Would you sign a petition to eliminate civil marriage licenses?

[The T]

Because 14 year olds boy or girl are just that, boys and girls. Children for christs sake.

But it's ok in the Bible belt, you know.

Leave the bible out of it. It's as disgusting as the lifestyle you promote.

And I'm in the Midwest and I'm not a believer.

You have my vote.

 

[The T]

No. In fact, I would suggest that those civil marriage licenses are the best way to enforce proper morals and values by refusing these licenses to people who shouldn't be married to begin with.

Isn't it interesting how prisoners for murder can marry, 14 year girls in southern states can marry, 95 year olds can marry.

That's irrelevant to his post.
Or are you unable to see that as well?
And why shouldn't 14 year old girls and 95 yr olds get married?

Note that the op is trying the moral equivilence bullsqueeze?

 

[The Rabbi]

Isn't it interesting how prisoners for murder can marry, 14 year girls in southern states can marry, 95 year olds can marry.

That's irrelevant to his post.
Or are you unable to see that as well?
And why shouldn't 14 year old girls and 95 yr olds get married?

Note that the op is trying the moral equivilence bullsqueeze?

It's all they have.
Men are like women. Gays are like normal people. Gays are like blacks pre civil rights. etc etc.
They cannot stand the argument on any merit whatsoever.

 

[Anachronism]

Because 14 year olds boy or girl are just that, boys and girls. Children for christs sake.

Only because WE ALLOW THEM TO BE. Realize that as little as 150 years ago (if not more recently); 14 year olds were commonly married and becoming parents. I don't think that's necessarily the best thing, but I do believe that the level of maturity and adulthood we expect of teenagers is generally less than it should be.

 

[bodecea]

Because 14 year olds boy or girl are just that, boys and girls. Children for christs sake.

But it's ok in the Bible belt, you know.

Leave the bible out of it. It's as disgusting as the lifestyle you promote.

And I'm in the Midwest and I'm not a believer.

Which do you want a medal for, being in the Midwest or not being a believer?

 

[The T]

That's irrelevant to his post.
Or are you unable to see that as well?
And why shouldn't 14 year old girls and 95 yr olds get married?

Note that the op is trying the moral equivilence bullsqueeze?

It's all they have.
Men are like women. Gays are like normal people. Gays are like blacks pre civil rights. etc etc.
They cannot stand the argument on any merit whatsoever.

And that being GAY is not being black...GAY is not a race.

 

[Warrior102]

No. In fact, I would suggest that those civil marriage licenses are the best way to enforce proper morals and values by refusing these licenses to people who shouldn't be married to begin with.

Isn't it interesting how prisoners for murder can marry, 14 year girls in southern states can marry, 95 year olds can marry.


Isn't it interesting that The Rabbi neg reps me for this post AND says "So what?"




I guess his marriage license is safe then.

You're talking about "Southern States" peculiarities, and you're posting from California?

Wow.

That's rich.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you mean change it from civil marriage licenses to civil union licenses??

No, get government out of the marriage business altogether, like some here have been advocating for a while (funny when that started...but that's another story for another thread)

Wouldn't work.The Government has a vested interest in ensuring that there is a process for licensing unions. I advocate the elimination of "marriage" licenses and the creation of "civil union" licenses.

If someone wants to " marry" they make arrangements with a church or other religious organization.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

No. But the courts need to stay out of it, and the opinion of the people who vote on it need to be respected. New York did it right. California did it wrong, and the Government has more important things to deal with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the government shouldn't get out of marriage "all together". Who arbitrates a split of assets or custody in the event of a divorce, who enforces child support, who recognizes tax breaks and DNR orders?

If people want to merge their assets they should write a contract and iron out all the details in advance. If they then want to split those assets the courts have a contract to go buy if their is disagreement. That is how it works for everything but marriage, why is marriage special? That would also eliminate the tax breaks question, because the government would have no reason to punish people for getting married and still having the audacity to earn money.

I have no problem with the government eliminating the marriage credit (or single penalty) at all. The OP mentioned the talking point of "getting govt out of marriage all together", but like you showed and I agree, the courts would, and should, still be involved in the process of determining which party gets what. And the courts are part of government, so the talking point falls flat here.

That was just sloppy short-hand on my part for EOL decisions and hospital visitations. My understanding is that legally married spouses have greater visitation and decision rights than just family or friends. If civil union couples have the same hospital visitation rights as married couples, the point it moot.



Because I didn't want to open up the polygamy can of worms.

I'm biased to the first, because imo it fits with the 1stA. Whether or not the state wants to classify me and my future wife as a civil union on our 1040 or whatever is immaterial to me; it will still be a marriage in my mind.

Marriage and civil union should just be nothing more than a difference of semantics, with equal rights granted regardless, one legal one sentimental/religious. To me marriage has been about two adults loving each other enough to commit to sharing their lives and assets and decisions together, and, imo, the sex of both is and should be immaterial. I think it is just a matter of time.

If we get the government out of marriage it will not be restricting the rights of people based on their marital status. Doesn't that make more sense than trying to force the government to stop restricting some marriages, and still allow them to restrict others?

Well imo, the "get government out of marriage" is a cliche talking point that is too broad to apply to the real world. I have no problem with setting the parameters at two consensual adults, and if it's at multiple consensual adults I could live with that. But when people start talking about children and vegetables and toasters, that's where I draw the line. Consent, imo, is key when it comes to not only marriages, but any contract in general. Both parties need to have consent. Other than that, leave the sentiment of what marriage means up to the church/mosque/synogue/spaceship/etc

You make some good points.

The government only got into regulating marriage in the first place in order to tell some people they could not get married. I object to that on principle, but admit that the government should be able to define the age of consent, which is not really a marriage issue, and has an interest in making sure people who are too closely related do not produce children. Other than that, I see no reason for the government to restrict marriage at all.

 

[Trajan]

This is what you said, Sweetie:


Sorry if you got caught being WRONG. But I see you are afraid to vote in my poll....I'm not that terribly surprised, actually. People say things...but when it comes to actually making choices, even in an online poll, they chicken out.

Why would anyone "chicken out" of a poll on an internet forum?Many of us believe in God and the sanctity of marriage. If you don't - terrific. I, for one, could care less.

It's your opinion.

Marry a goat for all I care. Whatever trips your trigger.

An excellent question...but many seem to be afraid to actually vote....so you will have to ask them.

thats the third or forth time you have said that, I will vote IF you answer my question....

 

[arKangel]

Voted yes.

Marriage is a religious sacrament.
The government should never be allowed to usurp authority of the most intimate religious commitments.
Don't you pinko types always whine about "Seperation of Church and State"? Why is this sacrament an exception?


If private businessess wish to give certain discounts or rates to people who are recognized as married by religious institutuions, they should be able to do so - without government interference.

As far as taxes go... well there shouldn't be any federal taxes to begin with, which is a topic for another thread I guess

 

[Sactowndog]

How odd that all those saying that government should get out of the marriage business are not voting yes in this poll....or else are moving the goal posts.

I haven't moved the goal posts at all. You did to suit your own personnel agenda. My point has been consistent through both threads... But if you want to insure you don't receive any support even from those of us inclined to support you having equal rights keep playing those games.

 

[Moonglow]

if I vote yes will I still get a tax write off?

 

[Antiderivative]

Yes. Marriage is a social institution that predates religion and government.

Why do two (or more) people need the government or a God to tell them that they are married?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. Marriage is a social institution that predates religion and government.

Why do two (or more) people need the government or a God to tell them that they are married?

So why are homosexuals agitating for precisely that?

 

[bodecea]

Note that the op is trying the moral equivilence bullsqueeze?

It's all they have.
Men are like women. Gays are like normal people. Gays are like blacks pre civil rights. etc etc.
They cannot stand the argument on any merit whatsoever.

And that being GAY is not being black...GAY is not a race.

Discrimination does not only happen based on race.

 

[Si modo]

Do you mean change it from civil marriage licenses to civil union licenses??

No, get government out of the marriage business altogether, like some here have been advocating for a while (funny when that started...but that's another story for another thread)

I'm the opposite. I say NO marriage or union (contract) is recognizable by the state unless performed/sanctioned by the state. What I envision is it is like a contract being filed with the local court (as mortgages are, for example).

If a church leader performs a marriage, great, if that's what the couple wants and if the church of their choice agrees. But, the state can't recognize it until the state officially sanctions it.

I think it's an easy solution. For those who want the religious flavor of their contract and they feel that any marriages other than man+woman cheapens it and if their church agrees; then, go for it with that church. But, also get that civil marriage filed with the court for the legally binding part of their marriage.

But, if we eliminate civil marriage licenses, I'm good with that ONLY if they grandfather it and ONLY if they reimburse my divorce legal costs.

 

[Grace]

I'm not sure of the question. So I will just say what I think about it:

Gay couples who wish to be "married" should be allowed to do so with all the rights and perks associated with what "marriage" means. IF the term is what is making people freak out, then a civil union where gays have the same rights as heterosexuals...and leave the term "marry" out of it since it puts some panties in a wad.

In short, gays who wish to be partners for life (and even "divorce" if they choose) and have the same rights as man and woman in the same partnership, a resounding YES. They should have that right. Period.

Gays don't want "civil unions". They want people to accept their deviant lifestyle as normal. That is what this is all about.
We could easily craft "domestic partnership" laws that would take care of any actual problems. BUt you have not seen a homosexual on this site or anywhere else push for that.

Wrong. Some might want the term "marriage" to be applied but all the gay folks I know aren't trying to "push" anything on anyone. They want to be able to receive benefits if their partner dies; be able to go to the hospital and be with their partner without being shoved out the door because they are not "family"; keep what is theirs that they purchased AS partners without it being taken away by "next of kin" when one is deceased, etc etc etc. They want the same rights. I see no problem with that at all.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe the left is truly ignorant or they judge things on the basis of emotion. Here's a tip pirate head. All marriages are licensed by the government. That's why you need ....a license dummy.