Easy way to eliminate same-sex marriage "equality" and affirm superiority of strait marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If Aunt Suzy and Aunt Becky want to get together to make ends meet and they are friends, why should they have to get married to have the rights they wish to have? Why should they have to have sex?

They can as long as they are not sisters. And if they are sisters they are free to peruse the right to marry through the the courts and legislative process the same way that same sex couples did. And the government does not require sex as a condition of marriage. Dhaaa!!

Marriage implies sexual union. That is why it should not be used.

If you want people to share certain aspects of your life with legal authority, all one needs to do is see to it that the law lets you do that.

Again, marriage is not needed.

Sure destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:


In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.


Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.



To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”


To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If Aunt Suzy and Aunt Becky want to get together to make ends meet and they are friends, why should they have to get married to have the rights they wish to have? Why should they have to have sex?

They can as long as they are not sisters. And if they are sisters they are free to peruse the right to marry through the the courts and legislative process the same way that same sex couples did. And the government does not require sex as a condition of marriage. Dhaaa!!

Marriage implies sexual union. That is why it should not be used.

If you want people to share certain aspects of your life with legal authority, all one needs to do is see to it that the law lets you do that.

Again, marriage is not needed.

And I think we, as a society, will be healthier for it since most marriages end in divorce. And who benefits from all these divorces? The state and their army of lawyers do as the couple destroys themselves and the future of their offspring by pissing away all their wealth on a divorce.

No more Playboy Bunnies marrying that 99 year old billionaire for his money as his offspring file to have his marriage annulled so they can collect what they think is due them.

In fact, the only people seeking to get married would be those who are religious and actually give a damn about their vows to God.

My guess is, divorce rates would plummet

I have heard proposals many times before that government be divorced from marriage and it is, in my experience, most often motivated by a wish to avoid the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage. The thinking is that if we can’t preserve marriage for heterosexual, then -by God- no one can be married and enjoy the government benefits of it. However, few will admit to that real reason and instead come up with some lame meme like " I don't need the government telling me who I can love". Others are motivated by an irrational antigovernment zealotry. It all comes down to the mentality of "Throw the baby out with the bath water” and “Sink the ship to drown the rats”

They ignore the fact that to get government out of marriage is extremely difficult, most likely impossible and that it would create more problems than it would solve- if indeed it would solve anything. None of those who have made these ludicrous proposals can explain exactly how it would work and play out in everyday life and how it would actually make anything better for them aside from circumventing the same sex marriage issue. I say it isn’t broken and there is need to fix it.

Regardless of how we got here and why, government is deeply entrenched to marriage, there are all of those government benefits to consider. If government were out of marriage, what would distinguish the married from the no so married? What would motivate people to marry? Sure some would still marry but others who might have would not. More unintended consequences such as more children without clear legal parentage ties. No, the system of marriage -save for the human short comings- is doing just fine and we have no need to change it.

Lastly, those who rail against government’s involvement in marriage seem to fall into two distinct camps. On one hand, there are those who simply want to do away with marriage and all of the associated benefits entirely. On the other hand, there are those who advocate the management of those benefits, rights and responsibilities privately through contracts. ( Of course, the latter arrangement would not really mean that the government would be out of marriage because contracts are provided for in law, and they are mediated by the courts. In addition, there would still be a loss of benefits because a private contract cannot compel the government to provide them- but we won’t quibble about pesky details)

In either case, I’m willing to wager that even those who are the most ardent supporters of divorcing government from marriage will balk when they look at the impact such a scheme would have on their own lives if they are, or intend to get married.

Please review this list of government marriage benefits and try to explain which ones you could give up, and which ones you think could be privatized, and how that would work

Partners Task Force - Marriage Benefits List

 

[Votto]

If Aunt Suzy and Aunt Becky want to get together to make ends meet and they are friends, why should they have to get married to have the rights they wish to have? Why should they have to have sex?

They can as long as they are not sisters. And if they are sisters they are free to peruse the right to marry through the the courts and legislative process the same way that same sex couples did. And the government does not require sex as a condition of marriage. Dhaaa!!

Marriage implies sexual union. That is why it should not be used.

If you want people to share certain aspects of your life with legal authority, all one needs to do is see to it that the law lets you do that.

Again, marriage is not needed.

Sure destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:


In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.


Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.



To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”


To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Government should not assume what special legal standing a relationship should have.

As I've said, many who are married have been dictated to the state what that relationship should mean, and I've seen it done unjustly.

The state should just stop assuming they know altogether and let people decide issues of property, etc., the way roommates do at college.

Kids are pretty easy as well. Their biological parents should work things out but marriage, again, is not needed in the least.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Singles should be able to pick a legal partner whenever they want devoid of marriage.

They can dummy

Really? They can file a joint tax return without being married?

Last time I checked you could not.

I didn't say that. Legal partner can mean many things . Now your concerned about joint tax returns? Thank you for proving that legal Marriage is necessary for certain things. Stop trying to fix something that is not broken and for which there is virtually no support for except perhaps from those who are too pathetic to find someone who will marry them

 

[Crixus]

This dude is a troll guys, come on

No, he is serious. Everyone here is deadly serious. This is serious fucking shit. Seriously.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If Aunt Suzy and Aunt Becky want to get together to make ends meet and they are friends, why should they have to get married to have the rights they wish to have? Why should they have to have sex?

They can as long as they are not sisters. And if they are sisters they are free to peruse the right to marry through the the courts and legislative process the same way that same sex couples did. And the government does not require sex as a condition of marriage. Dhaaa!!

Marriage implies sexual union. That is why it should not be used.

If you want people to share certain aspects of your life with legal authority, all one needs to do is see to it that the law lets you do that.

Again, marriage is not needed.

Sure destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:


In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.


Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.



To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”


To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Government should not assume what special legal standing a relationship should have.

As I've said, many who are married have been dictated to the state what that relationship should mean, and I've seen it done unjustly.

The state should just stop assuming they know altogether and let people decide issues of property, etc., the way roommates do at college.

Kids are pretty easy as well. Their biological parents should work things out but marriage, again, is not needed in the least.

You're just repeating the same senseless blather while failing to respond to the points that I make. That is not debating . It is regurgitating. If you think that the state dictates the meaning of your relationship through marriage, you have a serious problem.

 

[Votto]

Singles should be able to pick a legal partner whenever they want devoid of marriage.

They can dummy

Really? They can file a joint tax return without being married?

Last time I checked you could not.

I didn't say that. Legal partner can mean many things . Now your concerned about joint tax returns? Thank you for proving that legal Marriage is necessary for certain things. Stop trying to fix something that is not broken and for which there is virtually no support for except perhaps from those who are too pathetic to find someone who will marry them

All of the rights married people have could be given to the rest of society.

Why shouldn't they be?

 

[Votto]

If Aunt Suzy and Aunt Becky want to get together to make ends meet and they are friends, why should they have to get married to have the rights they wish to have? Why should they have to have sex?

They can as long as they are not sisters. And if they are sisters they are free to peruse the right to marry through the the courts and legislative process the same way that same sex couples did. And the government does not require sex as a condition of marriage. Dhaaa!!

Marriage implies sexual union. That is why it should not be used.

If you want people to share certain aspects of your life with legal authority, all one needs to do is see to it that the law lets you do that.

Again, marriage is not needed.

Sure destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:


In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.


Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.



To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”


To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Government should not assume what special legal standing a relationship should have.

As I've said, many who are married have been dictated to the state what that relationship should mean, and I've seen it done unjustly.

The state should just stop assuming they know altogether and let people decide issues of property, etc., the way roommates do at college.

Kids are pretty easy as well. Their biological parents should work things out but marriage, again, is not needed in the least.

You're just repeating the same senseless blather while failing to respond to the points that I make. That is not debating . It is regurgitating. If you think that the state dictates the meaning of your relationship through marriage, you have a serious problem.

You have made no case that marriage is needed for any legal privileges.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Singles should be able to pick a legal partner whenever they want devoid of marriage.

They can dummy

Really? They can file a joint tax return without being married?

Last time I checked you could not.

I didn't say that. Legal partner can mean many things . Now your concerned about joint tax returns? Thank you for proving that legal Marriage is necessary for certain things. Stop trying to fix something that is not broken and for which there is virtually no support for except perhaps from those who are too pathetic to find someone who will marry them

All of the rights married people have could be given to the rest of society.

Why shouldn't they be?

Please elaborate . Spell it out. No one has yet to be able to do that. . The "rest of society" is free to marry. If they wants rights and don't or can't get married it is their own damned fault. Get the fuck over it. They have no case

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They can as long as they are not sisters. And if they are sisters they are free to peruse the right to marry through the the courts and legislative process the same way that same sex couples did. And the government does not require sex as a condition of marriage. Dhaaa!!

Marriage implies sexual union. That is why it should not be used.

If you want people to share certain aspects of your life with legal authority, all one needs to do is see to it that the law lets you do that.

Again, marriage is not needed.

Sure destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:


In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.


Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.



To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”


To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Government should not assume what special legal standing a relationship should have.

As I've said, many who are married have been dictated to the state what that relationship should mean, and I've seen it done unjustly.

The state should just stop assuming they know altogether and let people decide issues of property, etc., the way roommates do at college.

Kids are pretty easy as well. Their biological parents should work things out but marriage, again, is not needed in the least.

You're just repeating the same senseless blather while failing to respond to the points that I make. That is not debating . It is regurgitating. If you think that the state dictates the meaning of your relationship through marriage, you have a serious problem.

You have made no case that marriage is needed for any legal privileges.

You can only say that because you have not read or understood my posts. Thank you for demonstrating the fact that you have no interest or ability to learn. Rather you are invested in your anti marriage dogma, for whatever reason . You must be very lonely.

 

[Votto]

Marriage implies sexual union. That is why it should not be used.

If you want people to share certain aspects of your life with legal authority, all one needs to do is see to it that the law lets you do that.

Again, marriage is not needed.

Sure destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:


In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.


Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.



To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”


To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Government should not assume what special legal standing a relationship should have.

As I've said, many who are married have been dictated to the state what that relationship should mean, and I've seen it done unjustly.

The state should just stop assuming they know altogether and let people decide issues of property, etc., the way roommates do at college.

Kids are pretty easy as well. Their biological parents should work things out but marriage, again, is not needed in the least.

You're just repeating the same senseless blather while failing to respond to the points that I make. That is not debating . It is regurgitating. If you think that the state dictates the meaning of your relationship through marriage, you have a serious problem.

You have made no case that marriage is needed for any legal privileges.

You can only say that because you have not read or understood my posts. Thank you for demonstrating the fact that you have no interest or ability to learn. Rather you are invested in your anti marriage dogma, for whatever reason . You must be very lonely.

People who live together for years and don't get married are treated virtually the same under the law.

This proves that marriage is not needed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sure destroy marriage for absolutely no good reason other than because a few bigots and anti government fanatics don’t like it . Here is an interesting piece that will shed some light on the subject.


Can Government Get out of the Marriage Business?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/


Selected excerpts with notations where needed:


In the debate last night, Ron Paul noted his position on marriage as follows:

The Church? Really? Where does that leave people who are not religious or who just do not want to get married in a church? Will we then be discriminating against those people on the basis of religion? What are the implications for government benefits and the government’s role in mediating divorces? . Shall that be left too Jewish, Sharia or Cannon law? Not very well thought out.


Here’s the deal: much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition. Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds. There is little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example). However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship). Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.). Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system.



To put it as simply as possible: for government to truly get out of the marriage business it would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. This is because to recognize that relationship as having specific legal significances it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up to legal scrutiny (to, for example, stop people from arbitrarily claiming whatever privileges might exist for married couples). Such a stand would have to exist whether the government issued the licenses or not. Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is, by definition, in the “marriage business.”


To summarize the summary: the only way to truly get government out of the marriage business would be to reduce marriage to the same status of friendship, i.e., a social relationship utterly defined by private interactions and that lacks legal significance.

Government should not assume what special legal standing a relationship should have.

As I've said, many who are married have been dictated to the state what that relationship should mean, and I've seen it done unjustly.

The state should just stop assuming they know altogether and let people decide issues of property, etc., the way roommates do at college.

Kids are pretty easy as well. Their biological parents should work things out but marriage, again, is not needed in the least.

You're just repeating the same senseless blather while failing to respond to the points that I make. That is not debating . It is regurgitating. If you think that the state dictates the meaning of your relationship through marriage, you have a serious problem.

You have made no case that marriage is needed for any legal privileges.

You can only say that because you have not read or understood my posts. Thank you for demonstrating the fact that you have no interest or ability to learn. Rather you are invested in your anti marriage dogma, for whatever reason . You must be very lonely.

People who live together for years and don't get married are treated virtually the same under the law.

This proves that marriage is not needed.

Only in a few common law states and it may not be recognized by the feds, What exactly is your problem with marriage.??

 

[Faun]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

That is completely bat shit insane!! How the fuck would that be constitutional under the 14th Amendment? You're talking about institutional in equality which was eloquently corrected by Obergefell

Let me ask you something What the fuck is your problem with gays getting married. ? No one is asking you to approve of it, or to participate in any way. If there is a married gay couple living and raising a family the next street over, how does that impact your miserable life?

If married gay couples have the same rights as others-and they do- how does that effect you?

Why are you so obsessed with gay people and with persecuting them?

Get the fuck over it , The year is 2018 and few people by your bigoted bizarre bovine excrement

Because gaydom is perversion. And no child should be to subjected to witnessing sexual perversion in said sexual perverts driveway.

Conservatism is a perversion and kids are subjected to that, yet no complaints from you.

 

[rightwinger]

ust so long as polygamy continues to seem yucky and singles don't rise up for their rights I reckon it will be OK.

Polygamy is "yucky" only because it involves a man being allowed to have multiple wives, usually in a religious cult, where the women, who sometimes are children, are coerced into the marriage which is an inherently unequal arrangement. Plural marriage, of polyamory is an entirely different matter which I have no problem with. Singles do not have a civil rights issue because they are free to marry anyone who they wish who will have them . That was not the case with gays before Obergefell. The only way to singles equal to married people is to take rights away from the married and anyone with two healthy brain cells left to rub together knows that is not happening.

As long as it is consensual .....no problem

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

That is completely bat shit insane!! How the fuck would that be constitutional under the 14th Amendment? You're talking about institutional in equality which was eloquently corrected by Obergefell

Let me ask you something What the fuck is your problem with gays getting married. ? No one is asking you to approve of it, or to participate in any way. If there is a married gay couple living and raising a family the next street over, how does that impact your miserable life?

If married gay couples have the same rights as others-and they do- how does that effect you?

Why are you so obsessed with gay people and with persecuting them?

Get the fuck over it , The year is 2018 and few people by your bigoted bizarre bovine excrement

Because gaydom is perversion. And no child should be to subjected to witnessing sexual perversion in said sexual perverts driveway.

Who is having sex in the driveway?? Link please.