Republican Steve King wants an abolish civil marriage in the United States

SmokeAndMirrors · Jul 2, 2015

Peter King said:
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.

Representative Steve King says:

"So I'm calling upon the states, just abolish civil marriage, let's go back to holy matrimony the way it began, do that alone,". "In the next few days I'll be introducing legislation to do just that."

So what do we think? In a nation that is getting less religious, he wants to abolish the right of people to have a civil marriage purely because he wants to stop gays from marrying.

Here are a few problems with what he proposes (IMHO)

1. how is this going to play with the supreme court by discriminating against non-religious people who would be unable to marry anymore due to this fool's possible proposal

2. and this is a biggie some priests do marry gays and lesbians in a holy matrimony!!!!!!!!!!. So his big plan to make gay marriage impossible is in fact achieving nothing. He is just making a total ass of himself.

3. the republican party does at some time want another president from their party in the white house because attitudes like this will not go down well with the voters (who are largely in favor of gay marriage).

Steve King also said: "It's not the will of the people to have same sex marriage, now there's no point in having civil marriage in this country whatsoever,".

He does have internet right? He does know that the opinion polls show that a big majority of Americans support gay marriage? Or is he just totally out of touch with reality?

But here is the question, do you agree with republican Steve King, civil marriage has to be abolished in the US in favor of holy matrimony only?

I do mostly agree with him, but not because of his homophobic nonsense. I have been involved with helping the cause of SSM. But only because it's the only way, in our current system, for same-sex couples to access all of their family and financial rights.

It should never have been this way in the first place. Marriage was a purely social institution in America initially. And why did it change?

So the government could ban interracial marriage, and cut off access to familial rights for these couples. That's why.

Government marriage has been an institution of bigotry since its inception. It was created for the sole purpose of crippling families that the government and society disagreed with. It should be abolished, and legal agreements that strengthen families completely separated from marital status (which is a purely self-assigned social designation, not any more dependent upon religion than it is upon government -- and that is where I disagree with him).

People should have absolutely free access to assign their familial and financial rights to whomever they please -- even non-romantic partners, or different rights to different partners. It is THEIR family, and neither the government nor popular opinion have any business assigning themselves the role of judge and jury of whether other people's families are allowed to exist.

tres borrachos · Jul 2, 2015

What exactly is "holy matrimony"?

WorldWatcher · Jul 2, 2015

tres borrachos said:
What exactly is "holy matrimony"?

The marriage of two people blessed by a religious organization. The specifics vary depending on the religious organization involved.

Some organizations bless only one man and one woman - for them that is "holy matrimony".

Other organizations bless one man & one woman, one man & one man, one woman & one woman - for them that is "holy matrimony".

Other organizations bless one man and multiple women - for them that is "holy matrimony".

>>>>

Ockham · Jul 2, 2015

Government should get out of marriage period.

WorldWatcher · Jul 2, 2015

Ockham said:
Government should get out of marriage period.

Make that case to different-sex couples.

Make sure to tell them that:

1. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no joint income tax filing which often reduces taxes.

2. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no Social Security survivor benefits where a non-working spouse (since there would be no legal spouses) is able to draw on their spouses social security once that spouse passes.

3. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no tax free transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no legal spouse).

4. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no automatic legal next of kin status for emergency medical decisions by the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) absent a medical power of attorney.

5. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no assumed parentage by the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) when a woman give birth to a child meaning the spouse would have to spend hundreds and even thousands of $$$ to adopt their own child.

6. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage, different-sex couples where the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) is on the other employer health insurance would be operating under the same tax rules as same-sex couples without legal marriage recognition. That being, the employer portion of health insurance above the amount contributed for the "employee only" coverage is treated as taxable income for the employee who then has to pay extra taxes.

7. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no spousal travel (since their would be no legal spouse) for the husbands and wives of service members who are ordered by the government to relocate their residence either somewhere else in the US or Overseas (unlike civilians military members can't just quit their job) and no medical coverage for spouses of military members.

Well those are few off the top of my head, ya - go ahead and make the case for the elimination of government recognition of marriage.

Have fun.

>>>>

Wiggen · Jul 2, 2015

Peter King said:
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.

Representative Steve King says:

"So I'm calling upon the states, just abolish civil marriage, let's go back to holy matrimony the way it began, do that alone,". "In the next few days I'll be introducing legislation to do just that."

So what do we think? In a nation that is getting less religious, he wants to abolish the right of people to have a civil marriage purely because he wants to stop gays from marrying.

Here are a few problems with what he proposes (IMHO)

1. how is this going to play with the supreme court by discriminating against non-religious people who would be unable to marry anymore due to this fool's possible proposal

2. and this is a biggie some priests do marry gays and lesbians in a holy matrimony!!!!!!!!!!. So his big plan to make gay marriage impossible is in fact achieving nothing. He is just making a total ass of himself.

3. the republican party does at some time want another president from their party in the white house because attitudes like this will not go down well with the voters (who are largely in favor of gay marriage).

Steve King also said: "It's not the will of the people to have same sex marriage, now there's no point in having civil marriage in this country whatsoever,".

He does have internet right? He does know that the opinion polls show that a big majority of Americans support gay marriage? Or is he just totally out of touch with reality?

But here is the question, do you agree with republican Steve King, civil marriage has to be abolished in the US in favor of holy matrimony only?

I hear he also wants to burn witches in the town square. The guy is a loon.

faithful_servant · Jul 2, 2015

Just separate the two. If you want to enter into a "Covenant Marriage" (a religion based marriage), you can do so, but it in no way reflects any legal arrangement, it's simply a covenant between two people based on their religious beliefs and neither the gov't nor any other entity is required to accept it as having any legal standing. If you want to have a civil partnership (a legal structure that grants specific rights and demand specific responsibilities from both parties), then do so. Kind of like a pre-nuptial agreement on steroids that gov'ts and other legal entities are required to recognize. Set legal standards for what a civil partnership means and leave it at that.

Ockham · Jul 2, 2015

WorldWatcher said:
Make that case to different-sex couples.

Make sure to tell them that:

1. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no joint income tax filing which often reduces taxes.

2. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no Social Security survivor benefits where a non-working spouse (since there would be no legal spouses) is able to draw on their spouses social security once that spouse passes.

3. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no tax free transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no legal spouse).

4. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no automatic legal next of kin status for emergency medical decisions by the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) absent a medical power of attorney.

5. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no assumed parentage by the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) when a woman give birth to a child meaning the spouse would have to spend hundreds and even thousands of $$$ to adopt their own child.

6. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage, different-sex couples where the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) is on the other employer health insurance would be operating under the same tax rules as same-sex couples without legal marriage recognition. That being, the employer portion of health insurance above the amount contributed for the "employee only" coverage is treated as taxable income for the employee who then has to pay extra taxes.

7. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no spousal travel (since their would be no legal spouse) for the husbands and wives of service members who are ordered by the government to relocate their residence either somewhere else in the US or Overseas (unlike civilians military members can't just quit their job) and no medical coverage for spouses of military members.

Well those are few off the top of my head, ya - go ahead and make the case for the elimination of government recognition of marriage.

Have fun.

>>>>

I'd love to still.

Manc Skipper · Jul 2, 2015

Does this idiot know that every marriage has civil ramifications, and that most states require all marriage officiators to be civilly registered, including those of a religious bent? A church wedding is a civil marriage with religious optional extras.

roguenuke · Jul 2, 2015

Beaudreaux said:
I wish you were correct. Unfortunately, they do, because of children that are produced in the marriage and not everyone is honorable enough to take care of their kids.

And that's just one of many reasons why marriage is seen as a civil contract, and why even Martin Luther understood it needed to be so.

It's not just the children in marriage. Some marriages involve some sacrifice on the part of one spouse in order to benefit the job of the other spouse, which usually involves not being able to get skills or education that makes the spouse unable to actually get a job they can live off of in our economy. It should be used in very limited situations, but that doesn't mean it is something that is completely outdated. Relationships with power differences, huge differences in earning potential do still exist.

WorldWatcher · Jul 2, 2015

Manc Skipper said:
Does this idiot know that every marriage has civil ramifications, and that most states require all marriage officiators to be civilly registered, including those of a religious bent? A church wedding is a civil marriage with religious optional extras.

Don't think so.

Seems more like latching onto a talking point without thinking through the ramifications.

>>>>

cAPSLOCK · Jul 2, 2015

lursa said:
i voted: "no, because people should be free to also have no religion and be able to marry" but that's only because that's pretty much the current situation and expectation.

But basically i dont believe the govt should be involved in marriage at all and should not confer any benefits or privileges.

dingdingdingdingding!

Lursa · Jul 2, 2015

WorldWatcher said:
Make that case to different-sex couples.

Make sure to tell them that:

1. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no joint income tax filing which often reduces taxes.

2. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no Social Security survivor benefits where a non-working spouse (since there would be no legal spouses) is able to draw on their spouses social security once that spouse passes.

3. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no tax free transfer of property to a spouse (since there would be no legal spouse).

4. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no automatic legal next of kin status for emergency medical decisions by the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) absent a medical power of attorney.

5. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no assumed parentage by the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) when a woman give birth to a child meaning the spouse would have to spend hundreds and even thousands of $$$ to adopt their own child.

6. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage, different-sex couples where the spouse (since there would be no legal spouse) is on the other employer health insurance would be operating under the same tax rules as same-sex couples without legal marriage recognition. That being, the employer portion of health insurance above the amount contributed for the "employee only" coverage is treated as taxable income for the employee who then has to pay extra taxes.

7. With no government recognition of Civil Marriage there will be no spousal travel (since their would be no legal spouse) for the husbands and wives of service members who are ordered by the government to relocate their residence either somewhere else in the US or Overseas (unlike civilians military members can't just quit their job) and no medical coverage for spouses of military members.

Well those are few off the top of my head, ya - go ahead and make the case for the elimination of government recognition of marriage.

Have fun.

>>>>

I dont care. If a couple wanted those things, they could enlist a lawyer to work it out for them. Most of them anyway. I'm single and dont get the the tax breaks, etc.

But yes, govt involvement in marriage is here to stay and I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Peter King · Jul 2, 2015

WorldWatcher said:
Limiting Civil Marriage to being based on only recognizing ceremonies performed by religious organizations will not stop gays from getting married.

Churches and other religious organizations have been marrying same-sex couples for decades.

It would violate the constitution though because it would exclude atheist from being able to enter in to the same legal relationship.

>>>>

You are right, that is exactly why I said it in the posting I started this thread with, in a country that "looses it's religion" more and more, only honoring religious weddings would make it impossible for atheists/agnostics to marry.

Peter King · Jul 2, 2015

Ockham said:
Government should get out of marriage period.

No, it should not. Everybody has the right to marry, including non-religious people.

Ockham · Jul 2, 2015

Peter King said:
No, it should not. Everybody has the right to marry, including non-religious people.

I'm not saying people don't have a right to marry, I'm saying government shouldn't sanction marriage nor profit from it.

Lursa · Jul 2, 2015

Peter King said:
No, it should not. Everybody has the right to marry, including non-religious people.

"Marriage" existed before governments and can exist without it.

roguenuke · Jul 2, 2015

Lursa said:
"Marriage" existed before governments and can exist without it.

It can exist without it, but it would cause legal troubles for many people, cost people more, and be less efficient at protecting people in these relationships, as well as cause some issues with placing responsibilities for things that marriage puts those responsibilities on spouses about.

Lursa · Jul 2, 2015

roguenuke said:
It can exist without it, but it would cause legal troubles for many people, cost people more, and be less efficient at protecting people in these relationships, as well as cause some issues with placing responsibilities for things that marriage puts those responsibilities on spouses about.

I dont really care. Maybe if people had to take more effort in legitimizing their relationships with the law, paying for what they need instead of feeling entitled to them, they might think twice before 'marrying.'

But I dont expect it to change and am not losing any sleep over it.

tres borrachos · Jul 2, 2015

WorldWatcher said:
The marriage of two people blessed by a religious organization. The specifics vary depending on the religious organization involved.

Some organizations bless only one man and one woman - for them that is "holy matrimony".

Other organizations bless one man & one woman, one man & one man, one woman & one woman - for them that is "holy matrimony".

Other organizations bless one man and multiple women - for them that is "holy matrimony".

>>>>

I was married in a country club by the mayor of the town. Does that mean I'm not really married?

Lursa · Jul 2, 2015

tres borrachos said:
I was married in a country club by the mayor of the town. Does that mean I'm not really married?

It means that if you both dont maintain your golf handicaps, they'll annul your marriage.

tres borrachos · Jul 2, 2015

Lursa said:
It means that if you both dont maintain your golf handicaps, they'll annul your marriage.

I missed you, girlfriend. :mrgreen:

Lursa · Jul 2, 2015

tres borrachos said:
I missed you, girlfriend. :mrgreen:

Ha, I bet I'm not the only one that would love to see horses turned out on every golf course!

tres borrachos · Jul 2, 2015

Lursa said:
Ha, I bet I'm not the only one that would love to see horses turned out on every golf course!

Definitely not.

Beaudreaux · Jul 2, 2015

Lursa said:
Alimony may be outdated today *in some cases* but in the past it protected families....because it was usually the man that cheated on the woman and back then, women often didnt have careers. So they dumped the families and the families had no means of support. Of course there were exceptions but in general, it's true. Even if she cheated, they still took the kids into account and the need for support for a mortgage or rent. And if she went out to find work, then childcare.

Very true. Back then. Although things haven't corrected completely, they are much better than back then.

Republican Steve King wants an abolish civil marriage in the United States

should civil marriage be aboloshed in favor of holy matrimony only?

Yes, because it will stop gay marriage

Yes, because everybody in the US should be part of a religion

Yes, because most people in the US do not want there to be gay marriage

Yes, because there should never have been civil marriage in the first place

No, because gays can also get married in some churches

No, because people should be free to also have no religion and be able to marry

No, because most people support gay marriage

No, because it is right that there is something like civil marriage

I don't care, I am already married and I do not plan to re-marry

I am unmarried and will never marry, I hate being shackled to some man/woman

HoHoHo

Noblesse oblige

Noblesse oblige

Wrinkly member

Tenacious

Noblesse oblige

Tenacious

Tenacious

HoHoHo

Tenacious

HoHoHo

Tenacious

HoHoHo

Preserve Protect Defend

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency