Now that 'gay marriage' is real, can we talk?

[Boss]

What about the argument that opposite sex marriage discriminates based on gender?

Plumber's Licenses discriminate based on education. You can be a fully-qualified electrician, and they discriminate in giving you a Plumber's License because you lack some education. People are discriminated against when they seek a driver's license, based on their ability to operate a motor vehicle. I can be a fully-qualified open heart surgeon, and they will discriminate against me in obtaining a beautician's license, because I don't have some beauty school certification.

Marriage licenses are for the purpose of legalizing marriage, which is the union of a man and woman.... not gay partners. Homosexuals are fully able to obtain a marriage license, if they are seeking to marry...which is the union of a man and woman. They are fully able to get a plumber's license if they have completed the courses and qualify, or a driver's license, if they demonstrate they can operate a motor vehicle.

 

[Boss]

The states that have done so are wrong, the definition of marriage does not include same-sex relationships. Yes, I realize "gay marriage" is becoming legal in places, that's the reason for the thread. I don't think "gay marriage" should even exist, and it certainly shouldn't be how government defines or sanctions "marriage."


Who said the public has to use a different term? Again, I favor the government removing itself from arbiter of what marriage can or can't be defined as, and allowing individual people to define it as they please. You're basically saying, we are too accustomed to the government deciding for us, so we may as well let them keep deciding.

That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that I don't believe there are enough people willing to forgo legal, governmental marriage for that option to be feasible at this time. While there are multiple reasons for that, I think the main one is that people are used to the institution and don't see a good reason to get rid of it. It may seem reasonable to you and me, but that doesn't make it so for the majority of the population.

No one has proposed my option. And again, the people wouldn't be "getting rid" of anything. I didn't say that people would no longer acknowledge marriage. Or that it wouldn't be allowed to be defined by the people. So I have no idea what you mean by "a good reason to get rid of it" because I haven't suggested anyone has to get rid of anything.

I honestly don't understand why the federal government's definition of marriage is even an issue, or why we're debating it. I've already told you, I don't favor a separate arrangement for homosexuals to compliment marriage. I would be strongly opposed to such a thing. Why do you keep returning to this, as if it's an argument I have made? Same sex marriage isn't an option for me, I don't believe that is marriage. It's a domestic partnership, a civil union, and I am fine with allowing those terms to define it. But I still don't understand why the government even has to define it at all. Why can't we define it ourselves, and take the government out of the mix?

I'm trying to find out what your opinion is on what I consider the realistic possibilities, not what you want to see happen but very likely can't at this time. I want to know what you think is the best solution in an environment where the government WILL continue to regulate and sanction marriage. I want to know what you think is a viable solution to providing the same privileges that opposite sex couples enjoy when same sex couples wish to have them.

I don't understand why you keep saying my option isn't viable and can't happen. It seems very realistic to me. I don't know what objection anyone would have to: YOU get to define marriage any way YOU please, and the government minds it's own bee's wax! But you keep insisting that we're just not ready for that, and we need the SCOTUS to rule and tell us what marriage means.

I've given you my view. First of all, I don't know that FEDERAL government even needs any information about our domestic arrangements. Get rid of the IRS and have a Flat Tax or Fair Tax, and there is no other reason for the Federal Government to be involved. If there just HAS to be something to distinguish spousal benefits or whatever, it should be generic in nature, like Civil Unions. Let the States and People decide what licenses they are going to issue on a state-by-state basis, as it should be. CU contracts could be made available to replace traditional marriage licenses, and 'marriage' could be removed from government sanction entirely.

Well I'm not okay with government endorsing marriage based on sexuality. Sorry. I disagree with you, strongly. I've made my case for why, and I believe my complaint is legitimate. I have offered a reasonable compromise, which would grant every party exactly what they claim they want, and remove government from the role of sanctioning ANY kind of marriage. I don't think my position is inconsiderate of homosexual couples, or disrespectful of religious sanctity of marriage. I think my proposal allows more liberty and freedom than any other proposal, because it lets THE PEOPLE determine what "marriage" means for themselves, and removes it from government.


Because of religious custom.

Look, "marriage" means the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony. It is done for the purpose of procreation and family. Homosexuals can't procreate with same-sex partnerships, so that simply can't be "marriage" in any sense of the word. You are never going to convince me that a homosexual relationship is "marriage" because I reject the concept. Furthermore, I don't approve of my tax dollars going to a government which sanctions sexual behavior through marriage. I would favor much more, a government that removes itself from recognizing ANY form of domestic partnership, and left that up to individuals or at the very least, the states, to decide this for themselves. But if we can't have such a compromise, if you are hell bent on a protracted war, then that's what we'll have! The religious folk have a lot of money and time to crusade, the politicians all seem to love using this as a political football, and hey.... gay couples can wait a few more decades to have those benefits, who really cares?

What marriage means religiously should have no impact on what it means in our secular government. Marriage, in the legal sense, is not about religious custom or holy matrimony. Procreation and family are not necessary components of legal marriage. Do you have any problems with opposite sex couples who cannot or will not procreate getting married? Do you have any problems with atheists getting married? If the answer to these questions is no, then your argument that religious tradition is the reason to prevent same sex marriage falls flat.

I am not hell bent on anything, you are reading into this what you want. Who said anything about protracted war or crusades? I've already told you that I agree with you that it would be better for government to get out of the marriage/civil union business (although I do wonder how it would affect some things). I've explained, at least to some extent, why I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. I don't think most people agree that government should drop involvement. I'm not sure where that last paragraph came from.

I'm sorry, I thought you were asking why have "marriage" as a word to describe man-woman relationships if it weren't sexual? I was responding to that when I told you it is religious custom. Yes, I understand the government shouldn't be involved, but they are, and they have been for a long time. Probably because we are largely a Judeo-Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles and values, and not "secular" as you stated.

What you have tried to explain to me, makes no sense. You are saying that people WANT the government to tell us what marriage means, and they are eventually going to tell us it means homosexual relationships are marriage, and we're all fine with that deal, and not interested in any other alternative idea. I just disagree with you all the way around. I think extremists on both sides of the issue, are going to keep pressing the issue for political gain, to keep us divided against each other, and the only way to overcome that is to take the issue of the table permanently.

 

[Montrovant]

You are not the first person to propose government get out of the marriage business. Don't give yourself too much credit. That same idea has been bandied about long before now.

You HAVE suggested getting rid of government-sanctioned marriages. That is what I clearly meant when I said I don't think most people see a good reason to get rid of it.

I have repeatedly said why I don't think getting government out of marriage is an option right now. I think you even agreed at one point that it is unlikely to happen right now. I'm not sure why you are unwilling to give an opinion on options that don't include government getting out of the marriage business.

Our government is secular. If you don't believe that, it's another argument.

I am not saying people want the government to tell them anything. I am saying people are comfortable with government sanctioned marriages and with the various benefits attached to it. I think many people want the legal definition of marriage changed to include same sex marriage. In some cases it has been enough people to change the laws.

That you don't like this particular change in meaning, I understand. The way things are trending, it looks to me like you are doomed to disappointment, though. I think same sex marriage is going to be around for a while and will only become more widespread. Unless someone starts a campaign to have all legal unions changed to civil unions and that campaign gains unexpected traction, legal same sex marriage is almost surely here to stay IMO.

 

[Boss]

You are not the first person to propose government get out of the marriage business. Don't give yourself too much credit. That same idea has been bandied about long before now.

I've not heard it from any mainstream republican or democrat.

You HAVE suggested getting rid of government-sanctioned marriages. That is what I clearly meant when I said I don't think most people see a good reason to get rid of it.

And I've asked you why you think people prefer having government define marriage for them as opposed to defining it for themselves, but you haven't answered. I think there would be vastly MORE people who would prefer my idea over DOMA or Gay Marriage.

I have repeatedly said why I don't think getting government out of marriage is an option right now. I think you even agreed at one point that it is unlikely to happen right now. I'm not sure why you are unwilling to give an opinion on options that don't include government getting out of the marriage business.

I said it's not going to happen because the activists (on both sides) are making too much political hay with the issue itself. You're proving my point. We both seem to agree on a reasonable solution, you just can't let go of the notion that we're going to legalize gay marriage, and it is going to exist alongside traditional marriage, and you're going to get to watch all those bible-thumpers have to accept it against their will.

I've given my opinion on an option that doesn't include government getting out, CUs!

Our government is secular. If you don't believe that, it's another argument.

Our government is supposed to function in a secular way, without endorsing any religion over another. We are not a secular nation. Our laws and principles are based on Judeo-Christian values. How can you say we are "secular" when our main guiding principle is inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, and all men are created equally? Does it not register that this is NOT a secular belief?

I am not saying people want the government to tell them anything. I am saying people are comfortable with government sanctioned marriages and with the various benefits attached to it. I think many people want the legal definition of marriage changed to include same sex marriage. In some cases it has been enough people to change the laws.

First of all, people are obviously NOT comfortable with the laws as currently written. It's why we're having this discussion. In most places where "gay marriage" is allowed, it's not the result of the people voting for it, it's the result of court rulings or renegade legislatures acting against the will of the people. In some states, as many as 90% are opposed to "gay marriage" and would never vote in favor of it. We can either have a country where people are free to govern themselves, or we can live in a country where government tells us what to do and what will be legal. I prefer the former, you prefer the later.

That you don't like this particular change in meaning, I understand. The way things are trending, it looks to me like you are doomed to disappointment, though. I think same sex marriage is going to be around for a while and will only become more widespread. Unless someone starts a campaign to have all legal unions changed to civil unions and that campaign gains unexpected traction, legal same sex marriage is almost surely here to stay IMO.

Careful about going with the trend. Look, you currently have the most liberal president in history, a congress that may as well be liberal because the conservatives are clueless, and the most liberal SCOTUS in history.... and we still don't have legalized gay marriage nationwide. Now, what do you suppose is going to happen when the political pendulum swings the other way, and we have a strong conservative president, congress and court? Do you honestly believe the millions of religious activists fighting gay marriage are going to vanish and go away? I don't see that happening. This will continue to be fought and rejected because it is NOT Civil Rights, and people aren't compelled to accept it.

Meanwhile, as we continue to go back and forth with this issue, passing DOMA and Prop 8, then tearing them down in court, then passing something else, only to be challenged again, the homosexual couples who only want to have the same benefits as married couples, continue to do without. I have suggested an alternative to what we are doing now. Rather than continuing to fight back and forth over this, why not remove government from the equation, and let the people decide for themselves, what they want the definition of marriage to be? Why not adopt a CU standard of recognizing domestic partnership, and remove government from the moral question that divides us? Is that approach too sensible for you, or what?

 

[bodecea]

What have you actively done to eliminate civil marriage? and for how long?

Again, I ask Boss. What have you actively done to eliminate civil marriage? And for how long?

I fail to see what this has to do with anything being discussed. I'm not actively trying to eliminate civil marriage now, I don't think government should be involved in marriage. When did I become "small government?" Probably around 1980 or so, when I became aware enough about politics to form an adult opinion.

Now let me ask you, why do you assume that I want to eliminate or prohibit things? Is it more because that is the way your bigoted mind imagines me to be, or is it because that's how you are about things, and you assume I am the same as you?

You SAY you want government out of marriage. OK...what are you doing about it?

 

[Boss]

Again, I ask Boss. What have you actively done to eliminate civil marriage? And for how long?

I fail to see what this has to do with anything being discussed. I'm not actively trying to eliminate civil marriage now, I don't think government should be involved in marriage. When did I become "small government?" Probably around 1980 or so, when I became aware enough about politics to form an adult opinion.

Now let me ask you, why do you assume that I want to eliminate or prohibit things? Is it more because that is the way your bigoted mind imagines me to be, or is it because that's how you are about things, and you assume I am the same as you?

You SAY you want government out of marriage. OK...what are you doing about it?

Well I'm not supporting Gay Marriage initiatives or governmental actions which seek to define marriage for the people, that's for certain. I am actively presenting my ideas here, in an open public forum, in hopes that other like-minded individuals will see there is an alternative. This doesn't have to be a divisive never ending issue that just keeps on and on, it can be resolved by reasonable people willing to compromise and accept a mutual solution. If the objective truly is, to get homosexual couples the same benefits as their married counterparts, does it matter what we call it from a government perspective? Does it interfere with 'sanctity of marriage' if we allow other legal domestic partnership arrangements?

I get a lot of resistance to my idea from both sides, but I have to wonder if this is not a case of the "issue" outweighing a solution to the issue. In other words, it's better for your political side, to keep pushing FOR or AGAINST "gay marriage" as opposed to going a different direction and doing something productive to resolve the problem? I honestly think that's where we are as a nation right now, we can't reach agreement even when we agree! We have too much political investment to lay down our weapons and find resolve. Those who support "gay marriage" are hell bent and determined to see it made law of land, and shoved down our throats against our will, and those who are opposed, want to force their views down our throats as well. In the end, all we have is persistent carping, back and forth... another court battle... another proposition... another ruling... then an appeal... while thousands of gay couples live out their lives without the benefits they desire, caught in the crosshairs of this politically volatile issue.

We empower ourselves by taking power away from the government, not granting the government MORE power to control our lives. Government should never be used to enforce our social views, those should be our individual and inalienable right to determine on our own. You've certainly heard the saying: Any government that can grant you liberty, can take it away. Well, that applies here... any government that can grant the liberty for homosexuals to call their relationships marriage, can also take that away. The government should NEVER have such authority over the individual.

 

[Montrovant]

I've not heard it from any mainstream republican or democrat.

I can't say I have either. I meant that it is an idea that other individuals have proposed before now, not that it has come up for possible legislation.

And I've asked you why you think people prefer having government define marriage for them as opposed to defining it for themselves, but you haven't answered. I think there would be vastly MORE people who would prefer my idea over DOMA or Gay Marriage.

I don't think most people consider it having government define marriage for them. I think it is more of a societal than government thing; people are allowing society to define marriage in a lot of ways.

I said it's not going to happen because the activists (on both sides) are making too much political hay with the issue itself. You're proving my point. We both seem to agree on a reasonable solution, you just can't let go of the notion that we're going to legalize gay marriage, and it is going to exist alongside traditional marriage, and you're going to get to watch all those bible-thumpers have to accept it against their will.

I 'can't let to of the notion' because, based on what I've seen to date, I believe that same sex marriage is going to become the norm. I don't expect a movement to get government out of marriage to gain traction any time soon, and I think that younger people are more accepting of same sex marriage in general.

I've given my opinion on an option that doesn't include government getting out, CUs!

*sigh* Switching everyone to civil unions IS government getting out of marriage, at least semantically. I was looking for an opinion on what you think, if anything, should be done assuming government will continue to have legal, sanctioned marriage.

Our government is supposed to function in a secular way, without endorsing any religion over another. We are not a secular nation. Our laws and principles are based on Judeo-Christian values. How can you say we are "secular" when our main guiding principle is inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, and all men are created equally? Does it not register that this is NOT a secular belief?

We are a secular nation in that we do not follow religious rules or doctrines in our government. If our laws are based on religious principles, that's fine, but the religions themselves do not have sway over our law. One cannot use the bible to determine the laws of the land.
The majority of people in the country are religious, but the rules of our government are not.

First of all, people are obviously NOT comfortable with the laws as currently written. It's why we're having this discussion. In most places where "gay marriage" is allowed, it's not the result of the people voting for it, it's the result of court rulings or renegade legislatures acting against the will of the people. In some states, as many as 90% are opposed to "gay marriage" and would never vote in favor of it. We can either have a country where people are free to govern themselves, or we can live in a country where government tells us what to do and what will be legal. I prefer the former, you prefer the later.

People are comfortable with having government sanctioned marriage. They may disagree about some of the details, but in general my impression is that most people are perfectly fine with government being involved in marriage.
People are free to govern themselves, to a point. We are not a purely democratic country. So if denial of same sex marriage is determined to be against the strictures of our constitution, what the majority wants is immaterial (barring amending the constitution, of course).
More, I don't think most people would consider having government sanctioned marriage a matter of government telling them what to do. It would more likely be thought of as government formalizing what is already societally accepted. Your ridiculous exaggeration that you believe in freedom and I believe the government should tell us what to do is petty.

Careful about going with the trend. Look, you currently have the most liberal president in history, a congress that may as well be liberal because the conservatives are clueless, and the most liberal SCOTUS in history.... and we still don't have legalized gay marriage nationwide. Now, what do you suppose is going to happen when the political pendulum swings the other way, and we have a strong conservative president, congress and court? Do you honestly believe the millions of religious activists fighting gay marriage are going to vanish and go away? I don't see that happening. This will continue to be fought and rejected because it is NOT Civil Rights, and people aren't compelled to accept it.

Meanwhile, as we continue to go back and forth with this issue, passing DOMA and Prop 8, then tearing them down in court, then passing something else, only to be challenged again, the homosexual couples who only want to have the same benefits as married couples, continue to do without. I have suggested an alternative to what we are doing now. Rather than continuing to fight back and forth over this, why not remove government from the equation, and let the people decide for themselves, what they want the definition of marriage to be? Why not adopt a CU standard of recognizing domestic partnership, and remove government from the moral question that divides us? Is that approach too sensible for you, or what?

In your opinion this is not about civil rights. I believe that enough people view it differently, especially among the young, that as time goes on and the older generations pass on, larger and larger portions of the population will be for same sex marriage. I agree completely that at the moment it is a very contentious issue.

As I've been trying to get across to you, I think most people would decide for themselves to have government sanctioned marriage. It is what they are used to, what they are brought up to expect, and it simplifies things (it's not necessary to create your own contract). That is why I don't think switching terms to civil unions is going to happen now. Again, perhaps if enough people who agree with the idea started to push for it, opinion could be swayed.
Why you insist on your snarky comments and petty insults, especially about issues I agree with you on, I don't know. There are plenty of things I would consider reasonable, sensible, and/or preferable to the way things currently are that most others would not agree with me about. I'm fairly certain the same is true for you. Yet you seem astonished that I don't expect everyone to simply agree removing government from marriage is the best solution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only issue would be if gay marriages impacted non-gay civil or religious liberties.

It doesn't. Move on.

 

[Boss]

I've not heard it from any mainstream republican or democrat.

I can't say I have either. I meant that it is an idea that other individuals have proposed before now, not that it has come up for possible legislation.

Exactly, so how can you determine how people would respond? I actually think the GOP could make great strides in adopting a proposal along the lines I have suggested, and presenting it as LIBERTY. YOU have the right to decide what marriage means to you, NOT the government, and NOT the SCOTUS!

And I've asked you why you think people prefer having government define marriage for them as opposed to defining it for themselves, but you haven't answered. I think there would be vastly MORE people who would prefer my idea over DOMA or Gay Marriage.

I don't think most people consider it having government define marriage for them. I think it is more of a societal than government thing; people are allowing society to define marriage in a lot of ways.

Right, so again I ask you... what is wrong with government coming along and saying: We realize society is defining 'marriage' differently these days, and we're going to remove ourselves from endorsing or condemning all types of marriage, so that you the people can determine your own destiny?

I 'can't let to of the notion' because, based on what I've seen to date, I believe that same sex marriage is going to become the norm. I don't expect a movement to get government out of marriage to gain traction any time soon, and I think that younger people are more accepting of same sex marriage in general.

Well, unless human attributes change dramatically, the 14% homosexual population is never going to be "the norm" in society. Homosexual relationships are already accepted, no one is trying to outlaw or ban homosexuality. Same sex marriage is a different story, there is still considerable opposition, and it's not going away. It's not just old farts who are soon to die out, it's young people too. MOST of society is strongly opposed to redefining marriage at this time. It may be more acceptable than 10-20 years ago, but it's still a long way from being a predominant view in America.

*sigh* Switching everyone to civil unions IS government getting out of marriage, at least semantically. I was looking for an opinion on what you think, if anything, should be done assuming government will continue to have legal, sanctioned marriage.

Well, IF government is going to continue sanctioning "marriage" they should be confined to the traditional usage of the word. Reason being, out of deference to religious exercise. You know the part of the 1st that says government can't prohibit religious exercise? Marriage to religion, is like holy communion or the cross, it is part of their religious heritage and how they exercise their religious beliefs, and to "pervert" it through government, is just wrong and unconstitutional, in my opinion. Not to mention the constitutional problems you raise whenever you sanction sexual behaviors through marriage, that's a can of worms we don't need to open.

We are a secular nation in that we do not follow religious rules or doctrines in our government. If our laws are based on religious principles, that's fine, but the religions themselves do not have sway over our law. One cannot use the bible to determine the laws of the land.
The majority of people in the country are religious, but the rules of our government are not.

I understand where you're coming from, but you're just wrong. Virtually EVERY law we have, is rooted in our Judeo-Christian values... where do you think "do not steal, lie, kill" come from? The very premise of our justice system, is that all men are created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights. This is a Judeo-Christian concept. So we can most definitely use the Bible to determine laws, we have done precisely that. Those who hold religious beliefs, can certainly rely on those beliefs to establish new laws, they have that freedom and right in America. Just as you have the freedom to oppose them.

Because the government cannot endorse religions, doesn't mean the government is secular, or that our government can disregard all things religious. They have to respect the rights of individuals to exercise religion, and that includes how they vote and the laws they pass, as well as respecting their religious customs and traditions.

First of all, people are obviously NOT comfortable with the laws as currently written. It's why we're having this discussion. In most places where "gay marriage" is allowed, it's not the result of the people voting for it, it's the result of court rulings or renegade legislatures acting against the will of the people. In some states, as many as 90% are opposed to "gay marriage" and would never vote in favor of it. We can either have a country where people are free to govern themselves, or we can live in a country where government tells us what to do and what will be legal. I prefer the former, you prefer the later.

People are comfortable with having government sanctioned marriage. They may disagree about some of the details, but in general my impression is that most people are perfectly fine with government being involved in marriage.

I don't agree. I don't think you can speak for everybody. I think activists are fine with government remaining the arbiter of marriage, because they hope that government will endorse their viewpoint over the others. But I think a significant and growing number of people, want government to get the hell out of our lives.

People are free to govern themselves, to a point. We are not a purely democratic country.

WTF? Are you serious? Have you never read the words... "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."? Our very nation is founded on the principle that we are endowed with the right to govern ourselves! No, we're NOT a "pure democracy" and I never claimed we were. However, the government isn't given unlimited power to do whatever the **** it pleases! It is given very specific and enumerated powers, which it has FAR exceeded over time. WE THE PEOPLE retain the power, it is endowed and inalienable. We've just been lazy and allowed government, through the activists, to usurp more and more control over our freedoms.

So if denial of same sex marriage is determined to be against the strictures of our constitution, what the majority wants is immaterial (barring amending the constitution, of course).

Which is EXACTLY what is going to happen whenever the courts make "gay marriage" the law of the land. If you believe this is going to be settled with a SCOTUS ruling, you've got another thing coming. Those who are opposed, are just as vehemently opposed as you are in favor. So keep pushing for judicial activism to make "gay marriage" the law, and the result may very well be a constitutional amendment that takes it away. Is that where you want to go? Wouldn't it be smarter and better, to find a reasonable compromise now, before it goes that far?

More, I don't think most people would consider having government sanctioned marriage a matter of government telling them what to do. It would more likely be thought of as government formalizing what is already societally accepted. Your ridiculous exaggeration that you believe in freedom and I believe the government should tell us what to do is petty.

**** man, how many times do I have to say it... Government is not there to endorse your social whims! How fucked up would this country be if every time we had a social knee-jerk emotion, we turned to government to solidify it into law? Well... we're quickly finding out, aren't we? Because that seems to be the modern-day thinking, that government is there to please everybody all the time.

In your opinion this is not about civil rights. I believe that enough people view it differently, especially among the young, that as time goes on and the older generations pass on, larger and larger portions of the population will be for same sex marriage. I agree completely that at the moment it is a very contentious issue.

As I've been trying to get across to you, I think most people would decide for themselves to have government sanctioned marriage. It is what they are used to, what they are brought up to expect, and it simplifies things (it's not necessary to create your own contract). That is why I don't think switching terms to civil unions is going to happen now. Again, perhaps if enough people who agree with the idea started to push for it, opinion could be swayed.
Why you insist on your snarky comments and petty insults, especially about issues I agree with you on, I don't know. There are plenty of things I would consider reasonable, sensible, and/or preferable to the way things currently are that most others would not agree with me about. I'm fairly certain the same is true for you. Yet you seem astonished that I don't expect everyone to simply agree removing government from marriage is the best solution.

If someone comes along and presents my idea to the people, and they reject it, preferring to allow government to define marriage for us, then I will accept your opinion as valid. Until then, I think you are dead wrong. I think you are caught up in "the movement" here, and it's difficult for you to step away from the koolaid long enough to be pragmatic. You are convinced that this "gay marriage" thing is the way to go, and we may as well get used to it. I say that it's not the way to go, and you better get used to people rejecting it for the rest of your life, and beyond. Because that's what will happen. This isn't just some prejudiced uptight viewpoint people have, it's a fundamental aspect to their core beliefs, through their religion. You're messing with something you can't even imagine the enormity of. It's never going to be accepted, you will not redefine marriage to include homosexuals.

So what is the better idea? Keep pushing for something you'll never get, or find a reasonable middle-ground with others, who are committed to solving the problem? I don't know if you are hoping for your "Roe v Wade" which forever solidifies gay marriage, but even IF that were to happen, as you said, there's always the constitutional amendment process. The largest political demographic, is the "moral majority" the "religious right" the evangelicals. They are not going to fade away because you win a victory with SCOTUS, and you need to come to this realization before it's too late. I know you believe you have the 'end game' all figured out, but you don't have a clue what is in store.

 

[whitehall]

Let's see if marriage can keep the homos at home or if the dumb asses "no pun intended" will still think AIDS is a badge of honor that they need to share.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whitehall adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[whitehall]

Whitehall adds nothing to the discussion.

I add perspective. You,my friend, only add school yard bigotry.

 

[Montrovant]

I've not heard it from any mainstream republican or democrat.

I can't say I have either. I meant that it is an idea that other individuals have proposed before now, not that it has come up for possible legislation.

Exactly, so how can you determine how people would respond? I actually think the GOP could make great strides in adopting a proposal along the lines I have suggested, and presenting it as LIBERTY. YOU have the right to decide what marriage means to you, NOT the government, and NOT the SCOTUS!



Right, so again I ask you... what is wrong with government coming along and saying: We realize society is defining 'marriage' differently these days, and we're going to remove ourselves from endorsing or condemning all types of marriage, so that you the people can determine your own destiny?



Well, unless human attributes change dramatically, the 14% homosexual population is never going to be "the norm" in society. Homosexual relationships are already accepted, no one is trying to outlaw or ban homosexuality. Same sex marriage is a different story, there is still considerable opposition, and it's not going away. It's not just old farts who are soon to die out, it's young people too. MOST of society is strongly opposed to redefining marriage at this time. It may be more acceptable than 10-20 years ago, but it's still a long way from being a predominant view in America.



Well, IF government is going to continue sanctioning "marriage" they should be confined to the traditional usage of the word. Reason being, out of deference to religious exercise. You know the part of the 1st that says government can't prohibit religious exercise? Marriage to religion, is like holy communion or the cross, it is part of their religious heritage and how they exercise their religious beliefs, and to "pervert" it through government, is just wrong and unconstitutional, in my opinion. Not to mention the constitutional problems you raise whenever you sanction sexual behaviors through marriage, that's a can of worms we don't need to open.



I understand where you're coming from, but you're just wrong. Virtually EVERY law we have, is rooted in our Judeo-Christian values... where do you think "do not steal, lie, kill" come from? The very premise of our justice system, is that all men are created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights. This is a Judeo-Christian concept. So we can most definitely use the Bible to determine laws, we have done precisely that. Those who hold religious beliefs, can certainly rely on those beliefs to establish new laws, they have that freedom and right in America. Just as you have the freedom to oppose them.

Because the government cannot endorse religions, doesn't mean the government is secular, or that our government can disregard all things religious. They have to respect the rights of individuals to exercise religion, and that includes how they vote and the laws they pass, as well as respecting their religious customs and traditions.



I don't agree. I don't think you can speak for everybody. I think activists are fine with government remaining the arbiter of marriage, because they hope that government will endorse their viewpoint over the others. But I think a significant and growing number of people, want government to get the hell out of our lives.




WTF? Are you serious? Have you never read the words... "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."? Our very nation is founded on the principle that we are endowed with the right to govern ourselves! No, we're NOT a "pure democracy" and I never claimed we were. However, the government isn't given unlimited power to do whatever the **** it pleases! It is given very specific and enumerated powers, which it has FAR exceeded over time. WE THE PEOPLE retain the power, it is endowed and inalienable. We've just been lazy and allowed government, through the activists, to usurp more and more control over our freedoms.



Which is EXACTLY what is going to happen whenever the courts make "gay marriage" the law of the land. If you believe this is going to be settled with a SCOTUS ruling, you've got another thing coming. Those who are opposed, are just as vehemently opposed as you are in favor. So keep pushing for judicial activism to make "gay marriage" the law, and the result may very well be a constitutional amendment that takes it away. Is that where you want to go? Wouldn't it be smarter and better, to find a reasonable compromise now, before it goes that far?

More, I don't think most people would consider having government sanctioned marriage a matter of government telling them what to do. It would more likely be thought of as government formalizing what is already societally accepted. Your ridiculous exaggeration that you believe in freedom and I believe the government should tell us what to do is petty.

**** man, how many times do I have to say it... Government is not there to endorse your social whims! How fucked up would this country be if every time we had a social knee-jerk emotion, we turned to government to solidify it into law? Well... we're quickly finding out, aren't we? Because that seems to be the modern-day thinking, that government is there to please everybody all the time.

In your opinion this is not about civil rights. I believe that enough people view it differently, especially among the young, that as time goes on and the older generations pass on, larger and larger portions of the population will be for same sex marriage. I agree completely that at the moment it is a very contentious issue.

As I've been trying to get across to you, I think most people would decide for themselves to have government sanctioned marriage. It is what they are used to, what they are brought up to expect, and it simplifies things (it's not necessary to create your own contract). That is why I don't think switching terms to civil unions is going to happen now. Again, perhaps if enough people who agree with the idea started to push for it, opinion could be swayed.
Why you insist on your snarky comments and petty insults, especially about issues I agree with you on, I don't know. There are plenty of things I would consider reasonable, sensible, and/or preferable to the way things currently are that most others would not agree with me about. I'm fairly certain the same is true for you. Yet you seem astonished that I don't expect everyone to simply agree removing government from marriage is the best solution.

If someone comes along and presents my idea to the people, and they reject it, preferring to allow government to define marriage for us, then I will accept your opinion as valid. Until then, I think you are dead wrong. I think you are caught up in "the movement" here, and it's difficult for you to step away from the koolaid long enough to be pragmatic. You are convinced that this "gay marriage" thing is the way to go, and we may as well get used to it. I say that it's not the way to go, and you better get used to people rejecting it for the rest of your life, and beyond. Because that's what will happen. This isn't just some prejudiced uptight viewpoint people have, it's a fundamental aspect to their core beliefs, through their religion. You're messing with something you can't even imagine the enormity of. It's never going to be accepted, you will not redefine marriage to include homosexuals.

So what is the better idea? Keep pushing for something you'll never get, or find a reasonable middle-ground with others, who are committed to solving the problem? I don't know if you are hoping for your "Roe v Wade" which forever solidifies gay marriage, but even IF that were to happen, as you said, there's always the constitutional amendment process. The largest political demographic, is the "moral majority" the "religious right" the evangelicals. They are not going to fade away because you win a victory with SCOTUS, and you need to come to this realization before it's too late. I know you believe you have the 'end game' all figured out, but you don't have a clue what is in store.

This is ridiculous.

What is with all the 'you want this' and 'you are pushing for that' nonsense? I've said multiple times now, I AGREE WITH YOU! It is my opinion on the feelings of the majority of the country where we possibly differ; it's hard to be certain with the way you jump from talking about the general populace to suddenly talking about my supposed personal agenda.

I have seen reactions (or lack thereof) from a number of people, both on this board and in personal settings, about the idea of government getting out of marriage. I have seen the way people take the legal aspects of marriage for granted. Based on these and similar factors, I have come to the conclusion that removing government from marriage is not feasible now. I have admitted that, with a push, perhaps and advertising campaign or through proposed legislation, this could change. What, in all of this, has convinced you I am blinded by 'the movement' as you put it? I've described same sex marriage as the best of a crop of bad solutions; not that I consider it the best choice. What part of that makes you think I am some sort of same sex marriage reactionary?

I disagree with you about the acceptance of same sex marriage. I think it will become generally accepted, probably in the next decade or two. I am not hoping this happens through court decisions, but that may be the impetus for it.

I never said government is there to endorse my social whims. This is yet another example of you ascribing things to me I have not claimed. To reiterate : I AGREE WITH YOU that it would be best for government to get out of marriage to avoid this entire issue.

No, you cannot use the bible to determine what is law. That laws are based on things which are in the bible is not the same. You cannot be arrested for violated commands of the bible, only those in the law.

Your denial of the secular nature of our government is noted, not unexpected, and incorrect.

If you want to argue ideology, your views of how the government as exceeded the limits in the constitution, etc. that should be part of a different thread. I am trying to discuss the reality of the current situation as it regards the OP. That the government has gained more power than it should over the years (a sentiment I certainly agree with) does not change where we are, nor is it going to suddenly change because you or I want it to. Note that I am not telling you it cannot ever change or that one should not try to change it! I'm merely stating that a sudden relinquishing of power is not going to happen in a moment. At best it would probably take years to pull power away from government, if not decades. So I am trying to discuss what options are available NOW.

Oh, if you think do not lie, steal or kill are concepts which originated with Judeo-Christian belief, I would strongly disagree. That such beliefs were used as a basis for many of our laws, I agree with.

If you are going to continue to try and label me as some sort of gay marriage activist, pushing the agenda, blinded by my desire to see it implemented, hoping to force the issue through the courts, or whatever other crap you are pulling from your fevered imaginations, there is no point continuing this conversation. You may as well have the conversation on your own and just build up whatever arguments or evidence you want to try and debate instead of pretending I have said things which I have not.

 

[Boss]

This is ridiculous.

What is with all the 'you want this' and 'you are pushing for that' nonsense? I've said multiple times now, I AGREE WITH YOU! It is my opinion on the feelings of the majority of the country where we possibly differ; it's hard to be certain with the way you jump from talking about the general populace to suddenly talking about my supposed personal agenda.

I know you agree with me, that's what is so ironic about the argument we're having. You don't know how the country would feel about my idea, it's never been presented to the country for consideration. The only options the country has been given is to support gay marriage or oppose gay marriage. I think a large chunk of the country is sick of the issue dividing us, and if for no other reason than to put it to rest, would support my idea. I think ANYONE who says they support smaller, less intrusive government, already supports my idea. I think that anyone who says they are for personal liberty, already supports my idea.

I have seen reactions (or lack thereof) from a number of people, both on this board and in personal settings, about the idea of government getting out of marriage. I have seen the way people take the legal aspects of marriage for granted. Based on these and similar factors, I have come to the conclusion that removing government from marriage is not feasible now.

And it's YOUR OPINION... I don't share it. The largest grassroots political movement of our time, the Tea Party, is all about getting government out of our lives, and the next largest grassroots movement, the Libertarians, are all about more personal freedom from government. So explain to me again, how would my idea suddenly not resonate with these people?

I have admitted that, with a push, perhaps and advertising campaign or through proposed legislation, this could change. What, in all of this, has convinced you I am blinded by 'the movement' as you put it? I've described same sex marriage as the best of a crop of bad solutions; not that I consider it the best choice. What part of that makes you think I am some sort of same sex marriage reactionary?

Because you keep arguing for "gay marriage" even though we agree on an amicable solution to the problem that would satisfy all parties. It's as if you've sunk your teeth in on this "gay marriage" idea, and you can't let go. It's NOT the best idea, you pretty much admit that. It DOESN'T please all parties, there are still a majority of people who refuse to accept "gay marriage" at all, it doesn't matter what the court rules. It's never going to matter to them, because this is a religious thing from their perspective.

I disagree with you about the acceptance of same sex marriage. I think it will become generally accepted, probably in the next decade or two. I am not hoping this happens through court decisions, but that may be the impetus for it.

Again, do you honestly think people who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality, are going to suddenly have some miraculous enlightenment? They are going to abandon God's Word, to accept something they feel their religion condemns? What kind of dope are you smoking? Seriously! No, it's not going to be accepted in a decade or two, it will continue to be fought through this generation and the next. Meanwhile, all the gay couples will continue to not have those benefits, the problem and issue still divides us, and political leaders still use it to gain political traction. I'm offering a solution, something that would take the issue off the table forever. Not only that, it would enable homosexual couples to realize every benefit they seek, and allow churches to maintain sanctity of marriage. The ONLY sacrifice made by anyone in my scenario, is the extremist activists on both sides, who continue to fan the flames and cause controversy with it.

I never said government is there to endorse my social whims. This is yet another example of you ascribing things to me I have not claimed. To reiterate : I AGREE WITH YOU that it would be best for government to get out of marriage to avoid this entire issue.

Then why the hell do you continue to support letting the government legislate social whims? It's like you're saying, yeah, I agree with you buddy, but I'm too busy carrying this banner for "gay marriage" to lend you a hand.

No, you cannot use the bible to determine what is law. That laws are based on things which are in the bible is not the same. You cannot be arrested for violated commands of the bible, only those in the law.

1. Yes, you can! We do! 2. Yes, it's the same. 3. Never claimed you could.

Your denial of the secular nature of our government is noted, not unexpected, and incorrect.

Don't care if it's unexpected or you don't understand. We are not a "secular" nation and never have been. We are a religiously-free nation, and always have been. Elected representatives have every right to determine laws based on their religious beliefs, and if you disagree, you can vote for an Atheist. Religious people have just as much right to voice their religiously-based opinion as you do, and to establish laws based on those opinions, if a majority of people agree with them.

Recently, the Socialist Communists have been on a campaign to promote this notion of "secular government" and that is because Socialism and Communism works better when there is no Religion, where the people have nothing to put their faith in except the State. This is why you find yourself thinking this is the case, but there is no truth in it whatsoever. We were founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we've always welcomed all religious beliefs, and our Founding Fathers all firmly believed our nation couldn't survive without God. The so-called "wall of separation" is not even in the Constitution, it is an articulated idea to explain the separation of powers, and intended to calm RELIGIOUS concerns that the new federal government would get involved in religion, not the other way around.

If you want to argue ideology, your views of how the government as exceeded the limits in the constitution, etc. that should be part of a different thread. I am trying to discuss the reality of the current situation as it regards the OP. That the government has gained more power than it should over the years (a sentiment I certainly agree with) does not change where we are, nor is it going to suddenly change because you or I want it to. Note that I am not telling you it cannot ever change or that one should not try to change it! I'm merely stating that a sudden relinquishing of power is not going to happen in a moment. At best it would probably take years to pull power away from government, if not decades. So I am trying to discuss what options are available NOW.

Again, what I am hearing is... Yeah, government has too much power, but let's just give them this one more thing, then I'll fly with you! It's too difficult to fight, we may as well get used to it and let it happen. I reject that. I don't believe it's that difficult, I just think we need the right person to come along and articulate the idea. In the meantime, I have no intention of giving in, or allowing the government to continue dictating what marriage means to the individual. I don't have to accept it, I'm not going to accept it. So I guess you'll have to keep fighting me, who you agree with, as well as the anti-gay-marriage crowd, and cling to the hope that SCOTUS will bail you out someday. Then, back your ears again, because a constitutional amendment is on the way.

Oh, if you think do not lie, steal or kill are concepts which originated with Judeo-Christian belief, I would strongly disagree. That such beliefs were used as a basis for many of our laws, I agree with.

My point is, that every law on the books, pretty much comes from our religious moralities. Not only that, but our very principles in founding as a nation, is dependent on a "Creator" who "endowed us with inalienable rights" when creating us all equally. This certainly isn't "secular" is it? Doesn't sound "secular" at all, to me.

If you are going to continue to try and label me as some sort of gay marriage activist, pushing the agenda, blinded by my desire to see it implemented, hoping to force the issue through the courts, or whatever other crap you are pulling from your fevered imaginations, there is no point continuing this conversation. You may as well have the conversation on your own and just build up whatever arguments or evidence you want to try and debate instead of pretending I have said things which I have not.

I'm sorry, all I can go by is what you're posting. You keep telling me things aren't "feasible" or "possible at this time" and I don't buy it. It's much more feasible and possible to obtain benefits for homosexual couples through CU reforms, than anything you suggest with regard to "gay marriage" which isn't going to be allowed to stand in our lifetime. If you don't believe that, you have greatly underestimated the sheer number of people who reject "gay marriage" and have no intention of changing their minds.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whitehall adds nothing to the discussion.

I add perspective. You,my friend, only add school yard bigotry.

The perspective of bigotry is what you add if anything.

Gay marriage does not harm your civil or religious liberty in any way at all.

 

[Boss]

Gay marriage does not harm your civil or religious liberty in any way at all.

I disagree.

What if.... Upon passage of law which legalizes Gay Marriage, the State of Alabama passes a subsequent law which says all homosexuals must wear pink fuzzy hats and purple earrings, and carry a purse in public? Would that be alright to do? Why would that not be okay? Well, it's not okay because it's humiliation and mockery of the homosexual lifestyle. You can comprehend this, right?

Okay... "Gay Marriage" is a humiliation and mockery of traditional religious marriage, a sacred ceremony of the church. You are denying these people the right to exercise their religious beliefs with dignity. You are mocking their tradition. I know you don't see any harm in it, but there is also "no harm" in making gay people dress funny. Just because you see no harm, doesn't mean it's right or okay.

It's the equivalent to passing a law that bars and nightclubs can open on Sunday by calling themselves "churches" and defining their drinks as "communion." Now I am sure you wouldn't give a shit, that would be fine with you, but it would be a mockery of religion and religious tradition, and that is not okay when you've constitutionally established freedom of religion.

 

[Montrovant]

Gay marriage does not harm your civil or religious liberty in any way at all.

I disagree.

What if.... Upon passage of law which legalizes Gay Marriage, the State of Alabama passes a subsequent law which says all homosexuals must wear pink fuzzy hats and purple earrings, and carry a purse in public? Would that be alright to do? Why would that not be okay? Well, it's not okay because it's humiliation and mockery of the homosexual lifestyle. You can comprehend this, right?

Okay... "Gay Marriage" is a humiliation and mockery of traditional religious marriage, a sacred ceremony of the church. You are denying these people the right to exercise their religious beliefs with dignity. You are mocking their tradition. I know you don't see any harm in it, but there is also "no harm" in making gay people dress funny. Just because you see no harm, doesn't mean it's right or okay.

It's the equivalent to passing a law that bars and nightclubs can open on Sunday by calling themselves "churches" and defining their drinks as "communion." Now I am sure you wouldn't give a shit, that would be fine with you, but it would be a mockery of religion and religious tradition, and that is not okay when you've constitutionally established freedom of religion.

This again. There are already opposite sex marriages that are probably considered a 'mockery' of religious marriage! Atheists getting married, people who have so called 'open marriage', people from different religions getting married with different ceremonies and different vows, etc. etc. etc.

If, for example, a person's religious beliefs state that marriage is the joining of two people in the eyes of god, how is allowing two people to join who don't even believe in a god not the same type of mockery you are saying same sex marriage is?

And what about taking the argument in another direction.....might not people feel it is humiliating and a mockery to have the legal marriages become civil unions? If everyone gets a civil union rather than a marriage (legally speaking) might not the same people feel that calling their union something other than marriage, even if it's only in regards to the legal aspects, is a humiliation and a mockery?

Allowing same sex marriage does not change what goes on in the marriage of opposite sex couples.

 

[bodecea]

Let's see if marriage can keep the homos at home or if the dumb asses "no pun intended" will still think AIDS is a badge of honor that they need to share.

You want to talk about AIDS? How come heteros have a higher HIV rate than Lesbians? What are you people doing about that?

 

[Montrovant]

This is ridiculous.

What is with all the 'you want this' and 'you are pushing for that' nonsense? I've said multiple times now, I AGREE WITH YOU! It is my opinion on the feelings of the majority of the country where we possibly differ; it's hard to be certain with the way you jump from talking about the general populace to suddenly talking about my supposed personal agenda.

I know you agree with me, that's what is so ironic about the argument we're having. You don't know how the country would feel about my idea, it's never been presented to the country for consideration. The only options the country has been given is to support gay marriage or oppose gay marriage. I think a large chunk of the country is sick of the issue dividing us, and if for no other reason than to put it to rest, would support my idea. I think ANYONE who says they support smaller, less intrusive government, already supports my idea. I think that anyone who says they are for personal liberty, already supports my idea.

I have seen reactions (or lack thereof) from a number of people, both on this board and in personal settings, about the idea of government getting out of marriage. I have seen the way people take the legal aspects of marriage for granted. Based on these and similar factors, I have come to the conclusion that removing government from marriage is not feasible now.

And it's YOUR OPINION... I don't share it. The largest grassroots political movement of our time, the Tea Party, is all about getting government out of our lives, and the next largest grassroots movement, the Libertarians, are all about more personal freedom from government. So explain to me again, how would my idea suddenly not resonate with these people?



Because you keep arguing for "gay marriage" even though we agree on an amicable solution to the problem that would satisfy all parties. It's as if you've sunk your teeth in on this "gay marriage" idea, and you can't let go. It's NOT the best idea, you pretty much admit that. It DOESN'T please all parties, there are still a majority of people who refuse to accept "gay marriage" at all, it doesn't matter what the court rules. It's never going to matter to them, because this is a religious thing from their perspective.



Again, do you honestly think people who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality, are going to suddenly have some miraculous enlightenment? They are going to abandon God's Word, to accept something they feel their religion condemns? What kind of dope are you smoking? Seriously! No, it's not going to be accepted in a decade or two, it will continue to be fought through this generation and the next. Meanwhile, all the gay couples will continue to not have those benefits, the problem and issue still divides us, and political leaders still use it to gain political traction. I'm offering a solution, something that would take the issue off the table forever. Not only that, it would enable homosexual couples to realize every benefit they seek, and allow churches to maintain sanctity of marriage. The ONLY sacrifice made by anyone in my scenario, is the extremist activists on both sides, who continue to fan the flames and cause controversy with it.



Then why the hell do you continue to support letting the government legislate social whims? It's like you're saying, yeah, I agree with you buddy, but I'm too busy carrying this banner for "gay marriage" to lend you a hand.



1. Yes, you can! We do! 2. Yes, it's the same. 3. Never claimed you could.



Don't care if it's unexpected or you don't understand. We are not a "secular" nation and never have been. We are a religiously-free nation, and always have been. Elected representatives have every right to determine laws based on their religious beliefs, and if you disagree, you can vote for an Atheist. Religious people have just as much right to voice their religiously-based opinion as you do, and to establish laws based on those opinions, if a majority of people agree with them.

Recently, the Socialist Communists have been on a campaign to promote this notion of "secular government" and that is because Socialism and Communism works better when there is no Religion, where the people have nothing to put their faith in except the State. This is why you find yourself thinking this is the case, but there is no truth in it whatsoever. We were founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we've always welcomed all religious beliefs, and our Founding Fathers all firmly believed our nation couldn't survive without God. The so-called "wall of separation" is not even in the Constitution, it is an articulated idea to explain the separation of powers, and intended to calm RELIGIOUS concerns that the new federal government would get involved in religion, not the other way around.



Again, what I am hearing is... Yeah, government has too much power, but let's just give them this one more thing, then I'll fly with you! It's too difficult to fight, we may as well get used to it and let it happen. I reject that. I don't believe it's that difficult, I just think we need the right person to come along and articulate the idea. In the meantime, I have no intention of giving in, or allowing the government to continue dictating what marriage means to the individual. I don't have to accept it, I'm not going to accept it. So I guess you'll have to keep fighting me, who you agree with, as well as the anti-gay-marriage crowd, and cling to the hope that SCOTUS will bail you out someday. Then, back your ears again, because a constitutional amendment is on the way.

Oh, if you think do not lie, steal or kill are concepts which originated with Judeo-Christian belief, I would strongly disagree. That such beliefs were used as a basis for many of our laws, I agree with.

My point is, that every law on the books, pretty much comes from our religious moralities. Not only that, but our very principles in founding as a nation, is dependent on a "Creator" who "endowed us with inalienable rights" when creating us all equally. This certainly isn't "secular" is it? Doesn't sound "secular" at all, to me.

If you are going to continue to try and label me as some sort of gay marriage activist, pushing the agenda, blinded by my desire to see it implemented, hoping to force the issue through the courts, or whatever other crap you are pulling from your fevered imaginations, there is no point continuing this conversation. You may as well have the conversation on your own and just build up whatever arguments or evidence you want to try and debate instead of pretending I have said things which I have not.

I'm sorry, all I can go by is what you're posting. You keep telling me things aren't "feasible" or "possible at this time" and I don't buy it. It's much more feasible and possible to obtain benefits for homosexual couples through CU reforms, than anything you suggest with regard to "gay marriage" which isn't going to be allowed to stand in our lifetime. If you don't believe that, you have greatly underestimated the sheer number of people who reject "gay marriage" and have no intention of changing their minds.

Any legislator who tried to pass a law because the bible, or the quran, or the torah, etc. says something would find that either the law would not pass or the courts would nullify it IMO. Now, their religious beliefs are certainly going to play a large part in what they believe, but to actually base law directly on religious scripture in today's country would not pass.

What I am posting is based on my belief that getting government out of marriage is not going to happen right now. That you believe differently doesn't change the basis for what I'm saying.

Now, perhaps most of the people in the country have never thought of the idea that government could actually get out of marriage. Maybe it would be a revelation for them to hear it and suddenly a majority of voters would clamor for it. I find that extremely unlikely. I think that government sanctioned marriages have been going on for so long, they are so taken for granted, and they serve enough of a purpose that people would be unwilling to change from them without quite a bit of convincing. Given the small amount of evidence either way, I think things continuing as they have for generations is a reasonable assumption. If you have evidence to the contrary, please, share it!

I believe that having same sex marriage is better than simply keeping things as they have been, but not as good as government getting out of marriage altogether. I agree that there are activists and extremists on both sides who would rather have the issue around to use as a wedge than have it resolved, and they make it harder for the idea of government getting out of marriage entirely or changing all marriages to civil unions to get traction. I also think that the longstanding tradition of government marriages makes it difficult, as well as the benefits people get from government marriages. I think that simple laziness also plays a part, as having standardized government marriages means people do not have to hire lawyers and draw up their own marriage contracts.

If I am wrong, great! Then we just need to find politicians willing to push for it, or large enough organizations to push for it so the politicians will feel pressured to try and pass it. I just haven't seen anything which would indicate to me that such a thing is likely. If it does happen, if there is a call by our representatives to remove government from marriage, I will certainly support it.

 

[usmcstinger]

He (Justice Kennedy ) added that the ruling applied only to marriages from states that allowed gay and lesbian couples to wed.