Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's good - because unless the state has legislation that defines the terms and conditions of marriage, it doesn't exist as a legal institution.I believe that the states can legislate a marriage contract.The -state- created the legal institution of marriage, and can therefore define it however it wants, so long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone when offering the priviliege.Where is it written there should be any limitations on marriage?
Where is marriage defined by the Constitution?
Used to be marriage between the races was a "limitation".
In that regard, everyone is under the same restriction, and therefore no one is discriminated against.
:shrug:
Except that, regarding the relevant topic, as everyone is under the same restriction, there's no discrimination.But I also believe it can be challenged, and defeated as the interracial ban was, on equal protection under the law.
It can, so long as it doesnt discriminate against anyone.Hate to tell you there my man but the state CAN NOT define marriage anyway it wants.
This will not resolve the issue of legal/state benefits and priviliges.Simple solution, that should please everyone. Let the state get out of the marriage business. Let any people's who want to sign a contract garnering each other certain rights, the right to do, and let the government recognize a contract for what it is.
This will not resolve the issue of legal/state benefits and priviliges.Simple solution, that should please everyone. Let the state get out of the marriage business. Let any people's who want to sign a contract garnering each other certain rights, the right to do, and let the government recognize a contract for what it is.
This will not resolve the issue of legal/state benefits and priviliges.Simple solution, that should please everyone. Let the state get out of the marriage business. Let any people's who want to sign a contract garnering each other certain rights, the right to do, and let the government recognize a contract for what it is.
Certainly it would. I clearly said that any persons could sign a contract with any other persons. Be it to grant benefits or whatever have you, as long as it is legal. As for tax purposes, that is simple, do away with tax break married couples get.
Mean spirited bastards.
Simple solution, that should please everyone. Let the state get out of the marriage business. Let any people's who want to sign a contract garnering each other certain rights, the right to do, and let the government recognize a contract for what it is.
Let people go to churches to get married if that's what they want to do, and if you don't believe in church then why do you care about marriage, because marriage is a religious concept, not a governmental one.
This will not resolve the issue of legal/state benefits and priviliges.
Certainly it would. I clearly said that any persons could sign a contract with any other persons. Be it to grant benefits or whatever have you, as long as it is legal. As for tax purposes, that is simple, do away with tax break married couples get.
What about the state not being able to force a wife to testify against her husband?
What about state benefits granted to the husband that transfers to the wife at his death?
What about visitation rights at, say, hospitals?
What about contested divorce?
None of these things (and zillions more) can be covered by a civil contract.
Certainly it would. I clearly said that any persons could sign a contract with any other persons. Be it to grant benefits or whatever have you, as long as it is legal. As for tax purposes, that is simple, do away with tax break married couples get.
What about the state not being able to force a wife to testify against her husband?
What about state benefits granted to the husband that transfers to the wife at his death?
What about visitation rights at, say, hospitals?
What about contested divorce?
None of these things (and zillions more) can be covered by a civil contract.
ANYTHING can be covered by contract, providing there are no illegal provisions in said contract.
What about the state not being able to force a wife to testify against her husband?
What about state benefits granted to the husband that transfers to the wife at his death?
What about visitation rights at, say, hospitals?
What about contested divorce?
None of these things (and zillions more) can be covered by a civil contract.
ANYTHING can be covered by contract, providing there are no illegal provisions in said contract.
no they can't. they can't share social security benefits when one dies. they can't pass on pension benefits. they can't provide spousal immunity, only the law can do that. they can't file taxes jointly, only a spouse can do that.
mostly, why should a gay couple together 20 years have fewer rights than a heterosexual couple together 4 minutes?
It cannot discriminate against protected classes of people when granting priviliges and immunities to its people.
People who seek same-sex marriage are not one of those protected classes; further, as everyone has the same limitation, the prohibition against gay marriage does not discriminate against anyone.
It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
ndividual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons. 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003*
The -state- created the legal institution of marriage, and can therefore define it however it wants, so long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone when offering the priviliege.
In that regard, everyone is under the same restriction, and therefore no one is discriminated against.
As everyone everyone is under the same restriction, there's no discrimination.
It cannot discriminate against protected classes of people when granting priviliges and immunities to its people.
People who seek same-sex marriage are not one of those protected classes; further, as everyone has the same limitation, the prohibition against gay marriage does not discriminate against anyone.
Per the Court gays are a protected class:
It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.
ndividual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons. 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003*
The -state- created the legal institution of marriage, and can therefore define it however it wants, so long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone when offering the priviliege.
In that regard, everyone is under the same restriction, and therefore no one is discriminated against.
The prohibition by a state of plural marriage, for example, is constitutional because it applies to all, regardless of race, gender, etc. To single out a specific group of persons and exclude them from marriage homosexuals, in this case is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment per Lawrence.
As everyone everyone is under the same restriction, there's no discrimination.
Everyone isnt subject to the same restrictions, as gays arent allow to marry.
You are entirely incorrect on this George. It is ENTIRELY possible to oppose homosexuality without hating those who choose to be homosexuals. I oppose bank robbery, I don't hate bank robbers.
I don't buy it. It sounds good, but I don't buy it. I would submit that most people both oppose bank robbery and hate bank robbers. I know I do. What about child molesters? Do you have the same compassion for child molesters, hating only what they do but not them?
Let's say your statement here is genuine, and that you truly do hate homosexuality but not homosexuals. Looks to me as if you are fully prepared to screw the hell out of gays as they try to exist on the same level as other members of society. I would guess this is because you oppose homosexuality in general. But what about the homosexuals (whom you do not hate at all) as individuals? What do you say to them - too bad; sorry, old sport, it isn't YOU that I hate but, rather, what you ARE that I have a real problem with?
With all due respect, I don't buy it.
With all due respect, you see what you want to see. I have clearly said that although I don't approve of homosexuality and I think it's a choice, I don't hate those who choose it. End of discussion, unless you would like to further attempt to read what is in my heart.
I don't buy it. It sounds good, but I don't buy it. I would submit that most people both oppose bank robbery and hate bank robbers. I know I do. What about child molesters? Do you have the same compassion for child molesters, hating only what they do but not them?
Let's say your statement here is genuine, and that you truly do hate homosexuality but not homosexuals. Looks to me as if you are fully prepared to screw the hell out of gays as they try to exist on the same level as other members of society. I would guess this is because you oppose homosexuality in general. But what about the homosexuals (whom you do not hate at all) as individuals? What do you say to them - too bad; sorry, old sport, it isn't YOU that I hate but, rather, what you ARE that I have a real problem with?
With all due respect, I don't buy it.
With all due respect, you see what you want to see. I have clearly said that although I don't approve of homosexuality and I think it's a choice, I don't hate those who choose it. End of discussion, unless you would like to further attempt to read what is in my heart.
You know, I do have to apologize somewhat here. I hate it when someone tries to tell me how I am thinking or feeling about something.
A contract between you and someone else doesn't mean crap to the state in terms of what benefits it provides/guarantees.Certainly it would. I clearly said that any persons could sign a contract with any other persons. Be it to grant benefits or whatever have you, as long as it is legal. As for tax purposes, that is simple, do away with tax break married couples get.
What about the state not being able to force a wife to testify against her husband?
What about state benefits granted to the husband that transfers to the wife at his death?
What about visitation rights at, say, hospitals?
What about contested divorce?
None of these things (and zillions more) can be covered by a civil contract.
ANYTHING can be covered by contract, providing there are no illegal provisions in said contract.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are under the exact same restrictions:The prohibition by a state of plural marriage, for example, is constitutional because it applies to all, regardless of race, gender, etc. To single out a specific group of persons and exclude them from marriage – homosexuals, in this case – is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment per Lawrence.
Everyone isn’t subject to the same ‘restrictions,’ as gays aren’t allow to marry.
Simple solution, that should please everyone. Let the state get out of the marriage business. Let any people's who want to sign a contract garnering each other certain rights, the right to do, and let the government recognize a contract for what it is.
Let people go to churches to get married if that's what they want to do, and if you don't believe in church then why do you care about marriage, because marriage is a religious concept, not a governmental one.
1. then who should have the right to marry people? churches?
that would mean that if you don't believe in any religion, you have no right to marriage which would violate the equal protection clause. and it isn't true that marriage is a "religious" creation. it was actually a government-created concept.
2. the only reason churches, etc., have the right to perform marriage ceremonies is "by the rights vested in [insert appropriate person] by the state of [insert state].
3. there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that attach to the legal status of marriage that have to be enforced by the state. they cannot be subject to the whims of different religious denominations.
A contract between you and someone else doesn't mean crap to the state in terms of what benefits it provides/guarantees.What about the state not being able to force a wife to testify against her husband?
What about state benefits granted to the husband that transfers to the wife at his death?
What about visitation rights at, say, hospitals?
What about contested divorce?
None of these things (and zillions more) can be covered by a civil contract.
ANYTHING can be covered by contract, providing there are no illegal provisions in said contract.
-Your contract with your wife will not protect her from the state compelling her to testify against you.
-Your contract with your wife will not force the state to give her your state pension.
-Your contract with your wife will not force a hospital to let her see you.
State law covers these things; there is no substitute.
And thus, the state is involved.correct, and state laws can be written that say that any such contracts are valid, without ever mentioning the word marriage.A contract between you and someone else doesn't mean crap to the state in terms of what benefits it provides/guarantees.ANYTHING can be covered by contract, providing there are no illegal provisions in said contract.
-Your contract with your wife will not protect her from the state compelling her to testify against you.
-Your contract with your wife will not force the state to give her your state pension.
-Your contract with your wife will not force a hospital to let her see you.
State law covers these things; there is no substitute.
And thus, the state is involved.correct, and state laws can be written that say that any such contracts are valid, without ever mentioning the word marriage.A contract between you and someone else doesn't mean crap to the state in terms of what benefits it provides/guarantees.
-Your contract with your wife will not protect her from the state compelling her to testify against you.
-Your contract with your wife will not force the state to give her your state pension.
-Your contract with your wife will not force a hospital to let her see you.
State law covers these things; there is no substitute.
