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.
What have YOU done to get government out of marriage?
Expressed my stance to local representatives (national, state, and county)... written an editorial to the local paper explaining the stance and calling for others to join the cause of freedom and equal treatment over the politicizing of the issue...
And I explain my position here and in public conversation constantly.... and have my wife's gay friends understanding and accepting my position.. even with me attending a gay wedding ceremony on memorial day weekend... you see.. for even though I have a governmental stance, I still accept people for who they are and respect the freedom for people to be with whomever they want
Then good for you....I am finding most expressing your opinion about the government getting out of marriage ONLY started talking about about as a "cut off your nose to spite your face" stance ...and ONLY pay lip service.
Expressed my stance to local representatives (national, state, and county)... written an editorial to the local paper explaining the stance and calling for others to join the cause of freedom and equal treatment over the politicizing of the issue...
And I explain my position here and in public conversation constantly.... and have my wife's gay friends understanding and accepting my position.. even with me attending a gay wedding ceremony on memorial day weekend... you see.. for even though I have a governmental stance, I still accept people for who they are and respect the freedom for people to be with whomever they want
Then good for you....I am finding most expressing your opinion about the government getting out of marriage ONLY started talking about about as a "cut off your nose to spite your face" stance ...and ONLY pay lip service.
The funny thing is representatives on both sides of the political fence (since where I live in MD is actually a conservative area in a very liberal state) only pay lip service.... and that is what is frustrating because unless it involves something that means something to their direct election or is fiscal in nature... they really don't give a shit...
Then good for you....I am finding most expressing your opinion about the government getting out of marriage ONLY started talking about about as a "cut off your nose to spite your face" stance ...and ONLY pay lip service.
The funny thing is representatives on both sides of the political fence (since where I live in MD is actually a conservative area in a very liberal state) only pay lip service.... and that is what is frustrating because unless it involves something that means something to their direct election or is fiscal in nature... they really don't give a shit...
that's because the institution of marriage (one man/one woman) has been around for eons......because it WORKS....
there's no need to let about 1% of the pop to destroy what works for the almost 99%....
The funny thing is representatives on both sides of the political fence (since where I live in MD is actually a conservative area in a very liberal state) only pay lip service.... and that is what is frustrating because unless it involves something that means something to their direct election or is fiscal in nature... they really don't give a shit...
that's because the institution of marriage (one man/one woman) has been around for eons......because it WORKS....
there's no need to let about 1% of the pop to destroy what works for the almost 99%....
Same argument made about anti miscgenation laws. It FAILS.
leave marriage as defined as one man/one woman.
Have civil unions legal in all 50 states and have those unions afforded the same 'rights' (taxes, beneficiaries, wills, etc.) as marriage.
Heterosexuals and/or the religious keep the definition of marriage; homosexuals get what they really want which is the same benefits of 'marriage'.
Both sides win.
that's because the institution of marriage (one man/one woman) has been around for eons......because it WORKS....
there's no need to let about 1% of the pop to destroy what works for the almost 99%....
Same argument made about anti miscgenation laws. It FAILS.
if you mix two gays together do you get a mixed gay.....?
any reference to the miscengenation argument FAILS....
Same argument made about anti miscgenation laws. It FAILS.
if you mix two gays together do you get a mixed gay.....?
any reference to the miscengenation argument FAILS....
The same arguments were made; "unnatural", "against the laws of nature", etc.
leave marriage as defined as one man/one woman.
Have civil unions legal in all 50 states and have those unions afforded the same 'rights' (taxes, beneficiaries, wills, etc.) as marriage.
Heterosexuals and/or the religious keep the definition of marriage; homosexuals get what they really want which is the same benefits of 'marriage'.
Both sides win.
+1
yeah. Look at all that Liberal opposition to same sex marriage! When they aren't trying to roll back regulations on pollution or shady banking practices, those pesky Liberals are throwing sand in the gears of civil rights!Shouldn't equality extend to 100% of the citizens?I'm married.
fucking lame liberal idea just to appease 2% of the population.
Yes, but liberals won't allow it
if you mix two gays together do you get a mixed gay.....?
any reference to the miscengenation argument FAILS....
The same arguments were made; "unnatural", "against the laws of nature", etc.
did mixing race destroy the long-time institution of marriage........NO it didn't....
What if the religion allows gays to be married in their church as some do?Leave marriage as defined as one man/one woman.
Have civil unions legal in all 50 states and have those unions afforded the same 'rights' (taxes, beneficiaries, wills, etc.) as marriage.
Heterosexuals and/or the religious keep the definition of marriage; homosexuals get what they really want which is the same benefits of 'marriage'.
Both sides win.
^^ This.Leave marriage as defined as one man/one woman.
Have civil unions legal in all 50 states and have those unions afforded the same 'rights' (taxes, beneficiaries, wills, etc.) as marriage.
Heterosexuals and/or the religious keep the definition of marriage; homosexuals get what they really want which is the same benefits of 'marriage'.
Both sides win.
Even out of divorce? You realize the reason government is in it, right? The legal protections a marriage affords. Churches merely sanctify marriage according to the church's individual dogma and doctrine.^^ This.Leave marriage as defined as one man/one woman.
Have civil unions legal in all 50 states and have those unions afforded the same 'rights' (taxes, beneficiaries, wills, etc.) as marriage.
Heterosexuals and/or the religious keep the definition of marriage; homosexuals get what they really want which is the same benefits of 'marriage'.
Both sides win.
I don't need a government to tell Me who I am married too or who I love.
Get government out of it, all the way out of it.
There is no need for government at all. A legal contract can afford all those protections without bringing government into it. The only portion of government that would need to be even partially involved would be the courts.Even out of divorce? You realize the reason government is in it, right? The legal protections a marriage affords. Churches merely sanctify marriage according to the church's individual dogma and doctrine.^^ This.Leave marriage as defined as one man/one woman.
Have civil unions legal in all 50 states and have those unions afforded the same 'rights' (taxes, beneficiaries, wills, etc.) as marriage.
Heterosexuals and/or the religious keep the definition of marriage; homosexuals get what they really want which is the same benefits of 'marriage'.
Both sides win.
I don't need a government to tell Me who I am married too or who I love.
Get government out of it, all the way out of it.
The legally binding contract of a marriage whereby taxes are calculated, property is allotted and divided during a divorce, estates are transfered and secured are protected under the legal umbrella of a marriage license.
So the government should or should not issue marriage licenses? Once a license is issued, a new legal entity is created. Should same sex couples enjoy the same level of convenience to access such protections? Or should same sex couples be required to jump through additional hoops to take advantage of the legal protections afforded by the marriage license? And if that is the case, could it be rationally argued that such restrictions brand same sex couples as second class citizens?There is no need for government at all. A legal contract can afford all those protections without bringing government into it. The only portion of government that would need to be even partially involved would be the courts.Even out of divorce? You realize the reason government is in it, right? The legal protections a marriage affords. Churches merely sanctify marriage according to the church's individual dogma and doctrine.^^ This.
I don't need a government to tell Me who I am married too or who I love.
Get government out of it, all the way out of it.
The legally binding contract of a marriage whereby taxes are calculated, property is allotted and divided during a divorce, estates are transfered and secured are protected under the legal umbrella of a marriage license.
I don't worship at the alter of government, and think that they have no business any about 95% of what they are into. Marriage is not something government needs to be involved with.
As for divorce, that too would be part of the Civil Union Contract. Kind of like a prenuptial. Would stop a lot of gold digging too.
I don't think you understand My position on this.So the government should or should not issue marriage licenses? Once a license is issued, a new legal entity is created. Should same sex couples enjoy the same level of convenience to access such protections? Or should same sex couples be required to jump through additional hoops to take advantage of the legal protections afforded by the marriage license? And if that is the case, could it be rationally argued that such restrictions brand same sex couples as second class citizens?There is no need for government at all. A legal contract can afford all those protections without bringing government into it. The only portion of government that would need to be even partially involved would be the courts.Even out of divorce? You realize the reason government is in it, right? The legal protections a marriage affords. Churches merely sanctify marriage according to the church's individual dogma and doctrine.
The legally binding contract of a marriage whereby taxes are calculated, property is allotted and divided during a divorce, estates are transfered and secured are protected under the legal umbrella of a marriage license.
I don't worship at the alter of government, and think that they have no business any about 95% of what they are into. Marriage is not something government needs to be involved with.
As for divorce, that too would be part of the Civil Union Contract. Kind of like a prenuptial. Would stop a lot of gold digging too.
So anyone could visit a website like Legal Zoom and fill out a standard contract form and then voilà, they're married. No "By the power invested in me by the State of___", no recognition by the courts (until the whole thing goes south for whatever reason), no witnesses, just a contract?I don't think you understand My position on this.So the government should or should not issue marriage licenses? Once a license is issued, a new legal entity is created. Should same sex couples enjoy the same level of convenience to access such protections? Or should same sex couples be required to jump through additional hoops to take advantage of the legal protections afforded by the marriage license? And if that is the case, could it be rationally argued that such restrictions brand same sex couples as second class citizens?There is no need for government at all. A legal contract can afford all those protections without bringing government into it. The only portion of government that would need to be even partially involved would be the courts.
I don't worship at the alter of government, and think that they have no business any about 95% of what they are into. Marriage is not something government needs to be involved with.
As for divorce, that too would be part of the Civil Union Contract. Kind of like a prenuptial. Would stop a lot of gold digging too.
There would be no marriage license to be issued. The use of a legal contract IS the marriage license. This legal contract, often refereed to as a Civil Union, would in fact, create this new legal entity between two people. It will convey all the rights and privileges of what marriage used to convey. Only it won't be called marriage.
However, there will be no government involvement other than the filing of the contract with the courts.
If people want to be married (understood as a religious institution), they are free to do so. However, the religious ceremony will have no force of law in any manner at all. It will be considered a religious recognition just like a baptism. A baptism is not recognized as anything by government.
The same arguments were made; "unnatural", "against the laws of nature", etc.
did mixing race destroy the long-time institution of marriage........NO it didn't....
No will marriage equality, it probably will make marriage a stronger part of American life.
of course this all will make it easier for the STATE to step in and become the controlling influence...as we see already with many fatherless homes today...
Since many have been talking about it....how many of you would be willing to have your civil marriage license be changed to a civil union license? That the only people with a "marriage" would be those married by religious leaders
Yes or No?
Playing the what if game has little productive value to Me. When people begin that game, it is a flag that no amount of reasoning will reach them with regards to the subject at hand.did mixing race destroy the long-time institution of marriage........NO it didn't....
No will marriage equality, it probably will make marriage a stronger part of American life.
what makes you think that....?
all it will do is redefine marriage....
and how could you then deny marriage to a bisexual who wants to marry both a man and a woman?
or how could you deny a polygamist or polyamorist...? or other variations of 'marriage'....? once you open the door to redefine it the first time it will get redefined over and over again...
'open' marriages will become much more common.....if only because there are more people involved...or because gay men prefer it that way....
the whole concept of marriage and fidelity will change....
the institution of marriage will be torn asunder and become a patchwork of contracts....and lots more government instrusion...
what kind of effects do you think all that will have upon our children.....? confusion anyone? sexual identity problems? intolerance including against traditional homes? lost children in ever-changing homes? forced schooling against religious beliefs? and so on...
many will probably just get fed up even more with the whole concept of marriage as they are doing today.....pretty soon people will just live together like animals....eventually only a few will have "pedigrees".....
It's bad enough now with no-fault divorce, the whole 'sexual revolution' and the resulting out-of-wedlock births....this will only throw more fuel on the fire that is destroying marriage and the basic building block of civilization....the basic family unit...dad, mom, and chlld...
