusly]

...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.

Again, I am betting the results of this will be a slow and steady decline in gay marriages. We would see that gay couples no longer had any real motivation to "get married" because there wouldn't be any sort of state recognition or benefit to them. Some may still want to do it here and there, but I think society would see the practice wane as time goes on..

You know what this reminds me of?

All of the States who said "When we passed laws in the 90's banning same gender marriage- those laws were not targetting homosexuals' (wink wink).

As Boss is making clear- he wants to kill marriage ONLY to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

Being the bigot that he is- he believes homosexuals want to marry only for material benefit.

Does he believe that is why his parents got married? Maybe? Is that why Boss got married. Maybe? Perhaps Boss is merely reflecting his own life experience, and that everyone he knows just gets married for material benefits.

But my wife and I didn't get married for material benefits. Nor have my gay friends.

However, I think he does get one thing right- if he abolished 'legal marriage'- then all couples would have far less motivation to get married.

Why does Boss want to encourage Americans not to get married?

Apparently he is such a traditionalist when it comes to marriage- he wants to encourage all Americans to stop getting married.

IF it means preventing one gay couple from marrying.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...

It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts.

There is not one word in the Constitution which requires States to recognize marriage. I think this is something Constitutional Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives can all support.

So your solution is that states stop marrying anybody and instead calls it a union or something like that? I think that's fair. And if a gay or straight couple wants to call themselves married, they just have to find a church that will do it.

Brilliant! More discrimination. Substitute sexual orientation discrimination for religious discrimination. Only the religious and those willing to submit to religious rituals can then be "married"

Who cares? Most religious beliefs are a crock anyways. If you want to call yourself married as a Protestant, or Pastafarian, or Jedi, well who cares? Or even as an atheist call yourself married. It's all the same anyways. If the government only hands out civil unions so what?

I care. I'm an atheist. I'm married. I like being able to say that I'm married. People understand what being married means. How the hell is an Atheist going to be married. There are no atheist churches.

I thought about the issue of civil unions vs. marriage back before Obergefell when some were pushing it as an alternative to marriage for same sex couples. I wrote this back then and it is still relevant in that what you are proposing is just a variation on the same theme

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

____________________________________________________________________________

It's the legal union that is wrong. Forcing people to concede to and subsidize irrelevant personal behavior. Homofascists want to keep the argument in the religious realm so they can't lose the argument. Looks like they've suckered you.

 

[Syriusly]

...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.

Not exactly what I said. People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations. Property rights can be handled the way they are in other circumstances, through contractual arrangement between two parties. I don't want to change that, no one has an issue with it. The issue is over "Marriage" and what that means in society.... all of society... gays, religious people, straight people... everybody.
I am an individual liberty guy... I am conservative, but very much libertarian in my views on individual liberty. I don't want the government sticking their nose in ANY of my business unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all. No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.

Okay, so you have the right to do it... but the state doesn't have to sanction marriage. So basically, you have the constitutional right to live your homosexual lives and call it marriage if that's what you want to do. Meanwhile, religious people will still have traditional marriages and society would recognize that as traditional marriage. It's just not a function of the state to sanction it anymore.

Again, I am betting the results of this will be a slow and steady decline in gay marriages. We would see that gay couples no longer had any real motivation to "get married" because there wouldn't be any sort of state recognition or benefit to them. Some may still want to do it here and there, but I think society would see the practice wane as time goes on. Some religions may reform to ordain gay marriages but that is for the religions to settle, they aren't bound by SCOTUS rulings regarding who they marry. But again, there is not going to be much of a reason if there is no state sanction.

In other words, you would throw the baby out with the bath water in an effort to repress marriage equality. To serve what noble purpose?

No, noo... not repressing anything. You had marriage equality before OgdballAffair and you have equality now. But now we have a redefinition of marriage that isn't acceptable. So what my idea does, is remove state sanctioning of marriage so that it's no longer an issue of inequity. Simple!.

If you think that what you call for is 'Simple' then you are a Simpleton.

Currently gay couples can legally marry in all 50 states. Since all existing marriage laws apply to gay couples just as they do to any other couple, the legal changes are extremely minimal- some minor tweaks to legal language regarding gender in marriage.

BUT what you propose would require re-writing vast amounts of laws- let me list among the laws and regulations that would have to be completely re-written to accomodate your desire to discriminate against homosexuals

• Social Security
• Veteran's Benefits
• Military housing regulations
• The Tax code.
• Every state's tax code.
• U.S. immigration law

YOUR Solution would require EVERY state in the Union to rewrite hundreds of laws and regulations.

All to accommodate your desire to discriminate against homosexual couples.

 

[Syriusly]

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.

Let me ask you something... Gay Marriage has been legal in all 50 states for a little bit now... did you wake up the day after the SCOTUS ruling with the feeling you were equal to heterosexuals?.

Did African Americans wake up the day after Loving v. Virginia with the feeling that they were equal to white Americans?

Americans who were gay woke up the day after Obergefel finding out that legally they were equal to hetero couples.
Just like mixed race couples woke up the day after Loving finding out that legally they were equal to unmixed race couples.

 

[Syriusly]

...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.

. Meanwhile, religious people will still have traditional marriages and society would recognize that as traditional marriage. It's just not a function of the state to sanction it anymore..

So when religious people have traditional polygamous marriages- will society recognize that as traditional marriage? And when a father decides to marry his daughter- - perfectly acceptable according to the Bible- will society accept that also?

With no legal prohibitions on marriage anymore- you can have your dream of traditional polygamous marriage(recognized by their church) and traditional marriage between a father and daughter.

 

[Syriusly]

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.

Let me ask you something... Gay Marriage has been legal in all 50 states for a little bit now... did you wake up the day after the SCOTUS ruling with the feeling you were equal to heterosexuals? Do you find that society in general is treating you more equally since the ruling? The Pope was just here, did he speak of this new bestowing of equality on humanity?

No law that I know of is discriminating on the basis of sexuality. This entire issue is about homosexuals gaining societal acceptance and legitimacy. That's a completely different booger.

Tolerance versus Acceptance.

There are hammer headed White Supremacists. There are racial Chauvinists of every stripe. Society will never be rid of those who harbor ugly thoughts and attitudes. That's our misfortune.

So, no. Not everyone will receive enlightenment over night. Yes, bigots will continue to abound.

But in the eyes of the law, equal justice for all should be something worth striving for. Let society be society. Eventually, the number of homophobes will dwindle. But they will teach their children to be idiots. Generations will die out before the last vestiges of homophobia will fade away.

Boss equates a desire for legal equality as a demand for social acceptance.

But the gay couples who went to court to fight for the equal rights didn't ask for social acceptance- they asked for legal equality.

And Boss hates that legal equality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good grief conservatives get over it. Welcome to the 21st century.

No, conservatives are going to whine about this for the next 40 years as they have whined about privacy rights for the last 40 years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Make contracts void if parties are of the same sex? What the hell do you mean? How would anyone do that?

Thread fail or not, this is what you can expect to see happening across America in the coming years. The SCOTUS ruling didn't settle this issue for society... sorry... just didn't.

You think when all is said and done.....homosexual couples and heterosexual couples will be treated exactly the same by the state? Is that it?

Just as much as they are now or ever have been.

Are you OK?

You've basically suggested that gay people be treated the same as straight people. That makes you one of the people pushing the gay agenda. Welcome to the right side of history, dumb shit.

To my knowledge, gay people have never been NOT treated equally.

Well you are just establishing your ignorance or dishonesty.

Gay couples were treated unequally just as mixed race couples were treated unequally.

Which is why both Obergefel and Loving succeeded before the Supreme Court.

Both, actually.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not so, Boss. Beginning June 1, 2015, Obimination, but Executive Order, mandated any same sex partners living together were automatically married

Here is the list of 2015 Executive Orders from the Federal Register:

• EO 13707: Using Behavioral Science Insights To Better Serve the American People
• EO 13706: Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
• EO 13705: Designating the International Renewable Energy Agency as a Public International Organization Entitled To Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities
• EO 13704: Presidential Innovation Fellows Program
• EO 13703: Implementing the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States for 2015-2020
• EO 13702: Creating a National Strategic Computing Initiative
• EO 13701: Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
• EO 13700: Establishing an Emergency Board To Investigate Disputes Between New Jersey Transit Rail and Certain of Its Employees Represented by Certain Labor Organizations
• EO 13699: Establishing the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health
• EO 13698: Hostage Recovery Activities
• EO 13697: Amendment to Executive Order 11155, Awards for Special Capability in Career and Technical Education

Federal Register | 2015 Barack Obama Executive Orders


********************************************

Mind pointing out which one make any two same sex persons living together married?



>>>>

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. My post stated, June 1, 2014, not 2015, idiot.

No I don't have a reading comprehension problem as you clearly said 2015.

Before calling someone an idiot you should cool your jets - I quoted your post like I've quoted it here, and you can check post #50.

Gee - now don't you look silly.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination."

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Marriage is contract law having little to do with the issuing of marriage licenses and to whom.

The issue concerns the contract law that is marriage being withheld from same-sex couples eligible to enter into marriage contracts for no other reason than who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Boss]

Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses? What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony? What would be the point of taking away the right to marry? What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?

Your argument has been made and SCOTUS has ruled. Are you hoping to discover some right-winger who has been living under a rock and is not aware of the recent ruling? Why else would you present an argument for what is now settled law?

The thread OP is about killing homosexual marriage. I've outlined my plan very clearly and concisely. You kill it by rendering it irrelevant. Once the government is removed from sanctioning marriages, there is no more issue to exploit... no more perception of inequity.. and eventually, no more gay marriage to speak of. It all disappears as quickly as it emerged in society and life goes on.

Your remedy to 'kill gay marriage' is to kill marriage.

But marriage will survive- regardless of your efforts to kill marriage.

Therefore, how can my efforts be "to kill marriage?"
...You retorted your own assumption! --Good work!

 

[Boss]

"So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination."

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Marriage is contract law having little to do with the issuing of marriage licenses and to whom.

The issue concerns the contract law that is marriage being withheld from same-sex couples eligible to enter into marriage contracts for no other reason than who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

GOOD! Then it won't be a problem when States legislate marriage licenses out of existence.

 

[Boss]

Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like.

I've thought it through and I agree with myself.

It will look like this... ____________________________________.

Where there was once State sanctioning of marriages gay and straight, there would be no marriages gay or straight. At least not sanctioned by the state. Individuals can call whatever they like "marriage" and it's not anyone's business.

 

[Syriusly]

Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses? What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony? What would be the point of taking away the right to marry? What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?

Your argument has been made and SCOTUS has ruled. Are you hoping to discover some right-winger who has been living under a rock and is not aware of the recent ruling? Why else would you present an argument for what is now settled law?

The thread OP is about killing homosexual marriage. I've outlined my plan very clearly and concisely. You kill it by rendering it irrelevant. Once the government is removed from sanctioning marriages, there is no more issue to exploit... no more perception of inequity.. and eventually, no more gay marriage to speak of. It all disappears as quickly as it emerged in society and life goes on.

Your remedy to 'kill gay marriage' is to kill marriage.

But marriage will survive- regardless of your efforts to kill marriage.

Therefore, how can my efforts be "to kill marriage?"
...You retorted your own assumption! --Good work!

You described your own efforts to kill marriage.

You want to kill 'homosexual marriage' by killing marriage.

Apparently you just want everyone who is legally married to be legally harmed.

 

[Boss]

Make contracts void if parties are of the same sex? What the hell do you mean? How would anyone do that?

Thread fail or not, this is what you can expect to see happening across America in the coming years. The SCOTUS ruling didn't settle this issue for society... sorry... just didn't.

You think when all is said and done.....homosexual couples and heterosexual couples will be treated exactly the same by the state? Is that it?

Just as much as they are now or ever have been.

Are you OK?

You've basically suggested that gay people be treated the same as straight people. That makes you one of the people pushing the gay agenda. Welcome to the right side of history, dumb shit.

If my solution resolves the inequity problem you perceive, then what is the big deal? Sounds like I've come up with a plan you can support. No more government sanctioned marriages for anyone.

LOL- the current solution resolves the inequity problem that had existed.

So what is the big deal? Government sanctioned marriages for couples regardless of the gender of the spouses.

No- you would prefer to tell all American that they can no longer get married.

I never said tell people "they could no longer get married"... where did you get that?

 

[Syriusly]

"So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination."

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Marriage is contract law having little to do with the issuing of marriage licenses and to whom.

The issue concerns the contract law that is marriage being withheld from same-sex couples eligible to enter into marriage contracts for no other reason than who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

GOOD! Then it won't be a problem when States legislate marriage licenses out of existence.

Alabama wants to do away with marriage licenses- not marriage.

They will just record legal marriage in a different way.

So Alabaman's will still be getting legally married- regardless of whether they are straight or gay.

Just the delicate feelings of Alabamans wont' be harmed by having to see marriage licences being issued to gays.

 

[Blackrook]

Conservative Christians and Catholics are not going to go along with abolishing the institution of marriage out of spite for same-sex marriage. The status between a married couple is much bigger than any contract that the couple can come up with themselves. For example, a spouse is legally the next of kin, a spouse gets pensions and social security benefits after the earning spouse dies, spouses can file joint taxes and joint bankruptcy, a spouse is responsible for all the debts incurred by the other spouse, including medical care, spouses are legally required to support each other, etc.

Also, I am a married man and abolishing marriage is a personal attack on my status and the status of my wife, and this goes deeper than man-made law. Marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, and in Genesis it says that a man and wife become one flesh in the eyes of God, and the bond is not broken until death.

 

[Syriusly]

You think when all is said and done.....homosexual couples and heterosexual couples will be treated exactly the same by the state? Is that it?

Just as much as they are now or ever have been.

Are you OK?

You've basically suggested that gay people be treated the same as straight people. That makes you one of the people pushing the gay agenda. Welcome to the right side of history, dumb shit.

If my solution resolves the inequity problem you perceive, then what is the big deal? Sounds like I've come up with a plan you can support. No more government sanctioned marriages for anyone.

LOL- the current solution resolves the inequity problem that had existed.

So what is the big deal? Government sanctioned marriages for couples regardless of the gender of the spouses.

No- you would prefer to tell all American that they can no longer get married.

I never said tell people "they could no longer get married"... where did you get that?

'killing homosexual marriage'- by of course killing marriage.

That is what you are proposing- killing marriage in the United States.