CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

[TheProgressivePatriot]

?????That actually makes no sense>

It makes PERFECT sense.

If you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "no you have brown hair, so no license for you" that is discrimination
If on the other hand, you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "we don't issue licenses" that isn't discrimination because you got EXACTLY the same thing as everyone else, NO LICENSE, because one is not required.

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Is Marriage a Civil Right?

There is nothing here to suggest that a state can deny marriage to all people and not be in violation of constitutional law. If what you're saying is correct, a state could also ban freedom of assembly, or speech, as long as they did it across the board and not just target certain groups. Your argument fails big time.

Well, I argue that the Bill of Rights was NEVER meant to apply to states anyway, but that is another matter.

YOU are conflating issues.

you have a right to marry, you do NOT have a right to a state license to do so.

Really this isn't any different than in the case of free speech in that regard. Do you have to have a license to practice free speech?

I know that the bill of rights was not originally intended to apply to the states. But, the southern yahoos rose up and brought the 14th amendment down on themselves.

You keep repeating that you don't have a right to state licensed marriage but I have documented otherwise. Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true. I will add that the fact that you need a license to marry in itself does not mean that it is not a right. The reasons for the license have changed over time and currently it is simply to ensure that the participants meet very minimal requirements

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order:

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?

But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

Maybe I'm just not being clear. I am proposing that states remove all requirements to obtain a license from said state to marry. As for divorce court , or what have you, clearly family court could manage divorces whether the marriage was approved by a church, a state, or wal mart even. For that matter , in most states if you live with someone and then ditch them with all the bills, courts will hold you responsible for your share of those bills.

You are quite clear. And, by removing all requirements, you are also removing state/government recognition of marriage and all of the benefits and protections that go with it, right? You want to remove the right to be married in the eyes of the state despite the fact that I have shown that the courts have established that as a right.

And now you are proposing that a civil court could grant a divorce to people who were married by a church and only a church? To legally dissolve a union that was never legally recognized in the first place.? You are becoming garbled now Some religious folks might have a problem with that.

And only a few states are common law, by the way

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It makes PERFECT sense.

If you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "no you have brown hair, so no license for you" that is discrimination
If on the other hand, you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "we don't issue licenses" that isn't discrimination because you got EXACTLY the same thing as everyone else, NO LICENSE, because one is not required.

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Is Marriage a Civil Right?

There is nothing here to suggest that a state can deny marriage to all people and not be in violation of constitutional law. If what you're saying is correct, a state could also ban freedom of assembly, or speech, as long as they did it across the board and not just target certain groups. Your argument fails big time.

Well, I argue that the Bill of Rights was NEVER meant to apply to states anyway, but that is another matter.

YOU are conflating issues.

you have a right to marry, you do NOT have a right to a state license to do so.

Really this isn't any different than in the case of free speech in that regard. Do you have to have a license to practice free speech?

I know that the bill of rights was not originally intended to apply to the states. But, the southern yahoos rose up and brought the 14th amendment down on themselves.

You keep repeating that you don't have a right to state licensed marriage but I have documented otherwise. Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true. I will add that the fact that you need a license to marry in itself does not mean that it is not a right. The reasons for the license have changed over time and currently it is simply to ensure that the participants meet very minimal requirements

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order:

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?

But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

Maybe I'm just not being clear. I am proposing that states remove all requirements to obtain a license from said state to marry. As for divorce court , or what have you, clearly family court could manage divorces whether the marriage was approved by a church, a state, or wal mart even. For that matter , in most states if you live with someone and then ditch them with all the bills, courts will hold you responsible for your share of those bills.

You are quite clear. And, by removing all requirements, you are also removing state/government recognition of marriage and all of the benefits and protections that go with it, right? You want to remove the right to be married in the eyes of the state despite the fact that I have shown that the courts have established that as a right.

And now you are proposing that a civil court could grant a divorce to people who were married by a church and only a church? To legally dissolve a union that was never legally recognized in the first place.? You are becoming garbled now Some religious folks might have a problem with that.

And only a few states are common law, by the way

In case you haven't noticed. I don't care who is upset by my facts.

And no, I propose that instead of state sanctioned "marriage" the state merely accepts contracts binding people together, whether those contracts are called marriages or nor, and of course the state has the authority to dissolve contracts.

At this point, I strongly suspect that you reject my proposal simply because you actively WANT the states to recognize gay marriage as some sort of rub it in their faces to religious people. See, I don't care about that. I care about doing what is right, and what is within the scope of the powers delegated to the government, and the fact is the federal government does NOT have the authority to force a state to license marriages.

The only authority they have is to tell states that if you DO offer licenses, you must offer them to all.

 

[oldsoul]

However, if we start removing those types of distinctions between the married and not married, we may find ourselves at a point where marriage is meaningless- at least legally

That is exactly what I want.

Apparently there is little hope of you actually making an attempt to address the issues that I raised in #90.

My apologies, I saw little worth in pointing out that your entire argument rests on short term litigation, and/or a difficult task (ie. amending the COTUS). So, there you have it. Now I have responded.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it ,at least the marriage part of it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

 

[jillian]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

churches? but churches can't confer property rights which is the major issue in marriage.

and what if one doesn't believe in any church? are you saying people should be forced to participate in a religious institution?

nice going.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

churches? but churches can't confer property rights which is the major issue in marriage.

and what if one doesn't believe in any church? are you saying people should be forced to participate in a religious institution?

nice going.

It would be helpful if you read the whole post.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

churches? but churches can't confer property rights which is the major issue in marriage.

and what if one doesn't believe in any church? are you saying people should be forced to participate in a religious institution?

nice going.

Agreed, yes marriage started out as a religious institution, but now it is more of a traditional one, and there are plenty of traditional non religious people out there who should not have the government telling them what marriage is.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

 

[jillian]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

you can't separate these issues.

 

[jillian]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

churches? but churches can't confer property rights which is the major issue in marriage.

and what if one doesn't believe in any church? are you saying people should be forced to participate in a religious institution?

nice going.

Agreed, yes marriage started out as a religious institution, but now it is more of a traditional one, and there are plenty of traditional non religious people out there who should not have the government telling them what marriage is.

the government always defines marriage and its rights and obligations. it always has.

 

[jillian]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

churches? but churches can't confer property rights which is the major issue in marriage.

and what if one doesn't believe in any church? are you saying people should be forced to participate in a religious institution?

nice going.

It would be helpful if you read the whole post.

your basic premise is unconstitutional.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

you can't separate these issues.

Sure you can. You just do as I said, get rid of state marriage licenses and instead have recognition of valid contracts. The fact of the matter is , you and I don't even know each other, but if we decided that we wanted to sign a contract giving the other are social security benefits should we die or whatever, the state simply should not be able to prevent that via "you're not married" if we sign a consensual agreement, the state should have to accept that, whether it is a "marriage" contract or not.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

churches? but churches can't confer property rights which is the major issue in marriage.

and what if one doesn't believe in any church? are you saying people should be forced to participate in a religious institution?

nice going.

Agreed, yes marriage started out as a religious institution, but now it is more of a traditional one, and there are plenty of traditional non religious people out there who should not have the government telling them what marriage is.

the government always defines marriage and its rights and obligations. it always has.

And that doesn't make it right.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

Okay...what is your proposal? Where is it? I'm not going to "dig" through 18 pages looking for it.

As go the militants, I don't really care if the militants are satisfied. They are just the extremists in the movement, and I'd just as soon not see extremists of any stripe satiated because what all folks of that ilk want is, well, extreme.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

Okay...what is your proposal? Where is it? I'm not going to "dig" through 18 pages looking for it.

As go the militants, I don't really care if the militants are satisfied. They are just the extremists in the movement, and I'd just as soon not see extremists of any stripe satiated because what all folks of that ilk want is, well, extreme.

My proposal is simple. The government gets out of the marriage business altogether. ZERO marriage licenses. All benefits and such currently offered under marriage are instead offered under contract law. If the contract is a non government marriage, fine. If it's just a piece of paper signed, fine, whatever. In either case the state only recognizes contracts. Private parties of course remain allowed to perform whatever marriages between consensual adults they want.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

Red:
??? If the short paragraph I see you've posted a few moments ago in reply to Jillian is basically your proposal, the substance of yours and my proposal is the same.


Update after reading this: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally
Yes. We're saying the same thing.

 

[oldsoul]

EACH of those cases was about offering EQUAL protection of the law. NO ONE being given state marriage licenses WOULD be equal protection of the law.

?????That actually makes no sense>

It makes PERFECT sense.

If you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "no you have brown hair, so no license for you" that is discrimination
If on the other hand, you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "we don't issue licenses" that isn't discrimination because you got EXACTLY the same thing as everyone else, NO LICENSE, because one is not required.

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Is Marriage a Civil Right?

There is nothing here to suggest that a state can deny marriage to all people and not be in violation of constitutional law. If what you're saying is correct, a state could also ban freedom of assembly, or speech, as long as they did it across the board and not just target certain groups. Your argument fails big time.

Well, I argue that the Bill of Rights was NEVER meant to apply to states anyway, but that is another matter.

YOU are conflating issues.

you have a right to marry, you do NOT have a right to a state license to do so.

Really this isn't any different than in the case of free speech in that regard. Do you have to have a license to practice free speech?

I know that the bill of rights was not originally intended to apply to the states. But, the southern yahoos rose up and brought the 14th amendment down on themselves.

You keep repeating that you don't have a right to state licensed marriage but I have documented otherwise. Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true. I will add that the fact that you need a license to marry in itself does not mean that it is not a right. The reasons for the license have changed over time and currently it is simply to ensure that the participants meet very minimal requirements

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order:

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?

But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

You have yet to supply even an interpretable ruling to support your claim that the SCOTUS has ruled that states MUST issue marriage licenses at all. Every one of the cases you have presented thus far relate to restrictions on who can get married, thus assuming the state in question issues licenses, nothing on whether or not the states MUST issue/sanction marriage. I challenge you to come up with case law or constitutional law that REQUIRES states to issue marriage licenses at all.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

Red:
??? If the short paragraph I see you've posted a few moments ago in reply to Jillian is basically your proposal, the substance of yours and my proposal is the same.


Update after reading this: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally
Yes. We're saying the same thing.

Yes, but you leave in the word marriage in state terminology it seems, and I don't. I honestly believe that if two or ten gay men want to have a ceremony and say they are married,t hat is certainly not the state's business.