Would you sign a petition to eliminate civil marriage licenses?

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the government shouldn't get out of marriage "all together". Who arbitrates a split of assets or custody in the event of a divorce, who enforces child support, who recognizes tax breaks and DNR orders?

If people want to merge their assets they should write a contract and iron out all the details in advance. If they then want to split those assets the courts have a contract to go buy if their is disagreement. That is how it works for everything but marriage, why is marriage special? That would also eliminate the tax breaks question, because the government would have no reason to punish people for getting married and still having the audacity to earn money.

What do DNRs have to with this? They will simply be handled the way they currently are. If there is a question about it you can sign a medical power of attorney, something a lot of people do already.

Either two adults consensually enter into a civil union, where the title of marriage is granted by a religious institution or,

two adults enter consensually into a marriage ordained by the state

Why only two adults?

I'm biased to the first, because imo it fits with the 1stA. Whether or not the state wants to classify me and my future wife as a civil union on our 1040 or whatever is immaterial to me; it will still be a marriage in my mind.

Marriage and civil union should just be nothing more than a difference of semantics, with equal rights granted regardless, one legal one sentimental/religious. To me marriage has been about two adults loving each other enough to commit to sharing their lives and assets and decisions together, and, imo, the sex of both is and should be immaterial. I think it is just a matter of time.

If we get the government out of marriage it will not be restricting the rights of people based on their marital status. Doesn't that make more sense than trying to force the government to stop restricting some marriages, and still allow them to restrict others?

 

[bodecea]

How odd that you all say your not trying to shove this garbage down everyone's throats yet you have multiple threads about the same core issue running on here.

Call your congressmen and give us a rest from this worn out subject.

I have multiple threads? Hun, you need to truely pay attention...this is the FIRST thread I've created in a very long time.

Have you voted yet? If not, why not?1

First of all I'm not your hun. Second of all there were 4 threads similar to this one on the first page this morning. All of which have covered the same shit over and over and over. Regardless of who the author is it could have all easily been confined in one thread. I understand you felt you needed your 10 minutes of fame and therefore made "another thread on this topic"

It isn't going to change anyone's mind and will only produce heated arguments that end in insults. Why should I bother voting in your pointless poll when I made my thoughts quite obvious in 2 other threads that are "just like this one" devisive and pointless.

This is what you said, Sweetie:

yet you have multiple threads

Sorry if you got caught being WRONG. But I see you are afraid to vote in my poll....I'm not that terribly surprised, actually. People say things...but when it comes to actually making choices, even in an online poll, they chicken out.

 

[bodecea]

Government's got no business in marriage.
That's between man, woman and God.

Is God going to decide who gets the children?

Why must you criticize what I believe?

What next? Stifling of free speech?

I could care less what you believe - why do you care what I believe?

Are you one of those "caring and nurturing, free speech, fuck Bush" Liberals?

If so - seek a new User ID

It was a legitimate point...do churches decide custody in divorce cases today? No they do not. If government gets out of the marriage business, will churches pick up that job?

 

[Warrior102]

I have multiple threads? Hun, you need to truely pay attention...this is the FIRST thread I've created in a very long time.

Have you voted yet? If not, why not?1

First of all I'm not your hun. Second of all there were 4 threads similar to this one on the first page this morning. All of which have covered the same shit over and over and over. Regardless of who the author is it could have all easily been confined in one thread. I understand you felt you needed your 10 minutes of fame and therefore made "another thread on this topic"

It isn't going to change anyone's mind and will only produce heated arguments that end in insults. Why should I bother voting in your pointless poll when I made my thoughts quite obvious in 2 other threads that are "just like this one" devisive and pointless.

This is what you said, Sweetie:

yet you have multiple threads

Sorry if you got caught being WRONG. But I see you are afraid to vote in my poll....I'm not that terribly surprised, actually. People say things...but when it comes to actually making choices, even in an online poll, they chicken out.

Why would anyone "chicken out" of a poll on an internet forum?

Many of us believe in God and the sanctity of marriage. If you don't - terrific. I, for one, could care less.

It's your opinion.

Marry a goat for all I care. Whatever trips your trigger.

 

[Warrior102]

Is God going to decide who gets the children?

Why must you criticize what I believe?

What next? Stifling of free speech?

I could care less what you believe - why do you care what I believe?

Are you one of those "caring and nurturing, free speech, fuck Bush" Liberals?

If so - seek a new User ID

It was a legitimate point...do churches decide custody in divorce cases today? No they do not. If government gets out of the marriage business, will churches pick up that job?

In my church - divorce is not an option. Marriage is a sacrament.
For better or for worst.
Not "what pleases me."

I am not going to defend my beliefs nor argue the point.

Believe what you want. It's a free country. Don't try to convince me your BS is "the way" to salvation.

You strike me as an arrogant fool.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is God going to decide who gets the children?

Why must you criticize what I believe?

What next? Stifling of free speech?

I could care less what you believe - why do you care what I believe?

Are you one of those "caring and nurturing, free speech, fuck Bush" Liberals?

If so - seek a new User ID

It was a legitimate point...do churches decide custody in divorce cases today? No they do not. If government gets out of the marriage business, will churches pick up that job?

I know of cases where they have, and the courts supported it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have multiple threads? Hun, you need to truely pay attention...this is the FIRST thread I've created in a very long time.

Have you voted yet? If not, why not?1

First of all I'm not your hun. Second of all there were 4 threads similar to this one on the first page this morning. All of which have covered the same shit over and over and over. Regardless of who the author is it could have all easily been confined in one thread. I understand you felt you needed your 10 minutes of fame and therefore made "another thread on this topic"

It isn't going to change anyone's mind and will only produce heated arguments that end in insults. Why should I bother voting in your pointless poll when I made my thoughts quite obvious in 2 other threads that are "just like this one" devisive and pointless.

This is what you said, Sweetie:

yet you have multiple threads

Sorry if you got caught being WRONG. But I see you are afraid to vote in my poll....I'm not that terribly surprised, actually. People say things...but when it comes to actually making choices, even in an online poll, they chicken out.

I know that's what I said. Can you not exercise some reading comprehension skills and read between the lines?

And why the hell do you keep referring to me with female adjectives?

If you phrased your poll properly as someone earlier suggested I might. Until then it is just as I stated, a completely pointless poll designed to give you your 10 minutes. It seems to me that you are the one in fear, fear of not being recognized.

 

[bodecea]

First of all I'm not your hun. Second of all there were 4 threads similar to this one on the first page this morning. All of which have covered the same shit over and over and over. Regardless of who the author is it could have all easily been confined in one thread. I understand you felt you needed your 10 minutes of fame and therefore made "another thread on this topic"

It isn't going to change anyone's mind and will only produce heated arguments that end in insults. Why should I bother voting in your pointless poll when I made my thoughts quite obvious in 2 other threads that are "just like this one" devisive and pointless.

This is what you said, Sweetie:

yet you have multiple threads

Sorry if you got caught being WRONG. But I see you are afraid to vote in my poll....I'm not that terribly surprised, actually. People say things...but when it comes to actually making choices, even in an online poll, they chicken out.

Why would anyone "chicken out" of a poll on an internet forum?Many of us believe in God and the sanctity of marriage. If you don't - terrific. I, for one, could care less.

It's your opinion.

Marry a goat for all I care. Whatever trips your trigger.

An excellent question...but many seem to be afraid to actually vote....so you will have to ask them.

 

[bodecea]

First of all I'm not your hun. Second of all there were 4 threads similar to this one on the first page this morning. All of which have covered the same shit over and over and over. Regardless of who the author is it could have all easily been confined in one thread. I understand you felt you needed your 10 minutes of fame and therefore made "another thread on this topic"

It isn't going to change anyone's mind and will only produce heated arguments that end in insults. Why should I bother voting in your pointless poll when I made my thoughts quite obvious in 2 other threads that are "just like this one" devisive and pointless.

This is what you said, Sweetie:

yet you have multiple threads

Sorry if you got caught being WRONG. But I see you are afraid to vote in my poll....I'm not that terribly surprised, actually. People say things...but when it comes to actually making choices, even in an online poll, they chicken out.

I know that's what I said. Can you not exercise some reading comprehension skills and read between the lines?

And why the hell do you keep referring to me with female adjectives?

If you phrased your poll properly as someone earlier suggested I might. Until then it is just as I stated, a completely pointless poll designed to give you your 10 minutes. It seems to me that you are the one in fear, fear of not being recognized.

I know what you said too. And I quoted it again, just to PROVE that you stated I made many threads.

But, by all means, move your goal posts and pretend that you didn't say what you said. You seem to have, if I may quote T. Roosevelt, the backbone of a chocolate eclair.

 

[Anachronism]

No. In fact, I would suggest that those civil marriage licenses are the best way to enforce proper morals and values by refusing these licenses to people who shouldn't be married to begin with.

 

[Sheldon]

No, the government shouldn't get out of marriage "all together". Who arbitrates a split of assets or custody in the event of a divorce, who enforces child support, who recognizes tax breaks and DNR orders?

If people want to merge their assets they should write a contract and iron out all the details in advance. If they then want to split those assets the courts have a contract to go buy if their is disagreement. That is how it works for everything but marriage, why is marriage special? That would also eliminate the tax breaks question, because the government would have no reason to punish people for getting married and still having the audacity to earn money.

I have no problem with the government eliminating the marriage credit (or single penalty) at all. The OP mentioned the talking point of "getting govt out of marriage all together", but like you showed and I agree, the courts would, and should, still be involved in the process of determining which party gets what. And the courts are part of government, so the talking point falls flat here.

What do DNRs have to with this? They will simply be handled the way they currently are. If there is a question about it you can sign a medical power of attorney, something a lot of people do already.

That was just sloppy short-hand on my part for EOL decisions and hospital visitations. My understanding is that legally married spouses have greater visitation and decision rights than just family or friends. If civil union couples have the same hospital visitation rights as married couples, the point it moot.

Either two adults consensually enter into a civil union, where the title of marriage is granted by a religious institution or,

two adults enter consensually into a marriage ordained by the state

Why only two adults?

Because I didn't want to open up the polygamy can of worms.

I'm biased to the first, because imo it fits with the 1stA. Whether or not the state wants to classify me and my future wife as a civil union on our 1040 or whatever is immaterial to me; it will still be a marriage in my mind.

Marriage and civil union should just be nothing more than a difference of semantics, with equal rights granted regardless, one legal one sentimental/religious. To me marriage has been about two adults loving each other enough to commit to sharing their lives and assets and decisions together, and, imo, the sex of both is and should be immaterial. I think it is just a matter of time.

If we get the government out of marriage it will not be restricting the rights of people based on their marital status. Doesn't that make more sense than trying to force the government to stop restricting some marriages, and still allow them to restrict others?

Well imo, the "get government out of marriage" is a cliche talking point that is too broad to apply to the real world. I have no problem with setting the parameters at two consensual adults, and if it's at multiple consensual adults I could live with that. But when people start talking about children and vegetables and toasters, that's where I draw the line. Consent, imo, is key when it comes to not only marriages, but any contract in general. Both parties need to have consent. Other than that, leave the sentiment of what marriage means up to the church/mosque/synogue/spaceship/etc

 

[The Rabbi]

Who wants gov't out of the divorce business? The custody business? The inheritance business? The tax business? The bankruptcy business?>
Because marriage law impinges on every one of those areas and probably a bunch more. It would be virtually impossible (not to mention undesirable) to get gov't out of all of those.

Similarly and for similar reasons it would be undesirable to start redefining marriage as anything but what it has been traditionally in this country and England for the last 1000 years.

And the Yes vote seems t be losing by 2-1.

 

[Grace]

I'm not sure of the question. So I will just say what I think about it:

Gay couples who wish to be "married" should be allowed to do so with all the rights and perks associated with what "marriage" means. IF the term is what is making people freak out, then a civil union where gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...and leave the term "marry" out of it since it puts some panties in a wad.

In short, gays who wish to be partners for life (and even "divorce" if they choose) and have the same rights as man and woman in the same partnership, a resounding YES. They should have that right. Period.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This is what you said, Sweetie:


Sorry if you got caught being WRONG. But I see you are afraid to vote in my poll....I'm not that terribly surprised, actually. People say things...but when it comes to actually making choices, even in an online poll, they chicken out.

I know that's what I said. Can you not exercise some reading comprehension skills and read between the lines?

And why the hell do you keep referring to me with female adjectives?

If you phrased your poll properly as someone earlier suggested I might. Until then it is just as I stated, a completely pointless poll designed to give you your 10 minutes. It seems to me that you are the one in fear, fear of not being recognized.

I know what you said too. And I quoted it again, just to PROVE that you stated I made many threads.

But, by all means, move your goal posts and pretend that you didn't say what you said. You seem to have, if I may quote T. Roosevelt, the backbone of a chocolate eclair.

Nice, I see your capable of ignoring the point of my post completely using an arbitrary play on words.
Yet you want to be taken seriously?

Stick your head back in the sand.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure of the question. So I will just say what I think about it:

Gay couples who wish to be "married" should be allowed to do so with all the rights and perks associated with what "marriage" means. IF the term is what is making people freak out, then a civil union where gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...and leave the term "marry" out of it since it puts some panties in a wad.

In short, gays who wish to be partners for life (and even "divorce" if they choose) and have the same rights as man and woman in the same partnership, a resounding YES. They should have that right. Period.

Gays don't want "civil unions". They want people to accept their deviant lifestyle as normal. That is what this is all about.
We could easily craft "domestic partnership" laws that would take care of any actual problems. BUt you have not seen a homosexual on this site or anywhere else push for that.

 

[bodecea]

No. In fact, I would suggest that those civil marriage licenses are the best way to enforce proper morals and values by refusing these licenses to people who shouldn't be married to begin with.

Isn't it interesting how prisoners for murder can marry, 14 year girls in southern states can marry, 95 year olds can marry.


Isn't it interesting that The Rabbi neg reps me for this post AND says "So what?"




I guess his marriage license is safe then.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. In fact, I would suggest that those civil marriage licenses are the best way to enforce proper morals and values by refusing these licenses to people who shouldn't be married to begin with.

Isn't it interesting how prisoners for murder can marry, 14 year girls in southern states can marry, 95 year olds can marry.

That's irrelevant to his post.
Or are you unable to see that as well?
And why shouldn't 14 year old girls and 95 yr olds get married?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No. In fact, I would suggest that those civil marriage licenses are the best way to enforce proper morals and values by refusing these licenses to people who shouldn't be married to begin with.

Isn't it interesting how prisoners for murder can marry, 14 year girls in southern states can marry, 95 year olds can marry.

That's irrelevant to his post.
Or are you unable to see that as well?
And why shouldn't 14 year old girls and 95 yr olds get married?

Because 14 year olds boy or girl are just that, boys and girls. Children for christs sake.

 

[bodecea]

Isn't it interesting how prisoners for murder can marry, 14 year girls in southern states can marry, 95 year olds can marry.

That's irrelevant to his post.
Or are you unable to see that as well?
And why shouldn't 14 year old girls and 95 yr olds get married?

Because 14 year olds boy or girl are just that, boys and girls. Children for christs sake.

But it's ok in the Bible belt, you know.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That's irrelevant to his post.
Or are you unable to see that as well?
And why shouldn't 14 year old girls and 95 yr olds get married?

Because 14 year olds boy or girl are just that, boys and girls. Children for christs sake.

But it's ok in the Bible belt, you know.

Leave the bible out of it. It's as disgusting as the lifestyle you promote.

And I'm in the Midwest and I'm not a believer.