SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[WorldWatcher]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

I'm sure that there are a lot of different-sex couples that would be please that their "Civil Union" certificate isn't recognized across state lines and not recognized by the Federal government.


>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now Hear This People!!

Federal Judge Orders Alabama Judges To Issue Marriage Licenses To Same-Sex Couples Period. - The New Civil Rights Movement

Despite Chief Justice Roy Moore's best efforts to sow confusion and fear into same-sex couples and probate judges, same-sex couples will be marrying in the state of Alabama. Federal Judge Callie Granade, who several times now has struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, today has issued an order to Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange and all defendants mandating they issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On Monday, Justice Moore announced that the Supreme Court's ruling was not in effect, and said that probate judges could not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hours later, he backed down, claimed he misspoke, and said they "may," but were not legally obligated to do so, creating mass confusion and frustration – and opportunity for those who do not wish to support equality

 

[RKMBrown]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

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. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when 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 real explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

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 can’t they 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 contending 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/

In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.

Yeah well, though I'm a heterosexual, I'm all for same sex marriage. As for the marriage license thing.. The contracts are still needed and I'm not saying that should go away. I'm just saying call it a civil license so as not to mix the religious language thing. Thus marriage is more a anarchistic term used by religious folk and those who desire to call their government managed civil union a marriage. Whatever... but the government should not be implying that the civil union license (currently called a marriage license) is a religious construct. No need to make this all deep and shit.. just rename the damn thing at the state government level to make everyone feel better.

However if it's too much work for a state to change the name to civil union... lol fine stop complaining about it.

 

[RKMBrown]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

I'm sure that there are a lot of different-sex couples that would be please that their "Civil Union" certificate isn't recognized across state lines and not recognized by the Federal government.


>>>>

Heh... fun shit. Grats to the same sex folks sorry it took this long and I apologize for the behavior of my fellow Christians for being so... un-Christian like.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

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. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when 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 real explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

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 can’t they 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 contending 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/

In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.

Yeah well, though I'm a heterosexual, I'm all for same sex marriage. As for the marriage license thing.. The contracts are still needed and I'm not saying that should go away. I'm just saying call it a civil license so as not to mix the religious language thing. Thus marriage is more a anarchistic term used by religious folk and those who desire to call their government managed civil union a marriage. Whatever... but the government should not be implying that the civil union license (currently called a marriage license) is a religious construct. No need to make this all deep and shit.. just rename the damn thing at the state government level to make everyone feel better.

However if it's too much work for a state to change the name to civil union... lol fine stop complaining about it.

Yes, A variation on the government out of marriage theme has been the suggestion that marriage be preserved only as a religious institution while all those who do not want a religious nuptial-both gay and straight- are relegated to civil unions Til Death Do Us Part The End of Government Regulation of Marriage and the Emergence of Domestic Partnership Contracts The People Ideas and Things PIT Journal

Now, I, like you am a heterosexual and obviously in favor of gay marriage. Unlike you, I am an atheist. I am also married, and enjoy the right to call it marriage because that is what it is. Marriage is a word that has meaning and is universally understood. Anyone tries to deny me the right to call it marriage is going to have a problem with me. Religion does not own the word “marriage’ , least of all at this point in history in the U.S.


While this might solve the issue of equality between gays and straights and avoid the issue of government recognition of same sex marriage, it sets up another dichotomy – that between religious unions and others. It would be just another form of discrimination. In short, it is just another unnecessary, pointless and losing proposition that nobody is going to go for. It would also appear that those –like me-who want to call their union ”marriage” without the religious aspects would have a strong case for religious discrimination.

 

[RKMBrown]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

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. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when 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 real explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

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 can’t they 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 contending 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/

In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.

Yeah well, though I'm a heterosexual, I'm all for same sex marriage. As for the marriage license thing.. The contracts are still needed and I'm not saying that should go away. I'm just saying call it a civil license so as not to mix the religious language thing. Thus marriage is more a anarchistic term used by religious folk and those who desire to call their government managed civil union a marriage. Whatever... but the government should not be implying that the civil union license (currently called a marriage license) is a religious construct. No need to make this all deep and shit.. just rename the damn thing at the state government level to make everyone feel better.

However if it's too much work for a state to change the name to civil union... lol fine stop complaining about it.

Yes, A variation on the government out of marriage theme has been the suggestion that marriage be preserved only as a religious institution while all those who do not want a religious nuptial-both gay and straight- are relegated to civil unions Til Death Do Us Part The End of Government Regulation of Marriage and the Emergence of Domestic Partnership Contracts The People Ideas and Things PIT Journal

Now, I, like you am a heterosexual and obviously in favor of gay marriage. Unlike you, I am an atheist. I am also married, and enjoy the right to call it marriage because that is what it is. Marriage is a word that has meaning and is universally understood. Anyone tries to deny me the right to call it marriage is going to have a problem with me. Religion does not own the word “marriage’ , least of all at this point in history in the U.S.


While this might solve the issue of equality between gays and straights and avoid the issue of government recognition of same sex marriage, it sets up another dichotomy – that between religious unions and others. It would be just another form of discrimination. In short, it is just another unnecessary, pointless and losing proposition that nobody is going to go for. It would also appear that those –like me-who want to call their union ”marriage” without the religious aspects would have a strong case for religious discrimination.

Perhaps, you miss my point.

Government manages a contract currently called a "marriage." The exact same contract could be called... fubar. Come and get your fubar licence, previously named "marriage" license. The story would go that the new name means the same but the people got all whiny about government using the name, we had to rename it to something that is non-descriptive as a substitute word to placate the bastards who can't stand thinking about same sex and plural marriages sharing the word marriage. Why? Because many people are fundamentally selfish.

If you prefer you can call it "the" license or pairing licence or nuputal licence. I really don't care what name you call your "coupling." Just because the government puts the word "license" on the damn piece of paper does not mean it's not the license you use for your "marriage."

Now when it comes to colloquial language, yeah most people will still call it a marriage, but I'd guess some gay folks would be proud to call their's a same sex marriage. But recognize that adjectives are just... adjectives. Hell some people call it your ball and chain license. Really what the hell does it matter? All these names mean the same thing... two or more consenting adults decided to stay together and share a life... potentially for the rest of their days.

 

[Flopper]

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

Studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. Benefits peaked in nineties with welfare reform. Benefits have been falling steadily, yet the number of unmarried child births have been increasing.

I think it's a bit absurd to think that a child support payment of about $300/mo is going to give a single women the incentive to go through pregnancy and years of childcare without a husband to share the burden. Also, TANF payments are limited to 5 years except in special cases. They are dependent on state laws some which require at least part time work. Childcare payments beyond 5 years require that no form of welfare is paid to any adult family members of the family.

Child Recipients of Welfare AFDC TANF Child Trends

There is a correlation according to these studies. If you have a problem with these studies and their results, including the study from the Department of Health and Human Services, than please, show where they went wrong. What specifically is wrong with their methodology? Also, single mothers don't just receive TANF, they receive WIC, EITC, SSI, section 8, Medicaid etc. They receive far more than 300 a month. For example, if a single mother with two children, making 15000 a year, will get about 5000 in food stamps. If she marries a man making identical income, she will lose those benefits. Why should she marry this man when they can be together out of wedlock and still keep the benefits?

A single Mom age 22 with a wage of $1250/mo ($15,000/yr) in the state of Louisiana and one child will receive $98 to $105/mo or $1,176 to $1,260/yr, no where near $5,000 year.
FNS SNAP Program Eligibility Screening Tool

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

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. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when 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 real explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

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 can’t they 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 contending 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/

In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.

Yeah well, though I'm a heterosexual, I'm all for same sex marriage. As for the marriage license thing.. The contracts are still needed and I'm not saying that should go away. I'm just saying call it a civil license so as not to mix the religious language thing. Thus marriage is more a anarchistic term used by religious folk and those who desire to call their government managed civil union a marriage. Whatever... but the government should not be implying that the civil union license (currently called a marriage license) is a religious construct. No need to make this all deep and shit.. just rename the damn thing at the state government level to make everyone feel better.

However if it's too much work for a state to change the name to civil union... lol fine stop complaining about it.

Yes, A variation on the government out of marriage theme has been the suggestion that marriage be preserved only as a religious institution while all those who do not want a religious nuptial-both gay and straight- are relegated to civil unions Til Death Do Us Part The End of Government Regulation of Marriage and the Emergence of Domestic Partnership Contracts The People Ideas and Things PIT Journal

Now, I, like you am a heterosexual and obviously in favor of gay marriage. Unlike you, I am an atheist. I am also married, and enjoy the right to call it marriage because that is what it is. Marriage is a word that has meaning and is universally understood. Anyone tries to deny me the right to call it marriage is going to have a problem with me. Religion does not own the word “marriage’ , least of all at this point in history in the U.S.


While this might solve the issue of equality between gays and straights and avoid the issue of government recognition of same sex marriage, it sets up another dichotomy – that between religious unions and others. It would be just another form of discrimination. In short, it is just another unnecessary, pointless and losing proposition that nobody is going to go for. It would also appear that those –like me-who want to call their union ”marriage” without the religious aspects would have a strong case for religious discrimination.

Perhaps, you miss my point.

Government manages a contract currently called a "marriage." The exact same contract could be called... fubar. Come and get your fubar licence, previously named "marriage" license. The story would go that the new name means the same but the people got all whiny about government using the name, we had to rename it to something that is non-descriptive as a substitute word to placate the bastards who can't stand thinking about same sex and plural marriages sharing the word marriage. Why? Because many people are fundamentally selfish.

If you prefer you can call it "the" license or pairing licence or nuputal licence. I really don't care what name you call your "coupling." Just because the government puts the word "license" on the damn piece of paper does not mean it's not the license you use for your "marriage."

Now when it comes to colloquial language, yeah most people will still call it a marriage, but I'd guess some gay folks would be proud to call their's a same sex marriage. But recognize that adjectives are just... adjectives. Hell some people call it your ball and chain license. Really what the hell does it matter? All these names mean the same thing... two or more consenting adults decided to stay together and share a life... potentially for the rest of their days.

I think that you missed my point. The word "marriage" matters and you cant use different terms for religious vs. civil marriage because that is discriminatory. The only thing that makes sense is marriage for all. I am not going to pander to the religious wing-nutters and call non religious unions anything else. This does not have to be complicated, and you know what? Since last Friday it's not. Everyone gets married and that is that.

 

[BluePhantom]

who ever said they were unequal?

The highest court in the land.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.​

I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!

Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.

IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person. I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!

What the **** makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?

The United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

 

[BluePhantom]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

What happened when some states refused to follow a federal order to end segregation? How did that work out for George Wallace?

 

[BluePhantom]

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again

The people do not have to bow down to the SCOTUS. That's not the point.

I see what you are saying with regard to the tone of the discussions.

It's time for the gay community to be honorable in their win... not to rub faces. But I don't see them here rubbing faces. What I see is democrats rubbing republican faces..

thank you. if you look at his post from addicting info he claimed Republicans were melting down. so he's far from one who is honorable

We all need to be somewhat careful in our generalizations. While it would be accurate to say some republicans are melting down... as evidenced through the media anyway, it is not accurate to say all republicans are melting down.

I've not spoken to a single republican that is against secular gay marriage in a very long time.

I am a Republican and a Christian and I have been a supporter of SSM from the start of the debate. I supported it as a Republican because Republicans are supposed to be about equal rights for all Americans. It's what our party was created for and what we have always fought for. I supported it as a Christian because the Bible says to treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself, remove the log from your own eye before worrying about the speck in another's, and to allow God to be the judge. In view view, supporting SSM is the most Republican and Christian thing one can do. Why the rest of my distinguished colleagues on the right and in the churches can't figure that out is beyond me.

 

[Flopper]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

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. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when 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 real explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

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 can’t they 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 contending 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/

In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.

Yeah well, though I'm a heterosexual, I'm all for same sex marriage. As for the marriage license thing.. The contracts are still needed and I'm not saying that should go away. I'm just saying call it a civil license so as not to mix the religious language thing. Thus marriage is more a anarchistic term used by religious folk and those who desire to call their government managed civil union a marriage. Whatever... but the government should not be implying that the civil union license (currently called a marriage license) is a religious construct. No need to make this all deep and shit.. just rename the damn thing at the state government level to make everyone feel better.

However if it's too much work for a state to change the name to civil union... lol fine stop complaining about it.

Yes, A variation on the government out of marriage theme has been the suggestion that marriage be preserved only as a religious institution while all those who do not want a religious nuptial-both gay and straight- are relegated to civil unions Til Death Do Us Part The End of Government Regulation of Marriage and the Emergence of Domestic Partnership Contracts The People Ideas and Things PIT Journal

Now, I, like you am a heterosexual and obviously in favor of gay marriage. Unlike you, I am an atheist. I am also married, and enjoy the right to call it marriage because that is what it is. Marriage is a word that has meaning and is universally understood. Anyone tries to deny me the right to call it marriage is going to have a problem with me. Religion does not own the word “marriage’ , least of all at this point in history in the U.S.


While this might solve the issue of equality between gays and straights and avoid the issue of government recognition of same sex marriage, it sets up another dichotomy – that between religious unions and others. It would be just another form of discrimination. In short, it is just another unnecessary, pointless and losing proposition that nobody is going to go for. It would also appear that those –like me-who want to call their union ”marriage” without the religious aspects would have a strong case for religious discrimination.

Perhaps, you miss my point.

Government manages a contract currently called a "marriage." The exact same contract could be called... fubar. Come and get your fubar licence, previously named "marriage" license. The story would go that the new name means the same but the people got all whiny about government using the name, we had to rename it to something that is non-descriptive as a substitute word to placate the bastards who can't stand thinking about same sex and plural marriages sharing the word marriage. Why? Because many people are fundamentally selfish.

If you prefer you can call it "the" license or pairing licence or nuputal licence. I really don't care what name you call your "coupling." Just because the government puts the word "license" on the damn piece of paper does not mean it's not the license you use for your "marriage."

Now when it comes to colloquial language, yeah most people will still call it a marriage, but I'd guess some gay folks would be proud to call their's a same sex marriage. But recognize that adjectives are just... adjectives. Hell some people call it your ball and chain license. Really what the hell does it matter? All these names mean the same thing... two or more consenting adults decided to stay together and share a life... potentially for the rest of their days.

I think that you missed my point. The word "marriage" matters and you cant use different terms for religious vs. civil marriage because that is discriminatory. The only thing that makes sense is marriage for all. I am not going to pander to the religious wing-nutters and call non religious unions anything else. This does not have to be complicated, and you know what? Since last Friday it's not. Everyone gets married and that is that.

Marriage in a religious sense can certain be different than a civil marriage. Ask any Catholic. However, the gay marriage issue was strictly a legal issue, not a religious issue although some people may not see it that way.

Some churches already recognize and perform gay marriages and other over time will. Some may never, just as some churches don't perform mix marriages.

When SCOTUS made gay marriages legal, it assured gays equal protection under the law. That's what it's all about.

 

[RKMBrown]

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something. IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business. Leave marriage to the people. Let governments manage civil union contracts. Drop all these silly marriage laws.

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. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when 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 real explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

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 can’t they 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 contending 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/

In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.

Yeah well, though I'm a heterosexual, I'm all for same sex marriage. As for the marriage license thing.. The contracts are still needed and I'm not saying that should go away. I'm just saying call it a civil license so as not to mix the religious language thing. Thus marriage is more a anarchistic term used by religious folk and those who desire to call their government managed civil union a marriage. Whatever... but the government should not be implying that the civil union license (currently called a marriage license) is a religious construct. No need to make this all deep and shit.. just rename the damn thing at the state government level to make everyone feel better.

However if it's too much work for a state to change the name to civil union... lol fine stop complaining about it.

Yes, A variation on the government out of marriage theme has been the suggestion that marriage be preserved only as a religious institution while all those who do not want a religious nuptial-both gay and straight- are relegated to civil unions Til Death Do Us Part The End of Government Regulation of Marriage and the Emergence of Domestic Partnership Contracts The People Ideas and Things PIT Journal

Now, I, like you am a heterosexual and obviously in favor of gay marriage. Unlike you, I am an atheist. I am also married, and enjoy the right to call it marriage because that is what it is. Marriage is a word that has meaning and is universally understood. Anyone tries to deny me the right to call it marriage is going to have a problem with me. Religion does not own the word “marriage’ , least of all at this point in history in the U.S.


While this might solve the issue of equality between gays and straights and avoid the issue of government recognition of same sex marriage, it sets up another dichotomy – that between religious unions and others. It would be just another form of discrimination. In short, it is just another unnecessary, pointless and losing proposition that nobody is going to go for. It would also appear that those –like me-who want to call their union ”marriage” without the religious aspects would have a strong case for religious discrimination.

Perhaps, you miss my point.

Government manages a contract currently called a "marriage." The exact same contract could be called... fubar. Come and get your fubar licence, previously named "marriage" license. The story would go that the new name means the same but the people got all whiny about government using the name, we had to rename it to something that is non-descriptive as a substitute word to placate the bastards who can't stand thinking about same sex and plural marriages sharing the word marriage. Why? Because many people are fundamentally selfish.

If you prefer you can call it "the" license or pairing licence or nuputal licence. I really don't care what name you call your "coupling." Just because the government puts the word "license" on the damn piece of paper does not mean it's not the license you use for your "marriage."

Now when it comes to colloquial language, yeah most people will still call it a marriage, but I'd guess some gay folks would be proud to call their's a same sex marriage. But recognize that adjectives are just... adjectives. Hell some people call it your ball and chain license. Really what the hell does it matter? All these names mean the same thing... two or more consenting adults decided to stay together and share a life... potentially for the rest of their days.

I think that you missed my point. The word "marriage" matters and you cant use different terms for religious vs. civil marriage because that is discriminatory. The only thing that makes sense is marriage for all. I am not going to pander to the religious wing-nutters and call non religious unions anything else. This does not have to be complicated, and you know what? Since last Friday it's not. Everyone gets married and that is that.

No the word marriage does not matter. It's just a word. And yes different words ARE USED ALL THE TIME. And no using a word IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY. It's called language. Yes since last Friday this is a done deal. FYI at my church when I got married they called it holy matrimony, nuptuals, and other words were also used for example joining of two people..

My point was the states can still do stupid things to placate stupid people. For example, they can call marriages license in their state civil unions. Here watch..

CIVIL UNION LICENSE
aka. marriage license in the other 56 states.​

 

[ChrisL]

who ever said they were unequal?

The highest court in the land.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.​

I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!

Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.

IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person. I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!

What the **** makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?

Sorry but your irrational hatred and personal beliefs do not apply to anyone else but yourself. THAT is something you need to understand. Other people do not want to, nor do they have to live by your rules or have your approval. Where does your sense of self importance when it comes to other people's LIVES come from? Where do you get off?

 

[thanatos144]

I think for many, the issue with homosexuality isn't about denying them rights or hating on them etc.

I think the real Christian's out there don't like that fact that gay marriage is legalized because they believe that by gay marriage becoming "legal", people will start to perceive it as acceptable, and maybe even, "okay" for a Christian to do.... their concern is FOR GOD and his ways, not AGAINST GAYS and their ways (most Christian's believe God considers Homosexuality as a sin and an abomination - you can argue against that, but, that won't change their belief. They don't believe it because they hate gays, they believe it because they were taught that and feel scriptures back it up).

Now, sex outside of marriage is also a sin. But the issue with allowing gay marriage is that on top of homosexuality being a sin, Christian's view marriage as a HOLY union (vs. a legal union).

They see it as a breaking down of the moral fabric of our Country and worry that it is part of a trend that will bring this country into further decadence and moral decay.... and ultimately, Godly punishment.

If you can look at it as a LOVE for God and Country (even if you thinks it's mis-construed) and not has a hateful and controlling thing, you still won't agree, but, maybe you can partially understand or at least see where they might be coming from, from their point of view.

You can say, well, guess what, I think gay marriage is a right and this is fair and tough for you cause that's where we are at now in this Country .... but adding on that people are hateful, backward and narrow-minded is just not fair (but, that is not to say that some aren't...).

But many really are good hearted, well intentioned people - people that would clothe and feed a homosexual person, and help them in a time of need.

I'm pretty sure I didn't word or say all this correctly, but I tried my best!

Wrong. Real Christians are not bigots. But yes many Christians have been brought up to be bigoted against gays similar to the way they were brought up to be bigoted against blacks. Stupid is as stupid does.

Hey **** you. Stop calling those who refuse to celebrate sin bigots .

Truth hurts huh?

The truth that you are bigoted little man? That isn't a secret you despicable little man.... Just come out of the closet already.

I'm bigoted against bigots like you, yes. Why don't you put your stones down and go home. Gays may be legally married now. Your fight to keep your boot on their necks has been lost. You are the weak ass bully that has been shamed. You are dismissed.

Your ignorance is astounding. How is allowing 5 people make law for all of the country a good thing dip shit? You ******* wish to be allowed to marry your homosexual lover clouds your reason.

 

[thanatos144]

The highest court in the land.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.​

I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!

Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.

IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person. I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!

What the **** makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?

That's the system of government we live in. You don't like it? Too ******* bad. The best part? There's nothing you can do about it except move to a country which doesn't have the U.S. Constitution.

No it is not....Not even close.

 

[thanatos144]

The highest court in the land.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.​

I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!

Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.

IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person. I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!

What the **** makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?

The United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

You need to read the Constitution again because it most definitely does not say 9 people rule the country.

 

[thanatos144]

The highest court in the land.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.​

I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!

Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.

IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person. I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!

What the **** makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?

Sorry but your irrational hatred and personal beliefs do not apply to anyone else but yourself. THAT is something you need to understand. Other people do not want to, nor do they have to live by your rules or have your approval. Where does your sense of self importance when it comes to other people's LIVES come from? Where do you get off?

Hey **** face the only hate is from you.

 

[thanatos144]

Have to love the hate coming from the left here.... If I dont like fascism I hate homosexuals LMAO what a bunch of assholes LOL

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wrong. Real Christians are not bigots. But yes many Christians have been brought up to be bigoted against gays similar to the way they were brought up to be bigoted against blacks. Stupid is as stupid does.

Hey **** you. Stop calling those who refuse to celebrate sin bigots .

Truth hurts huh?

The truth that you are bigoted little man? That isn't a secret you despicable little man.... Just come out of the closet already.

I'm bigoted against bigots like you, yes. Why don't you put your stones down and go home. Gays may be legally married now. Your fight to keep your boot on their necks has been lost. You are the weak ass bully that has been shamed. You are dismissed.

Your ignorance is astounding. How is allowing 5 people make law for all of the country a good thing dip shit? You ******* wish to be allowed to marry your homosexual lover clouds your reason.

Read the Constitution. Read case Law. Learn.