- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,033
- Reaction score
- 19,492
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Actually there are only certain legal documents that grant kinship recognition, and those are all controlled in some way by the government.
I've noticed that you keep not answering the question. but what is the state's purpose in acknowledging a marriage?
What is the state's purpose in acknowledging a marriage?
I've answered it. To make things easier, more efficient under laws. To make things fair and protect those we want viewed as our family legally.
So you said there were unequivocal differences and you can't name any from a legal perspective. Don't worry, I've been asking that same question for about a decade and not once has anyone been able to provide a sound legal reasoning as to why homosexuals should be discriminated against. Those that even try fall back on religion, tradition, or procreation as you did.
Don't try to put words in my mouth okay? No where did I say that procreation was not a benefit to society.
Allowing gays to Civilly Marry doesn't mean that we as straights are going to stop getting married and/or having kids - if you believe that you're being obtuse.
On the other hand there are a large number of same-sex households (about 25% of them) are raising children (84% of those raising children biologically related to an adult in the household) and that those households deserve the same stability factors that Civil Marriage extends.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2010 census homosexual parents
>>>>
To facilitate legal relationships as desired by the people. How could someone not know this?
To make what things more easy and efficient?
That isn't a valid purpose for the state,
Absolutely nothing. Marriage in no way helps property, contract or equity and trust law. You're totally right, jmotivator. Since civil marriage does not help define legal relationships between people, we should totally ban gay marriage.To make what things more easy and efficient?
Purposefully obtuse.To facilitate legal relationships as desired by the people. How could someone not know this?
Purposefully obtuse.
Dealing with end of life decisions, property, especially when it was earned during a longterm relationship, or is so entwined that it would be difficult to separate. Dealing with who gets to make certain decisions when people don't otherwise designate someone to do this (which we're human, it happens). Name a responsible party for your expenses because you agreed to them on paper. Recognize the fact that people in relationships share expenses. So much more. Recognize that there are times when people need help because they agreed to take care of another person. These are all made easier with marriage. In the past, people simply trusted, but that won't work now.
Absolutely nothing. Marriage in no way helps property, contract or equity and trust law. You're totally right, jmotivator. Since civil marriage does not help define legal relationships between people, we should totally ban gay marriage [/sarcasm]
Of course it is. People wish to enter into legally binding relationships. It's a matter of contract facilitation.
But no, marriage is a different kind of relationship than the relationship between a fisherman and a fishmonger.
It sounds so romantic when you say it.
Under rational basis review, there is no requirement that the law be narrowly tailored, so this really isn't a problem.The problem is that banning same-sex marriage in no way furthers this interest.
One can appreciate the ruling which in effect says that courts should interpret law established by legislatures and not establish law from the bench.
That said, I'm incredibly tired of the whole debate. I don't give a rat's ass about who marries whom and how they want to do it. Get the government out of this mess and let people live their own lives as they see fit - want a church/religious marriage, find a church to marry you - want a civil marriage, visit a lawyer, create a contract, sign off on it and you're done.
Government is far too intrusive in the personal lives of citizens and this nonsense is a prime example of it.
Not as easily workable as simply having marriage.
Of course it is. People wish to enter into legally binding relationships. It's a matter of contract facilitation.
Changing your deed to your house to include another person for example is not an overly hard process.
I agree the government should stay out of it. However, "We the People" are the government and many of WE said NO to SSM.
When they're sitting on the U.S.Supreme Court.
Well, I appreciate the sentiment, but if the government wasn't in the marriage business, whomever I or you marry would be none of the "We the People's" business.
Yep, if the gays weren't insistent on redefining marriage, "We the People" wouldn't feel the need to pass laws to stop it.
Not true.. In the state of Michigan we amended our.state constitution to ban SMM and it's been forced on the citizenry by bullies in black robes. The same tyranny happened in California of all places. The people of Liberal California DID NOT WANT SSM.. FACT. So if the majority of citizens are so in favor of thisAs time moves on law in the USA changes to reflect the will of the people.
Right now most people in the USA support SSM.
How is that a valid purpose of the state?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?