If you think government should get out of marriage completely

[TemplarKormac]

How do we determine what is a valid contract? The same way.

Who determines if such a contract is valid? Would that not require some sort of validation on an authoritative level?

As I said earlier, you go through the courts.

But that requires an establishment of government, does it not?

 

[g5000]

So to say that gay people have had more experience with non government sanctioned marriages would be incorrect, would it not?

No, it wouldn't. Hets have been able to legally marry, we have not. Our relationships, until very recently, have not had the legal status of civil marriage.

That isn't true. There are 12 states that legally allow marriages of homosexual couples. You cannot say that with a straight face, Seawytch. So it is indeed incorrect on that basis alone.

You really have no idea what yesterday's decision was about, do you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How do we determine what is a valid contract? The same way.

So we write on a piece of a paper that we are married, sign it, and then notorize it if we have to? What happens if we lose the paper? Are we no longer married?

What happens if you lose any other type of contract?

A copy of it is most likely stored electronically, that way any contract signed can be easily referenced later. So nothing, literally, as the contract would remain in force.

 

[Avorysuds]

How do we settle divorce disputes, division of property, and inheritence issues? Custody could probably work as is.

Make a contract, on paper.... sign it.... deal with it in courts if you chose to default on that contract.

The problem is you're religious and have created a major problem by forcing church and state to become one... The FF's were against that, so am I.

It's like easy to understand lol, you simply can't be hyper religious or else less Government giving power to the church would make sense.

 

[Pheonixops]

How do we settle divorce disputes, division of property, and inheritence issues? Custody could probably work as is.

Through marital contracts, pre-nuptial, and post nuptial agreements.............

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it wouldn't. Hets have been able to legally marry, we have not. Our relationships, until very recently, have not had the legal status of civil marriage.

That isn't true. There are 12 states that legally allow marriages of homosexual couples. You cannot say that with a straight face, Seawytch. So it is indeed incorrect on that basis alone.

You really have no idea what yesterday's decision was about, do you.

The Defense of Marriage Act previously denied federal benefits to gay couples who were "married". As of yesterday, the government was allowed to regulate same sex marriage the same way as traditional, after it was struck down. I have a good idea of what the decision was about. They (homosexuals) have always said government should "stay out of marriage" but condone it's interference in THIS manner. So how exactly does that work again?

The motivation of the person who brought the original case? Was money. Nothing else. That decision reflects such a notion.

 

[Seawytch]

So to say that gay people have had more experience with non government sanctioned marriages would be incorrect, would it not?

No, it wouldn't. Hets have been able to legally marry, we have not. Our relationships, until very recently, have not had the legal status of civil marriage.

That isn't true. There are 12 states that legally allow marriages of homosexual couples. You cannot say that with a straight face, Seawytch. So it is indeed incorrect on that basis alone.

Wow...you are thick. We've been having long term relationships without the benefit of legal marriage for centuries. It was only in the last four years that there has been a sea change. If you want to know how it works without the legal protections or even the ******* tax breaks, we can tell you.

If homosexuality were a religion or a faith, they would be allowed to conduct conjugal rites as they see fit. But, nope. I mean a guy can get a religion created for Pastafarians, why can't homosexuals do the same? That is the easiest way around it, since it would be protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Are you intoxicated?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who determines if such a contract is valid? Would that not require some sort of validation on an authoritative level?

As I said earlier, you go through the courts.

But that requires an establishment of government, does it not?

The question here, however, assumes the existence of government. Somebody must enforce the marriage contract, and as government has given itself a monopoly on the justice system it would have to go through government courts, assuming that the parties were not open to mediation, of course.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So we write on a piece of a paper that we are married, sign it, and then notorize it if we have to? What happens if we lose the paper? Are we no longer married?

What happens if you lose any other type of contract?

A copy of it is most likely stored electronically, that way any contract signed can be easily referenced later. So nothing, literally, as the contract would remain in force.

That was my thinking as well.

 

[Cuyo]

Very simple and it's been stated at least 4 times in this thread, till I ran out of rep.

Civil union is a contract; essentially an agreement among two individuals to treat their financial assets as a partnership. This comes from the government.

Marriage is ceremonial. If you seek it from a private institution, you can get it from any private institution that wants to grant it to you.

Simple.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it wouldn't. Hets have been able to legally marry, we have not. Our relationships, until very recently, have not had the legal status of civil marriage.

That isn't true. There are 12 states that legally allow marriages of homosexual couples. You cannot say that with a straight face, Seawytch. So it is indeed incorrect on that basis alone.

Wow...you are thick. We've been having long term relationships without the benefit of legal marriage for centuries. It was only in the last four years that there has been a sea change. If you want to know how it works without the legal protections or even the ******* tax breaks, we can tell you.

If homosexuality were a religion or a faith, they would be allowed to conduct conjugal rites as they see fit. But, nope. I mean a guy can get a religion created for Pastafarians, why can't homosexuals do the same? That is the easiest way around it, since it would be protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Are you intoxicated?

I have two homosexual friends, one is married and the other is engaged. I think I have an idea. No need for name calling. No, I'm not intoxicated, I'm just failing to understand how you people are unable to see a solution sitting right before your very eyes, instead of burdening the justice system with you complaints

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I said earlier, you go through the courts.

But that requires an establishment of government, does it not?

The question here, however, assumes the existence of government. Somebody must enforce the marriage contract, and as government has given itself a monopoly on the justice system it would have to go through government courts, assuming that the parties were not open to mediation, of course.

The question is now then, how do you prevent this new system from becoming corrupt?

 

[AmyNation]

(Bold)

WRONG!

That is exactly what it was about yesterday. Sorry.

Second, [MENTION=38842]AmyNation[/MENTION]: referred to them as "civil unions" so in that case, they have been dealing with the government, since only the government can dictate what a "civil union" is.

I don't need to ask any gay people about anything, since you are obviously incorrect. Marriage as an institution has existed long before our government was founded. You can ask men and women (via a seance) back in the 18th and 19th century how free marriage was. A civil union and a marriage are two different things.

Title of the thread

"If you think government should get out of marriage completely"

Yes, I do. You are correct marriage predates the government. It's a fundamental part of many religions, Catholics consider it a sacrament.

So government should have no part in regulating it.

Government should be involved in regulating contracts, and I see no reason the government can't issue civil union licenses and grant all their benefits based on those and stay away from the term" Marriage " and all that it implies.

So to say that gay people have had more experience with non government sanctioned marriages would be incorrect, would it not?

Up until yesterday the federal government did not regoconize gay marriage. So, no. It would be correct.

 

[nitroz]

I think it should be completely out of marriage, but that means kissing your tax breaks and benefits bye bye.

 

[Avatar4321]

How do we determine what is a valid contract? The same way.

So we write on a piece of a paper that we are married, sign it, and then notorize it if we have to? What happens if we lose the paper? Are we no longer married?

What happens if you lose any other type of contract?

You have a substantially more difficult time proving that an agreement existed in a court of law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He can't give you a straight answer. Time is best not wasted with his non sequiturs.

The answer is clear. Evangelical heresies are no longer the basis for law making.

Our constitution is our secular bible, the only one we need.

Again, what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

That you refuse to admit that you clearly understand what it has to with the topic means nothing, Avatar.

The far right religious morality will no longer sway the rest of America.

 

[Avatar4321]

The answer is clear. Evangelical heresies are no longer the basis for law making.

Our constitution is our secular bible, the only one we need.

Again, what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

That you refuse to admit that you clearly understand what it has to with the topic means nothing, Avatar.

The far right religious morality will no longer sway the rest of America.

Considering I started the thread and know the topic is what the recourse for certain problems are if marriage is no longer recognized and enforced by the government, No i don't see what evangelical heresies, whatever they may be have to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have not given a justification for your OP.

No problems will arise that cannot be easily managed.

Your civil or religious liberty are not at risk from this decision.

In other words, you have a right to your opinions, but you have no standing in the law to argue it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Justification for my OP? What justification do I have to give?

There are some people who want the government completely out of marriage. A position I am sympathetic to. So I started a discussion about what we would do to address the issus of divorce, division of assets, & Inheritence if the government no longer recognized marriage. What the heck is to justify? Where did I mention religion at all? Where did I mention any decisions whatsoever?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your questions were answered. No problems of any magnitude will arise. Let's move on.