Killing Homosexual Marriage

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

Is the marriage of two elderly people invalid? Is procreation a requirement of marriage? Your argument falls on its face.

Always with the anecdotal and anomalous to try wagging the dog.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...

It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts.

There is not one word in the Constitution which requires States to recognize marriage. I think this is something Constitutional Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives can all support.

So your solution is that states stop marrying anybody and instead calls it a union or something like that? I think that's fair. And if a gay or straight couple wants to call themselves married, they just have to find a church that will do it.

Brilliant! More discrimination. Substitute sexual orientation discrimination for religious discrimination. Only the religious and those willing to submit to religious rituals can then be "married"

Who cares? Most religious beliefs are a crock anyways. If you want to call yourself married as a Protestant, or Pastafarian, or Jedi, well who cares? Or even as an atheist call yourself married. It's all the same anyways. If the government only hands out civil unions so what?

I care. I'm an atheist. I'm married. I like being able to say that I'm married. People understand what being married means. How the hell is an Atheist going to be married. There are no atheist churches.

I thought about the issue of civil unions vs. marriage back before Obergefell when some were pushing it as an alternative to marriage for same sex couples. I wrote this back then and it is still relevant in that what you are proposing is just a variation on the same theme

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

____________________________________________________________________________

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yo.....Boss.......what does your plan kill again?

 

[Boss]

...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.

Not exactly what I said. People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations. Property rights can be handled the way they are in other circumstances, through contractual arrangement between two parties. I don't want to change that, no one has an issue with it. The issue is over "Marriage" and what that means in society.... all of society... gays, religious people, straight people... everybody.
I am an individual liberty guy... I am conservative, but very much libertarian in my views on individual liberty. I don't want the government sticking their nose in ANY of my business unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all. No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.

Okay, so you have the right to do it... but the state doesn't have to sanction marriage. So basically, you have the constitutional right to live your homosexual lives and call it marriage if that's what you want to do. Meanwhile, religious people will still have traditional marriages and society would recognize that as traditional marriage. It's just not a function of the state to sanction it anymore.

Again, I am betting the results of this will be a slow and steady decline in gay marriages. We would see that gay couples no longer had any real motivation to "get married" because there wouldn't be any sort of state recognition or benefit to them. Some may still want to do it here and there, but I think society would see the practice wane as time goes on. Some religions may reform to ordain gay marriages but that is for the religions to settle, they aren't bound by SCOTUS rulings regarding who they marry. But again, there is not going to be much of a reason if there is no state sanction.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You didn't answer my last question.

 

[Nosmo King]

...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.

Not exactly what I said. People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations. Property rights can be handled the way they are in other circumstances, through contractual arrangement between two parties. I don't want to change that, no one has an issue with it. The issue is over "Marriage" and what that means in society.... all of society... gays, religious people, straight people... everybody.
I am an individual liberty guy... I am conservative, but very much libertarian in my views on individual liberty. I don't want the government sticking their nose in ANY of my business unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all. No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.

Okay, so you have the right to do it... but the state doesn't have to sanction marriage. So basically, you have the constitutional right to live your homosexual lives and call it marriage if that's what you want to do. Meanwhile, religious people will still have traditional marriages and society would recognize that as traditional marriage. It's just not a function of the state to sanction it anymore.

Again, I am betting the results of this will be a slow and steady decline in gay marriages. We would see that gay couples no longer had any real motivation to "get married" because there wouldn't be any sort of state recognition or benefit to them. Some may still want to do it here and there, but I think society would see the practice wane as time goes on. Some religions may reform to ordain gay marriages but that is for the religions to settle, they aren't bound by SCOTUS rulings regarding who they marry. But again, there is not going to be much of a reason if there is no state sanction.

In other words, you would throw the baby out with the bath water in an effort to repress marriage equality. To serve what noble purpose?

 

[TheOldSchool]

OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...

It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts.

There is not one word in the Constitution which requires States to recognize marriage. I think this is something Constitutional Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives can all support.

So your solution is that states stop marrying anybody and instead calls it a union or something like that? I think that's fair. And if a gay or straight couple wants to call themselves married, they just have to find a church that will do it.

Brilliant! More discrimination. Substitute sexual orientation discrimination for religious discrimination. Only the religious and those willing to submit to religious rituals can then be "married"

Who cares? Most religious beliefs are a crock anyways. If you want to call yourself married as a Protestant, or Pastafarian, or Jedi, well who cares? Or even as an atheist call yourself married. It's all the same anyways. If the government only hands out civil unions so what?

I care. I'm an atheist. I'm married. I like being able to say that I'm married. People understand what being married means. How the hell is an Atheist going to be married. There are no atheist churches.

I thought about the issue of civil unions vs. marriage back before Obergefell when some were pushing it as an alternative to marriage for same sex couples. I wrote this back then and it is still relevant in that what you are proposing is just a variation on the same theme

The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html


And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

____________________________________________________________________________

Interesting point. I guess I don't have as much value for the word as you do. To me if an atheist couple tells me they're married it means the same thing as a gay couple telling me, or a Catholic couple, or Jewish, etc.

I certainly think it's petty and pathetic that Alabama, for example, would rather do away with government sanctioned marriage because they're upset about gay people; but....

....I was actually going to expand on that and make a point but I think I dissuaded myself with that last sentence. Maybe you're right!

 

[Boss]

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.

Let me ask you something... Gay Marriage has been legal in all 50 states for a little bit now... did you wake up the day after the SCOTUS ruling with the feeling you were equal to heterosexuals? Do you find that society in general is treating you more equally since the ruling? The Pope was just here, did he speak of this new bestowing of equality on humanity?

No law that I know of is discriminating on the basis of sexuality. This entire issue is about homosexuals gaining societal acceptance and legitimacy. That's a completely different booger.

 

[Boss]

...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.

Not exactly what I said. People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations. Property rights can be handled the way they are in other circumstances, through contractual arrangement between two parties. I don't want to change that, no one has an issue with it. The issue is over "Marriage" and what that means in society.... all of society... gays, religious people, straight people... everybody.
I am an individual liberty guy... I am conservative, but very much libertarian in my views on individual liberty. I don't want the government sticking their nose in ANY of my business unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all. No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.

Okay, so you have the right to do it... but the state doesn't have to sanction marriage. So basically, you have the constitutional right to live your homosexual lives and call it marriage if that's what you want to do. Meanwhile, religious people will still have traditional marriages and society would recognize that as traditional marriage. It's just not a function of the state to sanction it anymore.

Again, I am betting the results of this will be a slow and steady decline in gay marriages. We would see that gay couples no longer had any real motivation to "get married" because there wouldn't be any sort of state recognition or benefit to them. Some may still want to do it here and there, but I think society would see the practice wane as time goes on. Some religions may reform to ordain gay marriages but that is for the religions to settle, they aren't bound by SCOTUS rulings regarding who they marry. But again, there is not going to be much of a reason if there is no state sanction.

In other words, you would throw the baby out with the bath water in an effort to repress marriage equality. To serve what noble purpose?

No, noo... not repressing anything. You had marriage equality before OgdballAffair and you have equality now. But now we have a redefinition of marriage that isn't acceptable. So what my idea does, is remove state sanctioning of marriage so that it's no longer an issue of inequity. Simple!

I don't get the baby and bathwater analogy... is the baby the homo? If so, I don't want to throw them out. The bathwater has become intolerable and it has to go.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.

Let me ask you something... Gay Marriage has been legal in all 50 states for a little bit now... did you wake up the day after the SCOTUS ruling with the feeling you were equal to heterosexuals? Do you find that society in general is treating you more equally since the ruling? The Pope was just here, did he speak of this new bestowing of equality on humanity?

No law that I know of is discriminating on the basis of sexuality. This entire issue is about homosexuals gaining societal acceptance and legitimacy. That's a completely different booger.

Your assuming that I'm gay!! To make such an assumption about someone without really knowing anything about them does nothing for your credibility.

There was no laws discriminating on the basis of sexuality? Seriously? Why? Because all of those bans on same sex marriage did not mention sexual orientation but just said that marriage shall be between one man and one woman.? Do you think that they were aimed at the hordes of heterosexuals who were clamoring to marry someone of their own gender? Give me a break with that one.

Yes, the issue is about homosexuals gaining societal acceptance and legitimacy. And, marriage equality is just one way on achieving that. So what was your point with that?

 

[Nosmo King]

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.

Let me ask you something... Gay Marriage has been legal in all 50 states for a little bit now... did you wake up the day after the SCOTUS ruling with the feeling you were equal to heterosexuals? Do you find that society in general is treating you more equally since the ruling? The Pope was just here, did he speak of this new bestowing of equality on humanity?

No law that I know of is discriminating on the basis of sexuality. This entire issue is about homosexuals gaining societal acceptance and legitimacy. That's a completely different booger.

Tolerance versus Acceptance.

There are hammer headed White Supremacists. There are racial Chauvinists of every stripe. Society will never be rid of those who harbor ugly thoughts and attitudes. That's our misfortune.

So, no. Not everyone will receive enlightenment over night. Yes, bigots will continue to abound.

But in the eyes of the law, equal justice for all should be something worth striving for. Let society be society. Eventually, the number of homophobes will dwindle. But they will teach their children to be idiots. Generations will die out before the last vestiges of homophobia will fade away.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.

Not exactly what I said. People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations. Property rights can be handled the way they are in other circumstances, through contractual arrangement between two parties. I don't want to change that, no one has an issue with it. The issue is over "Marriage" and what that means in society.... all of society... gays, religious people, straight people... everybody.
I am an individual liberty guy... I am conservative, but very much libertarian in my views on individual liberty. I don't want the government sticking their nose in ANY of my business unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all. No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.

Okay, so you have the right to do it... but the state doesn't have to sanction marriage. So basically, you have the constitutional right to live your homosexual lives and call it marriage if that's what you want to do. Meanwhile, religious people will still have traditional marriages and society would recognize that as traditional marriage. It's just not a function of the state to sanction it anymore.

Again, I am betting the results of this will be a slow and steady decline in gay marriages. We would see that gay couples no longer had any real motivation to "get married" because there wouldn't be any sort of state recognition or benefit to them. Some may still want to do it here and there, but I think society would see the practice wane as time goes on. Some religions may reform to ordain gay marriages but that is for the religions to settle, they aren't bound by SCOTUS rulings regarding who they marry. But again, there is not going to be much of a reason if there is no state sanction.

In other words, you would throw the baby out with the bath water in an effort to repress marriage equality. To serve what noble purpose?

No, noo... not repressing anything. You had marriage equality before OgdballAffair and you have equality now. But now we have a redefinition of marriage that isn't acceptable. So what my idea does, is remove state sanctioning of marriage so that it's no longer an issue of inequity. Simple!

I don't get the baby and bathwater analogy... is the baby the homo? If so, I don't want to throw them out. The bathwater has become intolerable and it has to go.

Gays Already Had Equality before Oberefell??

Yes both the gay man and a straight man can marry a woman. But how would you like it if the tables were turned, most people were gay, only same sex marriage was legal, and YOU were told that you have equality because, like the gay man you too could marry a man? If you can't grasp that it's only because you can't accept or believe that two people of the same sex can feel about each other is EQUAL to how you can feel about a woman. The only way that your statement can be true is if marriage were completely devoid of sexual attraction and romantic love. Is it??.........for you?

And, while the law does not guarantee that anyone will get what they want, it does not prevent straight people from seeking out what they want and having it to the extent that the other party is willing. Not so with gay people in many places. Tell the truth, do you really believe this inane clap trap? More likely you are just being intellectually dishonest .

One more thing. If this argument makes any sense at all, why has it not been prevailed in any court case? Yes it has been tried, and shot down. The argument is so stupid and insensitive that it would be laughable if it were not for the fact that we're talking about real people, with lives and feeling, which you don't seem to be able to fathom.

PS: Even Justice Roberts has a problem with your idea. He asked whether or not it is a simple matter of sex discrimination, as opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation. If a woman can marry a man, but not another woman BECAUSE she is a woman.....that is gender discrimination


To say that gay people already had equal marriage rights is a logical fallacy in several ways:

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.


In this case the conclusion, that they already have equal rights is based on the premise that, like heterosexuals, they can marry someone of the opposite sex. However, that can only be true if marriage were strictly a legal/ business arrangement and not a personal/ romantic one. The conclusion ignores the fact that the premise is faulty because it ignores the fact that gay people do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex.


The second logical fallacy employed in this argument is an appeal to ignorance. Basically, those who employ it are asking their audience to accept the argument at face value I said it, it sounds good, don’t question it.


Lastly, it is Reductio ad absurdum: In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion.

In this case, the premise, that a gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex is indeed true. The absurd false conclusion is that it results in equality for gays, and it’s absurd because they do not see that as an acceptable out come and indeed, it is not equal to the choice that heterosexuals have.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.

Let me ask you something... Gay Marriage has been legal in all 50 states for a little bit now... did you wake up the day after the SCOTUS ruling with the feeling you were equal to heterosexuals? Do you find that society in general is treating you more equally since the ruling? The Pope was just here, did he speak of this new bestowing of equality on humanity?

No law that I know of is discriminating on the basis of sexuality. This entire issue is about homosexuals gaining societal acceptance and legitimacy. That's a completely different booger.

Do you even know that in 31 states it is legal to fire someone or refuse to employ them if they are gay?

How can you not know that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.

What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?" What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise! What kind of drugs are you smoking these days? ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here. It's what I do!

What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society. Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark. The gay marriage initiative has been pushed largely by heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. The poor gays are being denied something.. that is what has fueled heterosexual support.

Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman. SCOTUS has now ruled that States cannot ban same-sex marriages through licenses which restrict that. So now, a marriage license has to be issued to same-sex couples the same as traditional male-female couples. Gay Marriage, here to stay, right? Not so fast....

There is no Constitutional requirement for the State to issue marriage licenses or recognize marriages of any kind. Regardless of whether they do or not, it doesn't change what any two people want to call marriage. I have pointed out numerous times in these long thread debates, that I attended a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama.... of all places. No one came and stopped it, no one protested or caused a scene, it was a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a nice Spring day, on a mountainside in the country. We threw rice, the couple went on a honeymoon, they had a wedding cake and wedding album. In every sense of the word, in their hearts and souls, they are married. It does not matter that the State of Alabama doesn't recognize it.

So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit.

Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway. No other viable legal options remain, it's settled law according to SCOTUS. Keep in mind that even slavery could not be ended in this country without Amending the Constitution because of SCOTUS ruling.... even after a Civil War! So this is here to stay... as long as States authorize marriage licenses.

So Boss, how do we deal with the many intricacies of insurance, property rights, taxes, etc., if we don't have some government method of defining domestic partnerships? Well, contracts! That's how we do it. The same as my gay friends from 1986 have done it. They obtained a series of various contract agreements to cover those bases as they arose and they have no real issue in that regard other than taxation, which is minimal. And as more and more States abandon marriage licensing, this contract process will become more standard with insurance and other things... it will simply be a matter of filling out a form and submitting it... done! Equality!

Oh... So you're gonna take your ball and go home? Well, yes... in a manner of speaking, that's exactly what we are going to do. You didn't think we're just going to let you hijack the traditional institution of marriage and get away with that, did you? A non-sequitur... that's what you turn the SCOTUS ruling into. That effectively Kills Homosexual Marriage.

Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like. They take this position as an alternative to the legalization of gay marriage and assert that in the absence of government regulation anyone can form a union-via contract- with anyone else who they chose to, and call it whatever they want. For the most part, those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to prevent such nuptials are universally recognized by government. Other just hate anything that the government does. The idea it seems, is to sink the ship in order to drown the rats In addition, I have yet to hear any explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

In any case, I believe that it is wrought with problems and pitfalls, and promoted by people who do not really want it to come to that-indeed they don’t believe that it will-but who are also being coy about their opposition to equality or government regulation of anything . However, far be it from me-the Progressive Patriot- to jump to conclusions or rush to judgment so I decided to take a closer look.

First, let us consider why marriage is something that is regulated by the government in the first place. It is true that for centuries, marriage was in fact a private affair between families. However it is also true that the practice of requiring marriage licenses dates back more than 400 years in England. (When those opposed to gay marriage talk about tradition, I say, now there is tradition! A tradition that you might want to think twice about discarding)

This license requirement came about because ” ….

When the state-run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving marriage partnerships, laws regarding marriage licensing were established to ensure a level of control and source for revenues.” The American colonies later adapted many of the same customs and laws. Gradually, the states began to exercise greater control over who one could marry and a major concern was to prevent inter racial marriage. Later, the primary reason for government control of marriage licenses remains for vital statistics recording and continues as a source of revenue for local and state governments. Source: http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html#ixzz2sg0BKysk

It’s interesting to note that while marriage licenses came about in England at the behest of the state run church, and the church continued to have enormous influence in the colonies , once the United States came into being, there was no longer a state church and in fact a state church was specifically prohibited. However, concessions were made to the church such as granting tax exempt status, and most notable with respect to marriage, clergy were afforded the right to perform wedding ceremonies that result in a legally binding union under the law. Some would say that doing so blurs the lines between church and state.

So on the surface, it may seem at this point that government regulation came about for the wrong reasons or is no longer relevant:

• Interracial marriage is no longer an issue
  
• There is no state sponsored church that has official influence on government so presumably, government could pull out of the marriage regulation business if chose to.
• Marriage licenses are probably not a significant source of revenue, it is restricted to local government and it is not a reason to require legal marriage that most people would endorse.
  
• Public health and vital statistics could be compiled by the census and through the registration of those private contracts
  

But wait! What is a “private contract” Not being a student of midlevel history, I don’t know what the concept of “contract” was then. However, I know that in our system of government and law, a contract is a legal construct that is it is created by law. Its execution and desolation is controlled by statute, and only government creates statutory law. So I submit to you that to get government “out of marriage” is not a choice under the contemporary definition of contract

Ok, so some government involvement is inevitable. But you might say if those contracts are regulated by government, why they can’t just be like any other contract such as one you might enter into with an employer, or someone remodeling your home. What makes a “marriage contract” special? Why require a license to enter into a marriage contract, but not other contracts?

As it turns out, there is at least one supporter of traditional marriage who think that it would, in fact be a very bad idea to remove the government sanction and regulation of marriage.

Robert George, one of the leading voices advocating for traditional marriage today, along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, have written a thorough and well-documented piece in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy entitled What is Marriage? Among other things, they argue that attempts to stop government from regulating marriage are naive at best and ruinous at worst.

They go on to say:

“

Almost no society that has left us a trace of itself has done without some regulation of sexual relationships…The wellbeing of children gives us powerful prudential reasons to recognize and protect marriage legally”.

And while a main concern of theirs stems from an opposition of extension of marriage to gays, they have much more to say in support of government regulation.

“…… the government cannot simply bow out of the marriage regulation business, as divorces will still have to be adjudicated, for there will inevitably be disputes over marital unfaithfulness, assets, and custody of children. The state will have to involve itself in disentangling the mess after traditional marriage has been thus dismantled. This is why the libertarian argument fails. For a true libertarian would surely want less governmental intrusion into our private lives, but the de-regulation of marriage would in fact lead to more of it”.

And:

“Although some libertarians propose to “privatize” marriage, treating marriages the way we treat baptisms and bar mitzvahs, supporters of limited government should recognize that marriage privatization would be a catastrophe for limited government. In the absence of a flourishing marriage culture, families often fail to form, or to achieve and maintain stability. As absentee fathers and out‐of‐wedlock births become common, a train of social pathologies follows.”

http://russellandduenes.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/should-we-do-away-with-all-governmental-regulation-of-marriage/

 

[Nosmo King]

...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.

Not exactly what I said. People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations. Property rights can be handled the way they are in other circumstances, through contractual arrangement between two parties. I don't want to change that, no one has an issue with it. The issue is over "Marriage" and what that means in society.... all of society... gays, religious people, straight people... everybody.
I am an individual liberty guy... I am conservative, but very much libertarian in my views on individual liberty. I don't want the government sticking their nose in ANY of my business unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all. No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.

Okay, so you have the right to do it... but the state doesn't have to sanction marriage. So basically, you have the constitutional right to live your homosexual lives and call it marriage if that's what you want to do. Meanwhile, religious people will still have traditional marriages and society would recognize that as traditional marriage. It's just not a function of the state to sanction it anymore.

Again, I am betting the results of this will be a slow and steady decline in gay marriages. We would see that gay couples no longer had any real motivation to "get married" because there wouldn't be any sort of state recognition or benefit to them. Some may still want to do it here and there, but I think society would see the practice wane as time goes on. Some religions may reform to ordain gay marriages but that is for the religions to settle, they aren't bound by SCOTUS rulings regarding who they marry. But again, there is not going to be much of a reason if there is no state sanction.

In other words, you would throw the baby out with the bath water in an effort to repress marriage equality. To serve what noble purpose?

No, noo... not repressing anything. You had marriage equality before OgdballAffair and you have equality now. But now we have a redefinition of marriage that isn't acceptable. So what my idea does, is remove state sanctioning of marriage so that it's no longer an issue of inequity. Simple!

I don't get the baby and bathwater analogy... is the baby the homo? If so, I don't want to throw them out. The bathwater has become intolerable and it has to go.

The baby in the analogy is the marriage license. What I'm curious about is why do you see the bath water as dirty?

 

[Syriusly]

Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses? What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony? What would be the point of taking away the right to marry? What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?

Your argument has been made and SCOTUS has ruled. Are you hoping to discover some right-winger who has been living under a rock and is not aware of the recent ruling? Why else would you present an argument for what is now settled law?

The thread OP is about killing homosexual marriage. I've outlined my plan very clearly and concisely. You kill it by rendering it irrelevant. Once the government is removed from sanctioning marriages, there is no more issue to exploit... no more perception of inequity.. and eventually, no more gay marriage to speak of. It all disappears as quickly as it emerged in society and life goes on.

Your remedy to 'kill gay marriage' is to kill marriage.

But marriage will survive- regardless of your efforts to kill marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you happen to be hit hard on the head that day? Or suffer some kind of stroke?

I am just wondering what kind of event would lead to your hallucinations.

You, of all people, implying another human as damaged is the most laughable thing I've seen in years!

Oh I am sure you find lots of things laughable.......things in your head....things no one else can see....things that no one else would invent.....

Like the concept of homosexuality?

No, no one would ever buy that absurdity

Never mind then

'concept of homosexuality'

as absurd as the concept of Christianity.

Are you a Christian?

Are you a Homosexual?

 

[Syriusly]

Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses? What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony? What would be the point of taking away the right to marry? What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?

Your argument has been made and SCOTUS has ruled. Are you hoping to discover some right-winger who has been living under a rock and is not aware of the recent ruling? Why else would you present an argument for what is now settled law?

The thread OP is about killing homosexual marriage. I've outlined my plan very clearly and concisely. You kill it by rendering it irrelevant. Once the government is removed from sanctioning marriages, there is no more issue to exploit... no more perception of inequity.. and eventually, no more gay marriage to speak of. It all disappears as quickly as it emerged in society and life goes on.

What is the purpose of killing Gay marriage? Why is it such a threat? Why bother at all?

And state sanctioned marriage creates a new legal entity. It essentially melds the fortunes of two people and creates a next-of-kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed. It provides protections and benefits no available through similar contracts. The state has established special courts to dissolve those contracts.

Churches sanctify marriages, but the state license establishes them.

So again I ask, why be concerned about marriage equality? Where's the threat? Why the opposition?

That entity could have been established without all the drama.

Marriage established a new family where one didn't previously existed for a very clear reason. It was an attempt to create order in what once was a chaotic process, tracking bloodlines.

That was not necessary with homosexual couples (unless a gay man married a lesbian).

Families do not require marriage to be families.
Nor do Marriages require children.
However, I agree that marriage was always intended to regulate what can be a disorderly process.

And marriage to that end, works well with all couples- including couples that include two people of the same gender.

 

[Syriusly]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

What our incredibly long winded OP is saying...is that in his plan, nobody will be married. Two people who love each other will just draw up a series of contracts because the state government will no longer sanction a thing called "marriage".

Since a gay couple and a straight couple can both avail themselves of the exact same series of contracts, there will be no problem, dumb shit. That will be known as equality.

The OP likely thinks that some states......especially his backwater home....will make some or all of these contracts void if both parties are of the same sex....thereby "killing" the homosexual union business. Won't happen, dummy.

This is an incredible thread fail.

Thread fail or not, this is what you can expect to see happening across America in the coming years. The SCOTUS ruling didn't settle this issue for society... sorry... just didn't.

Why would any of expect anything you predict to happen?

You speak from ignorance and bigotry and have no record of success in predicting anything.

This issue is more settled now, than mixed race marriages were at the time of Loving v. Virginia.

But there will always be bigots who will not accept it- there are still bigots who do not accept mixed race marriages.