Want marriage? Then get the government out.

[ShackledNation]

The primary purpose for marriage is legal in nature.

It's a binding contract.

Getting married has legal implications.

All contracts have legal implications. That does not mean the government has to issue the contract, or determine who gets to sign the contract.

 

[ShackledNation]

It is a right...per at least two Supreme Court decisions...a fundamental right.

You seriously don't know the difference between a right and a privilege? Explains a lot. All marriage is a privilege. We have a right to marriage, my God.

You have the right to remain silent. The right to a court-appointed attorney. You have the right to sing the blues. You have the right to cable TV. You have the right to sublet. You have the right to paint the walls. No loud colors

What is wrong with what I said? Prove me wrong.

Obama once said "you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig."

Marriage is called a right by the courts, but treated as a privilege by the government. The fact that to be married you must go first to government is the very definition of a government granted privilege. Marriage is a right because we all have the right to private contract. You absolutely must understand that. But government has revoked that right and converted it into a privilege. Marriage no longer functions as a private societal right but a state granted privilege in the form of a license. I believe that if people believe gays should be able to marry, they should be able to enter into a marriage contract. But to achieve that, repeal marriage laws and the marriage license rather than compounding the bureaucracy that controls are private "relationship status."

 

[mal]

If you aren't gay, you really can't speak to why we want marriage. I can certainly tell you why, however. We want to get married for the same reasons ANYONE wants to get married.


Nah, I really don't give two shits if you "approve" of me as long as the laws of our country treat us equally.
[/COLOR]



Are you aware that there is already CA state law that says schools must teach the contribution of women and minority groups? This is just adding one more, often ignored, minority group. Do you object about the contributions of other minority groups having to be taught or just this one?

Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are Inherently NOT Equal.

Homosexuals Defy their Heterosexual Physical Design by Nature, which they are FREE to do...

Where the Line is is when you Expect the other 95% of Society to Embrace it as something it's Not... Equal.

Have a Civil Union and Smile... Feel lucky Islam isn't the Law here.



peace...

You are not required to accept or embrace, only tolerate. Homosexuality is found in hundreds of animal species (i.e. in "nature") so how do you defy nature with something found in nature?

You fundies make no sense...which is why your anti-gay rhetoric is losing in the world of public opinion...

Looking for Validation for your Deviation in the Animal Kingdom?...

Guess what else Animals do?...



peace...

 

[mal]

If it's simply a Right that Everyone has, then Siblings have the same Right...

If you southern fundies want to marry your siblings, you'll simply have to take your case to court. If no compelling state reason can be found to prevent you from marrying your sister, then you and she can run off to Vegas.

Rights are Rights... You don't get to Select who you want to Expand them to.

Homosexuals aren't being Denied Marriage, they are being Denied the Ability to Exclusively and Unconstitutionally Expand it for only their Deviation.

As for me being a Southern Fundamentalist?...

Idiot.



peace...

 

[mal]

It is a right...per at least two Supreme Court decisions...a fundamental right.

You seriously don't know the difference between a right and a privilege? Explains a lot. All marriage is a privilege. We have a right to marriage, my God.

You have the right to remain silent. The right to a court-appointed attorney. You have the right to sing the blues. You have the right to cable TV. You have the right to sublet. You have the right to paint the walls. No loud colors

Again, go read Loving v Virginia. I'm afraid that you're off base on this one... not even close.

I Quoted Loving on this Thread...

Loving was about Denying Man and Woman of Opposite Races from Marrying...

Blacks and Whites can ProCreate... Homosexuals can't.

Loving said that Marriage was "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival"...

Homosexual Coupling does not fit that Description, nor was the Court talking about Homosexuals in ANY way shape or form.

That is Fact.



peace...

 

[Iridescence]

Bahhhhh ....

What marriage has come to mean within America and what it has apparently been perceived as is completely worthy of whatever else it can be exploited as, unless of course someone with enough clout wants to make enough of a stink as to change the air about it all.... "We" seem to have man sized dicks that post within the board now, so perhaps someone will actually redefine marriage and make it for 'us' what it is for, um, (pick one).

 

[bodecea]

It should be a right because it is a private contractual agreement. But government has turned it into a privilege. Government does not grant rights, it grants privileges. Marriage licenses are granted by government. I get the feeling you did not read the whole post.

If government doesn't grant rights, then where do they come from? Absent a government and if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill, leaving you the scraps, if there are any.

The government has to get involved in marriage, because like all contracts there are legal issues to be decided. Without government the stronger always wins.

He is correct...government does not creat rights, it protects the rights we are born with...and civil marriage is a way to protect our rights as married couples. The 14th amendment requires that the government provide that protection equally among all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens UNLESS it can come up with a provable, clear reason to withhold that equal protection.

And no one seems to be able to come up with that proof.

 

[bodecea]

I am of the persuasion that the approach gay activists have been taking is grossly wrong. Marriage is really just an agreement (or contract, promise, covenant; call it what you please) between two consenting adults. All individuals have the inherent right to form contractual agreements with each other.

So marriage is a right, right? Wrong. In American society, marriage is a government granted privilege. You can't get married unless the government gives you the OK. Government has taken away the right of marriage from all of us and replaced it with a privilege that it has the sole power to hand out and regulate.

Rather than call for expanding the privilege by making gay marriage legal, proponents of gay marriage (or those dislike gay marriage but still say it should be legal) should be demanding that government get out of marriage altogether. Marriage is a type of contract that has been perverted into a privilege. If you want the right to marry, repeal that perversion.

Furthermore, who needs to be convinced that gay marriage should be allowed? Social conservatives who often are in favor of smaller government everywhere else, that's who. Making the argument that marriage should be returned to the private sector and government should be reduced would probably be more persuasive than demanding that government further expand its granted privileges. The approach taken is another sad example of current societal tendencies to turn to government for answers rather than the free market.

That's my two cents.

i'm afraid it's you that's wrong on the bolded part and i'll direct your attention to Loving v Virginia:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia

It's really important, when opining about constitutional issues, that one looks at the caselaw.

oh... and this has been said upteenth times, but apparently has to be repeated.... the state CANNOT get out of marriage because marriage conveys over 1,000 rights and obligations. nor should or could only religious pairings be called "marriage" because that would be discriminatory.

Well.. I guess it's discriminatory when you won't call me African American... I mean... I wish to be called that and recognized as that by the government.... I feel I have always been, even if my skin is white, even if I am seen as different by other African Americans... I want the same extra privileges that are given to that minority group because I feel I am one... I am human just as they are... I want affirmative action working for me...

DISCRIMINATION!!! It should not only be black skinned or black heritage that are to be called "African American", because that would be discriminatory

I don't see anyone from stopping you from doing that....go for it. You want me to call you African-American, no problem there. Consider it done.

 

[midcan5]

The reason government is involved should be as obvious as the nose on your face - people often do not get along, do not share, and are simply bastards at times. It is the reason we have a federal government, it is the reason we have laws, and it is the government which has the responsibility for making sure laws are followed. The utopian idea that without an established entity to enforce the laws of the land: marriages / contracts / agreements / property rights etc etc - all happiness would follow is naive at best. Gays simply want the same rights as others and those rights are defined by the marriage contract. And the marriage contract is backed by the government, for sure as hell ain't no one else gonna do it. Clear?

For anyone interested in a serious look at the issue see: 'Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue'

"When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?

In most cases, even carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. When these are presented to a homophobic probate judge, he will usually find some pretext to overturn them. Is this fair?

These aren't just theoretical issues, either; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you horror stories of friends who have been victimized in such ways.

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of "special rights" to ask for the same rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate." Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

 

[The Rabbi]

Simple... repeal all federal laws about marriage... hell, the government has leaped and bounded into other complex or difficult areas

I know once the government gets its hands into something, it is hard to pry all that away... and I know it is a pipe dream... but it indeed can be done... keeping family units as legal contracts... keeping it about the things that government is supposed to have dominion over, and not all this touchy feely bullshit

So there's the lie that the gay agenda is not about threatening my marriage.
How do you adjudicate inheritance claims? Or any other?

Like any other contract between 2 people

l

It is not like any other contract. For starters, contracts are governed by contract law, which is an extensive field itself. If you eliminate marriage then there is no standard to adjudicate claims. Anyone can claim to be married to anyone else and make claims. With no law to govern the situation, there is no way to adjudicate the claims.

 

[The Rabbi]

The primary purpose for marriage is legal in nature.

It's a binding contract.

Getting married has legal implications.

All contracts have legal implications. That does not mean the government has to issue the contract, or determine who gets to sign the contract.

No, but they do have extensive laws governing contracts. What is being proposed would eliminate any laws governing the marital relationship.

 

[mal]

It should be a right because it is a private contractual agreement. But government has turned it into a privilege. Government does not grant rights, it grants privileges. Marriage licenses are granted by government. I get the feeling you did not read the whole post.

If government doesn't grant rights, then where do they come from? Absent a government and if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill, leaving you the scraps, if there are any.

The government has to get involved in marriage, because like all contracts there are legal issues to be decided. Without government the stronger always wins.

He is correct...government does not creat rights, it protects the rights we are born with...and civil marriage is a way to protect our rights as married couples. The 14th amendment requires that the government provide that protection equally among all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens UNLESS it can come up with a provable, clear reason to withhold that equal protection.

And no one seems to be able to come up with that proof.

You aren't Denied a Right to Marriage, Bodey...

You are Denied the Ability to Redefine it Selectively for your Deviation from "our very Existence and Survival".



peace...

 

[The Rabbi]

It should be a right because it is a private contractual agreement. But government has turned it into a privilege. Government does not grant rights, it grants privileges. Marriage licenses are granted by government. I get the feeling you did not read the whole post.

If government doesn't grant rights, then where do they come from? Absent a government and if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill, leaving you the scraps, if there are any.

The government has to get involved in marriage, because like all contracts there are legal issues to be decided. Without government the stronger always wins.

He is correct...government does not creat rights, it protects the rights we are born with...and civil marriage is a way to protect our rights as married couples. The 14th amendment requires that the government provide that protection equally among all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens UNLESS it can come up with a provable, clear reason to withhold that equal protection.

And no one seems to be able to come up with that proof.

Rights are created by society. Where else do you think they come from? The tooth fairy?
There is no natural right to marriage. If there were, it damn sure would not apply to fruits.

 

[bodecea]

It's like having a Pet Rock...or that Geico Money Stack with eyes.

 

[ShackledNation]

The reason government is involved should be as obvious as the nose on your face - people often do not get along, do not share, and are simply bastards at times. It is the reason we have a federal government, it is the reason we have laws, and it is the government which has the responsibility for making sure laws are followed. The utopia idea that without an established entity to enforce the laws of the land: marriages / contracts / agreements / property rights etc etc - all happiness would follow is naive at best. Gays simply want the same rights as others and those rights are defined by the marriage contract. And the marriage contract is backed by the government, for sure as hell ain't no one else gonna do it. Clear?

For anyone interested in a serious look at the issue see: 'Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue'

"When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?

In most cases, even carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. When these are presented to a homophobic probate judge, he will usually find some pretext to overturn them. Is this fair?

These aren't just theoretical issues, either; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you horror stories of friends who have been victimized in such ways.

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of "special rights" to ask for the same rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate." Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

Completely and utterly missed the point. You have conflated government protection of the right to contract with government issuance of contracts. Why should we go to government to get a marriage contract? If anyone wants to marry anyone else, gay or straight, they should be able to do so. The right to private contract allows this. But marriage today is not treated as a right but a granted privilege. If marriage were treated as a right, there would be no call for legalizing gay marriage because you don't legalize rights. If something is a right, it is de facto legal. People have a right to enter into a private contract with anyone they please. Marriage is a private contract. But the marriage license prevents people from engaging in this right. They only allow people to get married if they say so. They have created a privilege out of the natural right to contract. That is what you should be fighting to change. That is the true civil right that has been revoked by the government.

People have a right to sign employment contracts. Imagine if government prevented you from signing an employment contract, and would only allow you to have a job if you obtained an employment license, for which it would set the criteria. Having a job would have been converted into a privilege.

I agree that marriage is a right. But that fact that government has control over marriage means it currently is not a right. It is a privilege. And to return the natural right of social contractual marriage, we must get the government out.

 

[DiamondDave]

So there's the lie that the gay agenda is not about threatening my marriage.
How do you adjudicate inheritance claims? Or any other?

Like any other contract between 2 people

l

It is not like any other contract. For starters, contracts are governed by contract law, which is an extensive field itself. If you eliminate marriage then there is no standard to adjudicate claims. Anyone can claim to be married to anyone else and make claims. With no law to govern the situation, there is no way to adjudicate the claims.

You can't have a contract about things such as inheritance or power of attorney unless you're married?? There is a standard for contracts, and it has nothing to do with marriage...

 

[DiamondDave]

i'm afraid it's you that's wrong on the bolded part and i'll direct your attention to Loving v Virginia:



Loving v. Virginia

It's really important, when opining about constitutional issues, that one looks at the caselaw.

oh... and this has been said upteenth times, but apparently has to be repeated.... the state CANNOT get out of marriage because marriage conveys over 1,000 rights and obligations. nor should or could only religious pairings be called "marriage" because that would be discriminatory.

Well.. I guess it's discriminatory when you won't call me African American... I mean... I wish to be called that and recognized as that by the government.... I feel I have always been, even if my skin is white, even if I am seen as different by other African Americans... I want the same extra privileges that are given to that minority group because I feel I am one... I am human just as they are... I want affirmative action working for me...

DISCRIMINATION!!! It should not only be black skinned or black heritage that are to be called "African American", because that would be discriminatory

I don't see anyone from stopping you from doing that....go for it. You want me to call you African-American, no problem there. Consider it done.

I see you did not mention anything about the 'rights' or special privileges... which I can infer that you believe that while I wish to call myself such, I don't get those same things..... well guess what fancy britches, I guess you would get very upset if someone said the same thing about your want for laws and government privilege for gay marriage

 

[Seawytch]

Like any other contract between 2 people

l

It is not like any other contract. For starters, contracts are governed by contract law, which is an extensive field itself. If you eliminate marriage then there is no standard to adjudicate claims. Anyone can claim to be married to anyone else and make claims. With no law to govern the situation, there is no way to adjudicate the claims.

You can't have a contract about things such as inheritance or power of attorney unless you're married?? There is a standard for contracts, and it has nothing to do with marriage...

There are over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal marriage that you can't get through a lawyer and that are automatically granted with a civil marriage license.

 

[Iridescence]

Perhaps the real issue to be addressed then is the systems at work in which prevent same sex couples from the benefits of the marital status without necessarily being called 'marriage'.

 

[The Rabbi]

Like any other contract between 2 people

l

It is not like any other contract. For starters, contracts are governed by contract law, which is an extensive field itself. If you eliminate marriage then there is no standard to adjudicate claims. Anyone can claim to be married to anyone else and make claims. With no law to govern the situation, there is no way to adjudicate the claims.

You can't have a contract about things such as inheritance or power of attorney unless you're married?? There is a standard for contracts, and it has nothing to do with marriage...

No, that isnt what I said.
Contract law is very specific with many details. An individual contract will be governed by law in the case of, e.g. ambiguities. But there is a standard as to what a contract consists of.
What standard is there f what a marriage consists of if you simply abolish the entire concept? There is none. Anyone could claim anything and a court would be powerless to adjudicate the claims, lacking any template or framework.