APP - damo, dixie and i agree

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children
 
DonQuixote said:
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children
Click to expand...

Removing the gov't from the entire marriage scene would be an excellent idea. Have marriage be a religious ceremony with no connection to any state or federal benefits. And have civil unions provide these benefits.
 
Nice of ya'll to avoid the actual topic and go straight for the ad hominem and ridicule.
 
DonQuixote said:
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children
Click to expand...

You are merely changing the name to civil unions. Semantics.
 
Jarod said:
You are merely changing the name to civil unions. Semantics.
Click to expand...
Nah, you can get married, you will just get it done in a church and if you want government "benefits" you can file the necessary contractual agreements.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, you can get married, you will just get it done in a church and if you want government "benefits" you can file the necessary contractual agreements.
Click to expand...

But how is that different than what you can get from the government now? Other than a name change?
 
Jarod said:
But how is that different than what you can get from the government now? Other than a name change?
Click to expand...

It removes the gov't from what is essentially a religious ceremony to many people.

It creates a separate entity for the gov't benefits, and thereby includes all.
 
Jarod said:
But how is that different than what you can get from the government now? Other than a name change?
Click to expand...
It limits the government to the contractual agreement rather than allowing them to regulate and thus support specific religious dogma through "marriage" licensing.

I think the divide is clear, and consistent with the intent of the 1st Amendment. The government shouldn't have a say in whom is "married", that is the realm of the religious.
 
Damocles said:
It limits the government to the contractual agreement rather than allowing them to regulate and thus support specific religious dogma through "marriage" licensing.
Click to expand...

So it would eliminate the license requirement?
 
Jarod said:
So it would eliminate the license requirement?
Click to expand...
Yes. Marriage is a religious institution and laws should not be made to support such an institution based on the the doctrine of the majority religion. Licensing of religious ceremonies is simply a power grab around the 1st Amendment to liegislate that people live according to the dogma of the majority belief system.
 
Jarod said:
Merely by changing the name?
Click to expand...

Actually, its a little more than just changing the name. The "civil union" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the gov't. It gives all the benefits that now exist for a marriage.

Marriage then becomes the religious version of that ceremony, with no gov't sponsored benefits.
 
Damocles said:
Yes. Marriage is a religious institution and laws should not be made to support such an institution based on the the doctrine of the majority religion. Licensing of religious ceremonies is simply a power grab around the 1st Amendment to liegislate that people live according to the dogma of the majority belief system.
Click to expand...



But you can get "married" in the eyes of the government without any religous componant, I did!
 
WinterBorn said:
Actually, its a little more than just changing the name. The "civil union" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the gov't. It gives all the benefits that now exist for a marriage.

Marriage then becomes the religious version of that ceremony, with no gov't sponsored benefits.
Click to expand...
I would say that the "civil union" is simply a contractual agreement entered into by lawfully consenting adults. The reality is such a union could benefit people who would never want a marriage, but want the assurance of linear inheritance. Imagine two sisters both widows living together at the end who want those benefits to go to their sister if either should go. They could hire lawyers and spend thousands, or they could become a "union"...
 
WinterBorn said:
Actually, its a little more than just changing the name. The "civil union" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the gov't. It gives all the benefits that now exist for a marriage.

Marriage then becomes the religious version of that ceremony, with no gov't sponsored benefits.
Click to expand...

We already have that, its just called the same thing.

I got "married" with no involvement of a church what so ever!

If I had chosen I could have gotten "married" in a church only, with no benefit of the government.
 
DonQuixote said:
that the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to religions

what we have called marriage should be changed to civil unions or contracts

however, the government has an interest in the protection of children so laws regarding marriage may need to be applied to civil unions involving property and/or children
Click to expand...

The institution of marriage as a legal construct is embedded in literally thousands of laws, regulations, and policies, from tax law, to estate law, to custody and family law. That crap is embedded in both federal law and the patchwork of laws in 50 states. Not to mention the civil/legal institution of marriage is entrenched in the corporate policies of tens of thousands of businesses in their benefits packages, their retirement packages, and company policies.

There’s no plausible way, and there certainly is no motivation to change all that. On an institutional and legislative scale it would be a mind-boggling and unbelievably massive and complex effort to change literally hundreds of thousands of laws, regulations, policies, and company guidelines. The magnitude of the effort is isn’t worth it, and outside of some message board posters and some armchair policy wonks, there simply is no need or political motivation to do this. In short, this is never going to happen and a Christian Taliban like Dixie knows it.

It’s mental masturbation. It’s not going to happen in the real world.

Here’s a tip: When a rightwinger like Dixie says he’s in favor of changing from marriage to civil unions in a civil context, he knows it’s never going to happen. But, it allows him to appear empathetic to gays, while still opposing gay marriage. It’s a win-win for Dixie. The semi-sane rightwing is increasingly embarrassed by their Christian Taliban ideology (at least in public), and this is an easy way to pretend to be supportive of gay rights, while fundamentally continuing to oppose any realistic attempts to expand gay rights in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
But you can get "married" in the eyes of the government without any religous componant, I did!
Click to expand...
However traditionally licensing for marriages were regulated solely by the churches. It wasn't until the mid-1800s, in order to make laws against inter-racial marriage, that licensing by the government even appeared at all in the US. Previous to that you can find licenses issued by the churches, but no government entity in the US.

Licensing appeared in about the year 1200 or so, by the Church, but it wasn't applied regularly and the church recognized the marriages of people if they said they exchanged vows with or without its license or even a Priest.

Common law "marriage" was recognized for those who wished to simply say they were "married"...

Nowadays only 10 states recognize common law marriage, "marriage" is seen as a money maker as they collect fees for the licenses and it is used to support the dogma of the majority religion.

Again this would make it so that no benefit was tied to the religious ceremony of "marriage" if you wanted to get married you would go to a church, if you wanted the benefits of a union you would have to file the contractual agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top