WTF is wrong with a civil union?

[boilermaker55]

Keep government out of 'marriage' except in the places where government belongs.. taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, inheritance, contracts, etc... Deem any union of 2 consenting adults (and subsequent families) as family units and treat everyone the same...

But do not force acceptance of others or by others in terms of choices that are made... people have the right to be with anyone they choose, love anyone they choose (consenting adults, not brother and sister and all that jazz)... but just as you have the freedom to do that, you also have the freedom to discriminate against the choices of others.. you have the right to discriminate (not accept) punks, criminals, and others who do not fit in to your realm of acceptable behavior.. and whether i agree of disagree, that choice in who to accept is personal... you have the freedom to be accepting just as you have the freedom to be bigoted or prejudiced... it may not be proper, it may not be nice, but such is the spectrum within a free society

Liberty^^^ Living your life and not forcing your beliefs on anyone through the power of government.

As in your beliefs?

 

[jillian]

Keep government out of 'marriage' except in the places where government belongs.. taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, inheritance, contracts, etc... Deem any union of 2 consenting adults (and subsequent families) as family units and treat everyone the same...

But do not force acceptance of others or by others in terms of choices that are made... people have the right to be with anyone they choose, love anyone they choose (consenting adults, not brother and sister and all that jazz)... but just as you have the freedom to do that, you also have the freedom to discriminate against the choices of others.. you have the right to discriminate (not accept) punks, criminals, and others who do not fit in to your realm of acceptable behavior.. and whether i agree of disagree, that choice in who to accept is personal... you have the freedom to be accepting just as you have the freedom to be bigoted or prejudiced... it may not be proper, it may not be nice, but such is the spectrum within a free society

Liberty^^^ Living your life and not forcing your beliefs on anyone through the power of government.

you do realize the irony of that post, tommy, don't you? you know, given you think it's ok for YOUR beliefs to be imposed through the power of government.

hypocrite.

 

[Salt Jones]

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.

I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?

Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.

WTF is wrong with marriage that 50% end in divorce? Is that trashing "traditional values"?

How does gay marriage harm your marriage?

 

[Dr.Drock]

They can form their own legal contracts on such matters. It isn't the perogative of the state to dictate social matters of this kind. it is their role to enforce a contract and protect the participants from contract fraud.

Unless you think people are so fucking useless they need to be led by the hand in order to maintain such matters. i do not. But I dont hate people like statists do.

So gay folks have to hire a lawyer to define a contract, and straights can save those fees and use state law? Yeah, that's equal protection.

I'm not seeing how you got that from his post.

EVERYONE can form their own legal contracts, gay or straight.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They can form their own legal contracts on such matters. It isn't the perogative of the state to dictate social matters of this kind. it is their role to enforce a contract and protect the participants from contract fraud.

Unless you think people are so fucking useless they need to be led by the hand in order to maintain such matters. i do not. But I dont hate people like statists do.

So gay folks have to hire a lawyer to define a contract, and straights can save those fees and use state law? Yeah, that's equal protection.

Are you thick? NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN MARRIAGE. NONE. ZIP.

No license, no perks, no set backs, no nothing. People can formulate their own contracts and it is the job of the government to enforce and uphold those contracts as they are defined. Protecting both parties from contract fraud.

It is not the job of government to license a marriage. They have no role in social elements like this.

It is not something for one group and something else for another.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The government should have absolutely no role in marriage. No perks or set backs, no "license', which is essentially outlawing marriage unless authorization is granted by the "authorities" to do so.

This issue would be a complete no-issue if it weren't the always intrusive, state that wants to usurp the social elements of society for dictation.

The problem wit this is that the pro-SSM people WANT the legal perks that stem from state involvement, and so WANT the state to be involved.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The government should have absolutely no role in marriage. No perks or set backs, no "license', which is essentially outlawing marriage unless authorization is granted by the "authorities" to do so.

This issue would be a complete no-issue if it weren't the always intrusive, state that wants to usurp the social elements of society for dictation.

The problem wit this is that the pro-SSM people WANT the legal perks that stem from state involvement, and so WANT the state to be involved.

So do heteros.

Equality should be everyone's goal.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I know. If there were no perks from the govt...no involvement, would the LGBT community really be pushing for "equal rights" in the form of marriage?

I HIGHLY doubt it. Which is the entire point. Deciding who can see their partner in the hospital, property rights, etc...these are the makings of a personal contract between individuals, not a state sanctioned byproduct of their never ending attempts to usurp social matters.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The government should have absolutely no role in marriage. No perks or set backs, no "license', which is essentially outlawing marriage unless authorization is granted by the "authorities" to do so.

This issue would be a complete no-issue if it weren't the always intrusive, state that wants to usurp the social elements of society for dictation.

The problem wit this is that the pro-SSM people WANT the legal perks that stem from state involvement, and so WANT the state to be involved.

So do heteros.

Equality should be everyone's goal.

Exactly! No perks!

Thats why i believe the fight is the wrong one on this. We shoudl all be unifying to remove govt. from our relationships and keep them contained to upholding contracts. As is their job.

 

[Dick Tuck]

They can form their own legal contracts on such matters. It isn't the perogative of the state to dictate social matters of this kind. it is their role to enforce a contract and protect the participants from contract fraud.

Unless you think people are so fucking useless they need to be led by the hand in order to maintain such matters. i do not. But I dont hate people like statists do.

So gay folks have to hire a lawyer to define a contract, and straights can save those fees and use state law? Yeah, that's equal protection.

I'm not seeing how you got that from his post.

EVERYONE can form their own legal contracts, gay or straight.

Sure. Prenups and all. But the expectation that a gay couple need to take an extraordinary step to get the same rights as a straight couple, violates "equal protection". Now if all 50 states got rid of every law, regarding marriage, and made every couple who wanted rights like common property, inheritance rights, dissolution rights and responsibility, automatic power of attorney, etc., to go to their lawyer and draw up an agreement, this wouldn't be an issue. But we don't force heterosexual couples to jump through those expensive hoops, so the idea that a homosexual couple be forced to, is a clear violation of equal protection.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I say we should have civil unions for everyone.

If you want a religious marriage then get one.

Thaat way religious types can keep the word marriage

Actually I can live with that. )

 

[Dick Tuck]

The problem wit this is that the pro-SSM people WANT the legal perks that stem from state involvement, and so WANT the state to be involved.

So do heteros.

Equality should be everyone's goal.

Exactly! No perks!

Thats why i believe the fight is the wrong one on this. We shoudl all be unifying to remove govt. from our relationships and keep them contained to upholding contracts. As is their job.

You really want to make it tough to form a union. Will you expect a contractual union made in one state be accepted in all others? Are you a lobbyist for lawyers?

 

[The T]

So do heteros.

Equality should be everyone's goal.

Exactly! No perks!

Thats why i believe the fight is the wrong one on this. We shoudl all be unifying to remove govt. from our relationships and keep them contained to upholding contracts. As is their job.

You really want to make it tough to form a union. Will you expect a contractual union made in one state be accepted in all others? Are you a lobbyist for lawyers?

Translation? FED belongs in this because Tick Duck doesn't recognize the 9th and Tenth Amendments...much less the rest of the Constitution.

 

[jillian]

The problem wit this is that the pro-SSM people WANT the legal perks that stem from state involvement, and so WANT the state to be involved.

So do heteros.

Equality should be everyone's goal.

Exactly! No perks!

Thats why i believe the fight is the wrong one on this. We shoudl all be unifying to remove govt. from our relationships and keep them contained to upholding contracts. As is their job.

what perks? you marry someone, you have joint property rights.

do you think you shouldn't?

you marry someone, if they die without a will, you inherit from them without tax. do you want to pay taxes?

stop letting the lunacy get in the way of rational thought.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You really are thick. It appears you can not wrap your head around what Im saying. There is no extraordinary step for homosexuals in what im saying. Everyone follows the same model. You write up a contract between the two parties involved. Whether you are straight, gay or happen to have a conscious, talking, consenting and literate goat.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So do heteros.

Equality should be everyone's goal.

Exactly! No perks!

Thats why i believe the fight is the wrong one on this. We shoudl all be unifying to remove govt. from our relationships and keep them contained to upholding contracts. As is their job.

what perks? you marry someone, you have joint property rights.

do you think you shouldn't?

you marry someone, if they die without a will, you inherit from them without tax. do you want to pay taxes?

stop letting the lunacy get in the way of rational thought.

All of those items can be solved by being responsible and having a contract instead of expecting the state to work it out for you. At a fee and an authorization that you're not wed unlawfully (without a license).

this isn't that complicated.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Exactly! No perks!

Thats why i believe the fight is the wrong one on this. We shoudl all be unifying to remove govt. from our relationships and keep them contained to upholding contracts. As is their job.

You really want to make it tough to form a union. Will you expect a contractual union made in one state be accepted in all others? Are you a lobbyist for lawyers?

Translation? FED belongs in this because Tick Duck doesn't recognize the 9th and Tenth Amendments...much less the rest of the Constitution.

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

 

[Avorysuds]

This whole issue is a matter of forced acceptence and an attempt to claim a violation of 'rights'. All those couples need do is go and enter into an agreement through civil channels without taking over or changing the meaning of traditional values.

Incorrect.

The whole issue is that the federal Government gives tax breaks to people that are married, that means the rule of law per the constitution has been violated. If people want the same tax breaks and rights given to others that are "legally" married as seen by the federal Government, they can't or it's very expensive, and hard to do.

The constitution is clear that the federal Government shall make no law respecting a religion. Giving a tax break based off a church (any church) just because they say 2 people are married is in violation of that law in our constitution. It’s very simple, the church (of any kind) discriminates against gays in this case and that carry’s over though law because our tax laws favor religion illegally.

Why should you get a tax break for being married over someone that is not anyways, how is that far, sexuallity aside?

 

[The T]

You really want to make it tough to form a union. Will you expect a contractual union made in one state be accepted in all others? Are you a lobbyist for lawyers?

Translation? FED belongs in this because Tick Duck doesn't recognize the 9th and Tenth Amendments...much less the rest of the Constitution.

Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?

So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...

IDIOT.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Exactly! No perks!

Thats why i believe the fight is the wrong one on this. We shoudl all be unifying to remove govt. from our relationships and keep them contained to upholding contracts. As is their job.

what perks? you marry someone, you have joint property rights.

do you think you shouldn't?

you marry someone, if they die without a will, you inherit from them without tax. do you want to pay taxes?

stop letting the lunacy get in the way of rational thought.

All of those items can be solved by being responsible and having a contract instead of expecting the state to work it out for you. At a fee and an authorization that you're not wed unlawfully (without a license).

this isn't that complicated.

Fine. That's exactly how it works now for all married people, within a state. It gets fucked up when you cross state lines. Should you lose fundamental contractual rights when you cross state lines? Lets say your a gay married couple from New York, and want to head down to Mertyl Beach for a week. Then you have a car accident which lands one of you in an end of life situation, and one of you able to make informed choice. Should North Carolina be forced to recognize power of attorney granted in New York to make those decisions? Only if you toss out the 11th Amendment.