New York Legislator: Eliminate Marriage

[Stephanie]

There it is..........


ITHACA, NY--The same day that the New York's highest court ruled that current state laws ban gay marriage, a state legislator proposed banning all marriage, in favor of contracts and civil commitments.
According to the Ithaca Journal, Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton (D-125th District) is proposing that that state laws related to marriage be revised to eliminate the term entirely:



“Let's get government out of the wedding business and have everyone, equally, have a civil arrangement,” she said.
The proposal Lifton supports would replace the word “marriage” with “civil commitment” in state laws, creating a legal contract she said would be accessible to everyone, while leaving the religious aspect of the union to religious institutions.

“Why should state government become a religious institution?” she asked.

Lifton's call to end all state recognition of marriage came hours after the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that that the New York State constitution does not require the legalization of gay marriages, and that any move to legalize such marriages should originate in the legislature, not the judiciary.
http://www.federalreview.com/2006/07/new-york-legislator-eliminate-marriage.htm

 

[acludem]

I think this is a great idea. States recognize civil partnerships, churches handle the religious ceremony of "marriage" and can marry whomever they want or don't want to. The state can then set requirements for civil partnership (i.e. two non-related consenting adults). This makes great sense. It allows everyone to be equal, it does not threaten traditional marriage at all, if nothing, this gives marriage back to religious groups where it belongs, and gets the government out of religion where it belongs.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

What exactly do you people think marriage is? its a covenant made between two people. The government doesnt force people to make it. its a civil commitment already.

Simply changing the name to get around the ruling isnt going to work. The government still has to recognize these civil commitments to have any legal validity. How on earth is changing a legal term going to change the nature of governments involvement?

There is only one reason the government recognizes marriage to begin with. Because the government has an obligation to recognize agreements that benefit society. Its difficult to argue that marriage does not benefit society by providing the stable environment and circumstances to perpetuate the human race along with health benefits of the partners involved.

Regardless, what you call it, gay marriage, gay civil arrangements, whatever you try to pretend they are do not have those benefits. There is absolutely no reason for the government to recognize those relationships because they do not provide the stable environment and circumstances for children to be born and raised. Nor do they contribute to the health of those involved. The government is already subsidizing a large part of the unhealthy consequences of homosexual activities, why should we be encouraging more of it?

 

[acludem]

What exactly do you people think marriage is? its a covenant made between two people. The government doesnt force people to make it. its a civil commitment already.

Simply changing the name to get around the ruling isnt going to work. The government still has to recognize these civil commitments to have any legal validity. How on earth is changing a legal term going to change the nature of governments involvement?

There is only one reason the government recognizes marriage to begin with. Because the government has an obligation to recognize agreements that benefit society. Its difficult to argue that marriage does not benefit society by providing the stable environment and circumstances to perpetuate the human race along with health benefits of the partners involved.

Regardless, what you call it, gay marriage, gay civil arrangements, whatever you try to pretend they are do not have those benefits. There is absolutely no reason for the government to recognize those relationships because they do not provide the stable environment and circumstances for children to be born and raised. Nor do they contribute to the health of those involved. The government is already subsidizing a large part of the unhealthy consequences of homosexual activities, why should we be encouraging more of it?

I know many children of gay parents who would strongly, strongly disagree with you. There has been NO evidence whatsoever from any reputable source to show that children raised in gay homes are any worse off than those raised in either single parent or two parent heterosexual households. Also, if the perpetuation of the human race is that important, than should people who, for whatever reason, are biologically incapable of reproduction be banned from getting married? What about elderly people who are beyond their child bearing years? Should they be banned from marriage?

The difference is very different, marriage is a religious ceremony, civil union would be a secular ceremony. Both would be equally recognized by the government which would use the term civil union.

acludem

 

[Mr. P]

A legal contract? :rotflmao:. Well, no more divorce folks, just breach of contract. And this legal contract will no doubt be at least 100 pages long. Imagine what you could put in it! *Be sure an read yer fine print.*

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It sounds like they are just changing the word "marriage". What they need to do is get the state out of marriage contracts alltogether. As it is now, people can get together and write their own contracts for a wide variety of other purposes. Let them do the same for marriage. Marriage existed before The State started handing out licenses 150 years ago, and it will continue to exist if licenses are dropped.

 

[Abbey Normal]

This genius is never getting elected again.

:rotflmao:

 

[Mr. P]

It sounds like they are just changing the word "marriage". What they need to do is get the state out of marriage contracts alltogether. As it is now, people can get together and write their own contracts for a wide variety of other purposes. Let them do the same for marriage. Marriage existed before The State started handing out licenses 150 years ago, and it will continue to exist if licenses are dropped.

No, it’s not just changing a word. This would be a complete change of the “institution” of marriage, which is the goal. IMO

This contract could state anything…Whereas, the current “contract of marriage” does not bind one to certain penalties (other than ground for divorce) for certain breaches.

This is a farce, a lame left wing dem attempt at legalizing gay marriage by changing “the words”.

 

[musicman]

“Let's get government out of the wedding business and have everyone, equally, have a civil arrangement,” [Lifton] said.

This dipshit is missing the point. At the state level, the people ARE the government. What's wrong with letting the people determine the conduct of their everyday lives? Our founding fathers thought it was a hell of an idea.

Sounds to me like the people of the State of New York have already spoken.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

“Let's get government out of the wedding business and have everyone, equally, have a civil arrangement,” [Lifton] said.

This dipshit is missing the point. At the state level, the people ARE the government. What's wrong with letting the people determine the conduct of their everyday lives? Our founding fathers thought it was a hell of an idea.

Sounds to me like the people of the State of New York have already spoken.

A) The government is not the people; the government is 51% of whatever small number showed up on election day. People may have been simply voting for lower taxes, but the low tax candidate happens to also be for Policy X, so the pols assume their vote was a mandate for Policy X.

B) There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting people determine the conduct of their own lives. Not others lives, their lives. The majority determining the conduct of others lives is why the founding fathers hated democracy and sought to give us a republic of limited powers instead. Also, seeking to control others lives for their own good is the bedrock and foundation of liberalism.

 

[Avatar4321]

“Let's get government out of the wedding business and have everyone, equally, have a civil arrangement,” [Lifton] said.

This dipshit is missing the point. At the state level, the people ARE the government. What's wrong with letting the people determine the conduct of their everyday lives? Our founding fathers thought it was a hell of an idea.

Sounds to me like the people of the State of New York have already spoken.

Since when does the left care what the people want?

 

[musicman]

A) The government is not the people; the government is 51% of whatever small number showed up on election day. People may have been simply voting for lower taxes, but the low tax candidate happens to also be for Policy X, so the pols assume their vote was a mandate for Policy X.

The government most certainly IS the people. Don't forget that not showing up at the polls is a vote, too. And , of course, self-rule is an ideal. The nuts-and-bolts implementation of an ideal is seldom pretty - and never perfect; it involves human beings, after all.

B) There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting people determine the conduct of their own lives. Not others lives, their lives.

How are you going to cut it that fine, man? Decisions on the conduct of everyday life are BOUND to affect the lives of others. Stay away from the hard, problematic stuff, then? No - inaction is a course of action, too.

Besides, aren't the proponents of gay marriage trying to control the lives of others, too - particularly those proponents who seek to circumvent the will of the people through the courts?

The majority determining the conduct of others lives is why the founding fathers hated democracy and sought to give us a republic of limited powers instead.

A constitutional republic limits the power of central government. As Amendment X plainly states, any power not specifically granted to the central government automatically reverts to the states, or to the people. The founders' distrust of man's inherently corrupt, tyrannical nature was clearly evident in the Constitution's design; man is - to the greatest extent possible - to be left alone to make his own decisions about his life.

Also, seeking to control others lives for their own good is the bedrock and foundation of liberalism.

Who's trying to do that - the people who just want their rightful representation in government? We'd just like our voices to count for something, that's all.