If gay marriage is legal...let's get rid of ALL legal marriage....

[bodecea]

I don't care either way.....as long as it's equal. However, what do you think the MAJORITY of married people would think of his idea?

I know one thing for sure....if government were out of marriage, my marriage would not change one iota....and all Americans would be able to enjoy NOT feeling left out of something. Marriage is a union...government makes it a legal thing...I don't need it to be legal to appreciate my union with my wife whom I love dearly.

Your legal protections would change.....inheritance would change....and ability to make life decisions for your partner would change.

No it wouldn't. The process to make sure those decisions are met upon my death would change.

They wouldn't exist without a license.

really?
I am not married to my children, but they will get from my will what I designated for them.
When my dad died, his charity of choice got a nice inheritance, and he was not married to the charity.

If I were to die, my wife will get from me what I designate to her....whether she was my legal wife or a civil union.....
I believe you are one of those that is against the idea strictly because it was a homophobe who came up with it.
No need to discuss this further with you.
Take care.

Your children would have protection WITHOUT a will if you have a marriage license. Without one, you have to pay extra to go have a will made.....that can STILL be contested. Giving your possessions to your children after you die cannot be contested if you are married and recognized as their parent.

 

[bodecea]

No such thing as marriage in nature either.

Tell that to a goose that just lost a lifetime mate.

Where's their marriage license?

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's to get the benefits of marriage, not to be married.

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

 

[Votto]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Alimony - Since is based on the disillusion of a Civil Marriage, there wouldn't be any.

Divorce Settlement - What divorce settlement? If there is no marriage there is no one to divorce. Now if the couple decides to go their own way, then each takes the assets in their individual name. Anything with both names on asset would have to be disposted of through civil contract courts.

Paternity - Every state has what are called "assumed parentage laws", if a couple is married and a child is born they are both assumed to be the legal parent. With no marriage that law wouldn't function anymore. Men would then have to adopt their own children - a process that can take months and cost thousands of dollars.

Bankruptcy - Handled through bankruptcy court. Each responsible for assets in their own name. The court to determine disposition of assets in both names.

Inheritance - With no marriage there will be no spouse in the order of precedence in the absence of a will. With no spouse then any assets owned by the deceased will go to the parents, siblings, or other near kin.



*********************

Ya all and all I can see this being a real popular bill. (Although I notice the story is a year old.)



>>>>

Yeah let's unleash chaos on society! **** yeah!
No that isnt happening.

Choas? Should people be forced to get married?

How about over half who divorce? Have you ever seen the chaos that causes?

WTF?

 

[Votto]

I know one thing for sure....if government were out of marriage, my marriage would not change one iota....and all Americans would be able to enjoy NOT feeling left out of something. Marriage is a union...government makes it a legal thing...I don't need it to be legal to appreciate my union with my wife whom I love dearly.

Your legal protections would change.....inheritance would change....and ability to make life decisions for your partner would change.

No it wouldn't. The process to make sure those decisions are met upon my death would change.

They wouldn't exist without a license.

really?
I am not married to my children, but they will get from my will what I designated for them.
When my dad died, his charity of choice got a nice inheritance, and he was not married to the charity.

If I were to die, my wife will get from me what I designate to her....whether she was my legal wife or a civil union.....
I believe you are one of those that is against the idea strictly because it was a homophobe who came up with it.
No need to discuss this further with you.
Take care.

Your children would have protection WITHOUT a will if you have a marriage license. Without one, you have to pay extra to go have a will made.....that can STILL be contested. Giving your possessions to your children after you die cannot be contested if you are married and recognized as their parent.

Parents should be able to do with their money what they wish. Why are their inheritance Nazis?

Now those who don' make their wishes known should then have their possessions given to their children

 

[The Rabbi]

Tell that to a goose that just lost a lifetime mate.

Where's their marriage license?

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's to get the benefits of marriage, not to be married.

And that is what we are talking about the government providing unequally if they allow legal marriage to one group of citizens and not to another. The whole point.

You would be right if that were the case.
But it isnt.
Gays can marry like anyone else. There is no sexual preference test for marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Alimony - Since is based on the disillusion of a Civil Marriage, there wouldn't be any.

Divorce Settlement - What divorce settlement? If there is no marriage there is no one to divorce. Now if the couple decides to go their own way, then each takes the assets in their individual name. Anything with both names on asset would have to be disposted of through civil contract courts.

Paternity - Every state has what are called "assumed parentage laws", if a couple is married and a child is born they are both assumed to be the legal parent. With no marriage that law wouldn't function anymore. Men would then have to adopt their own children - a process that can take months and cost thousands of dollars.

Bankruptcy - Handled through bankruptcy court. Each responsible for assets in their own name. The court to determine disposition of assets in both names.

Inheritance - With no marriage there will be no spouse in the order of precedence in the absence of a will. With no spouse then any assets owned by the deceased will go to the parents, siblings, or other near kin.



*********************

Ya all and all I can see this being a real popular bill. (Although I notice the story is a year old.)



>>>>

Yeah let's unleash chaos on society! **** yeah!
No that isnt happening.

Choas? Should people be forced to get married?

How about over half who divorce? Have you ever seen the chaos that causes?

WTF?

That's a false statistic btw. Half of all marrages do not end in divorce.
Divorce is irrelevant to marriage laws.

 

[Redfish]

No such thing as equality in nature. Just a far left talking point to rally the weak minded..

No such thing as marriage in nature either.

males and females of many species make a lifetime committment to each other. No, storks do not have a marriage ceremony or a license. Marks on a paper do not make a marriage. Mutual committment makes a marriage.

what you will never see in nature is two members of the same sex making a lifetime committment to each other. Homosexuality does occur in natue, as wytchy continues to tell us, but it is a deviant behavior, just as it is in humans.

Are you saying they have marriage licenses?

are you a complete idiot?

I'm not the one saying legal marriage exists in nature.

nor am I. too much cheap vodka last night, comrade?

 

[bodecea]

Tell that to a goose that just lost a lifetime mate.

Where's their marriage license?

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's why you need to abolish marriage by the state and treat everyone equally.

Why should we do that? Everyone is equal. Anyone can get married to someone of the opposite sex. There are no special rules for gay people, except in those states where there are.

And yet, in your third world state, my wife and I are not legally protected if something happened to one of us.

 

[Redfish]

Where's their marriage license?

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's why you need to abolish marriage by the state and treat everyone equally.

Why should we do that? Everyone is equal. Anyone can get married to someone of the opposite sex. There are no special rules for gay people, except in those states where there are.

And yet, in your third world state, my wife and I are not legally protected if something happened to one of us.

do you not have wills? what protection do you seek that wills would not provide?

 

[bodecea]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Alimony - Since is based on the disillusion of a Civil Marriage, there wouldn't be any.

Divorce Settlement - What divorce settlement? If there is no marriage there is no one to divorce. Now if the couple decides to go their own way, then each takes the assets in their individual name. Anything with both names on asset would have to be disposted of through civil contract courts.

Paternity - Every state has what are called "assumed parentage laws", if a couple is married and a child is born they are both assumed to be the legal parent. With no marriage that law wouldn't function anymore. Men would then have to adopt their own children - a process that can take months and cost thousands of dollars.

Bankruptcy - Handled through bankruptcy court. Each responsible for assets in their own name. The court to determine disposition of assets in both names.

Inheritance - With no marriage there will be no spouse in the order of precedence in the absence of a will. With no spouse then any assets owned by the deceased will go to the parents, siblings, or other near kin.



*********************

Ya all and all I can see this being a real popular bill. (Although I notice the story is a year old.)



>>>>

Yeah let's unleash chaos on society! **** yeah!
No that isnt happening.

Choas? Should people be forced to get married?

How about over half who divorce? Have you ever seen the chaos that causes?

WTF?

That's a false statistic btw. Half of all marrages do not end in divorce.
Divorce is irrelevant to marriage laws.

 

[bodecea]

You dont need a license to be married.

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's why you need to abolish marriage by the state and treat everyone equally.

Why should we do that? Everyone is equal. Anyone can get married to someone of the opposite sex. There are no special rules for gay people, except in those states where there are.

And yet, in your third world state, my wife and I are not legally protected if something happened to one of us.

do you not have wills? what protection do you seek that wills would not provide?

Wills are extra, they cost and they can be contested. Marriage licenses cannot.

 

[bodecea]

No such thing as marriage in nature either.

males and females of many species make a lifetime committment to each other. No, storks do not have a marriage ceremony or a license. Marks on a paper do not make a marriage. Mutual committment makes a marriage.

what you will never see in nature is two members of the same sex making a lifetime committment to each other. Homosexuality does occur in natue, as wytchy continues to tell us, but it is a deviant behavior, just as it is in humans.

Are you saying they have marriage licenses?

are you a complete idiot?

I'm not the one saying legal marriage exists in nature.

nor am I. too much cheap vodka last night, comrade?

Right...nor are you........unless you are a Kosh sock.

 

[Votto]

Yeah let's unleash chaos on society! **** yeah!
No that isnt happening.

Mark this on your calendars everyone...


..................... I agree.



>>>>

You probably dont.
I am ridiculing your suggestions. Leaving women with no source of income on which to raise kids, especialy after perhaps they sacrificed and struggled to put their husbands through medical school etc, just isnt going to happen and isnt right anyway.
Getting government out of marriage is a bumper sticker slogan for the narco-libertarian crowd. Nothing more.

Women are more and more having children out of wedlock. Should this be forced to marry to avoid poverty?

As for the children, the father should be forced to take care of the children financially. I still don't get your point.

 

[Votto]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Alimony - Since is based on the disillusion of a Civil Marriage, there wouldn't be any.

Divorce Settlement - What divorce settlement? If there is no marriage there is no one to divorce. Now if the couple decides to go their own way, then each takes the assets in their individual name. Anything with both names on asset would have to be disposted of through civil contract courts.

Paternity - Every state has what are called "assumed parentage laws", if a couple is married and a child is born they are both assumed to be the legal parent. With no marriage that law wouldn't function anymore. Men would then have to adopt their own children - a process that can take months and cost thousands of dollars.

Bankruptcy - Handled through bankruptcy court. Each responsible for assets in their own name. The court to determine disposition of assets in both names.

Inheritance - With no marriage there will be no spouse in the order of precedence in the absence of a will. With no spouse then any assets owned by the deceased will go to the parents, siblings, or other near kin.



*********************

Ya all and all I can see this being a real popular bill. (Although I notice the story is a year old.)



>>>>

Yeah let's unleash chaos on society! **** yeah!
No that isnt happening.

Choas? Should people be forced to get married?

How about over half who divorce? Have you ever seen the chaos that causes?

WTF?

That's a false statistic btw. Half of all marrages do not end in divorce.
Divorce is irrelevant to marriage laws.

Ok, so the divorce rate is not over half, it is around 40%. Yipee!

AS for divorce being irrelevant to marriage laws, what are you smok'in man?

 

[Seawytch]

But gays aren't attracted to and do not wish to marry someone of the same sex...luckily for them they can marry the consenting adult partner of their choice in 36 out of 50 states.

Werent you the one making the point that being attracted was not a requirement for marriage?
I have no desire to be a farmer, therefore I forego the benefits of agricultural subsidies. Does that make the system unequal?

It's not...that doesn't mean we want to marry someone to whom we are not attracted. We want to marry our life partners just like ya'll straight folk do.

Mildred Loving could marry a man...she just had to marry a black man.

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

But gays aren't attracted to and do not wish to marry someone of the same sex...luckily for them they can marry the consenting adult partner of their choice in 36 out of 50 states.

Werent you the one making the point that being attracted was not a requirement for marriage?
I have no desire to be a farmer, therefore I forego the benefits of agricultural subsidies. Does that make the system unequal?

It's not...that doesn't mean we want to marry someone to whom we are not attracted. We want to marry our life partners just like ya'll straight folk do.

Mildred Loving could marry a man...she just had to marry a black man.

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

then lets have a referendum in every state, lets have a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it.

OK? let the people speak, you say its a done deal so why not have the vote and end the debate?

But you won't agree to that will you? Because deep down inside even you know that you would lose if the will of the people was allowed to prevail.

Yeah Fishy...you work on that National Referendum thing you want and gays will keep getting married.

If your National Referendum voted to ban handguns and assault rifles, you'd be okay with that? How about if your National Referendum voted to increase taxes on the rich?

Get on it Fishy, I think it would be great!

 

[Redfish]

Werent you the one making the point that being attracted was not a requirement for marriage?
I have no desire to be a farmer, therefore I forego the benefits of agricultural subsidies. Does that make the system unequal?

It's not...that doesn't mean we want to marry someone to whom we are not attracted. We want to marry our life partners just like ya'll straight folk do.

Mildred Loving could marry a man...she just had to marry a black man.

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

Werent you the one making the point that being attracted was not a requirement for marriage?
I have no desire to be a farmer, therefore I forego the benefits of agricultural subsidies. Does that make the system unequal?

It's not...that doesn't mean we want to marry someone to whom we are not attracted. We want to marry our life partners just like ya'll straight folk do.

Mildred Loving could marry a man...she just had to marry a black man.

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

then lets have a referendum in every state, lets have a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it.

OK? let the people speak, you say its a done deal so why not have the vote and end the debate?

But you won't agree to that will you? Because deep down inside even you know that you would lose if the will of the people was allowed to prevail.

Yeah Fishy...you work on that National Referendum thing you want and gays will keep getting married.

If your National Referendum voted to ban handguns and assault rifles, you'd be okay with that? How about if your National Referendum voted to increase taxes on the rich?

Get on it Fishy, I think it would be great!

Yes, I would accept the will of the majority on any of those issues. But the second amendment could only be changed by constitutional amendment with ratification by 38 states. Exactly the same procedure that should be used on gay marriage.

Tax rates are established by congress, congressmen are elected by a majority of the people they represent------------in the USA we decide things by majority vote--------ALL THINGS.

The constitution and its amendments were put in place by majority votes----not minority dictates.

Minority rights were established by majority vote.

 

[Redfish]

To get the 1000+ government protections and benefits you do.

That's why you need to abolish marriage by the state and treat everyone equally.

Why should we do that? Everyone is equal. Anyone can get married to someone of the opposite sex. There are no special rules for gay people, except in those states where there are.

And yet, in your third world state, my wife and I are not legally protected if something happened to one of us.

do you not have wills? what protection do you seek that wills would not provide?

Wills are extra, they cost and they can be contested. Marriage licenses cannot.

A simple will can be done for $50 or less, if you can't afford that then you can't afford the computer you are typing on.

 

[bodecea]

It's not...that doesn't mean we want to marry someone to whom we are not attracted. We want to marry our life partners just like ya'll straight folk do.

Mildred Loving could marry a man...she just had to marry a black man.

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

It's not...that doesn't mean we want to marry someone to whom we are not attracted. We want to marry our life partners just like ya'll straight folk do.

Mildred Loving could marry a man...she just had to marry a black man.

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

then lets have a referendum in every state, lets have a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it.

OK? let the people speak, you say its a done deal so why not have the vote and end the debate?

But you won't agree to that will you? Because deep down inside even you know that you would lose if the will of the people was allowed to prevail.

Yeah Fishy...you work on that National Referendum thing you want and gays will keep getting married.

If your National Referendum voted to ban handguns and assault rifles, you'd be okay with that? How about if your National Referendum voted to increase taxes on the rich?

Get on it Fishy, I think it would be great!

Yes, I would accept the will of the majority on any of those issues. But the second amendment could only be changed by constitutional amendment with ratification by 38 states. Exactly the same procedure that should be used on gay marriage.

Tax rates are established by congress, congressmen are elected by a majority of the people they represent------------in the USA we decide things by majority vote--------ALL THINGS.

The constitution and its amendments were put in place by majority votes----not minority dictates.

Minority rights were established by majority vote.

So...get on that Constitutional Amendment to restrict gay marriage then.

 

[Redfish]

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

You are free to marry whomever you want.
Just dont ask for state sanctionfor it.
ANd bingo if you didnt just prove my last point.

Too late...already state and Federal sanctioned...soon to be in all 50 states.

then lets have a referendum in every state, lets have a constitutional amendment and get 38 states to ratify it.

OK? let the people speak, you say its a done deal so why not have the vote and end the debate?

But you won't agree to that will you? Because deep down inside even you know that you would lose if the will of the people was allowed to prevail.

Yeah Fishy...you work on that National Referendum thing you want and gays will keep getting married.

If your National Referendum voted to ban handguns and assault rifles, you'd be okay with that? How about if your National Referendum voted to increase taxes on the rich?

Get on it Fishy, I think it would be great!

Yes, I would accept the will of the majority on any of those issues. But the second amendment could only be changed by constitutional amendment with ratification by 38 states. Exactly the same procedure that should be used on gay marriage.

Tax rates are established by congress, congressmen are elected by a majority of the people they represent------------in the USA we decide things by majority vote--------ALL THINGS.

The constitution and its amendments were put in place by majority votes----not minority dictates.

Minority rights were established by majority vote.

So...get on that Constitutional Amendment to restrict gay marriage then.

you are the ones wanting a change, its on you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

you are the ones wanting a change, its on you.

Not anymore. Thank God for small favors.