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

Eric7216 · Jul 2, 2015

You are getting carried away by a number of strawman arguments. This whole episode has made me wonder why the government gives out special benefits for married couples. At one time, perhaps it made sense as most married couples produced children and it is good public policy to support families. However, as almost 50% of the adult population are unmarried, many for life and many couples remain child-less why should the government give the married people special benefits? We are still discriminating against the unmarried, many of whom are unmarried not by choice but by opportunity. We are contributing to inequality of income as wealthier people tend to marry wealthier people, doubling their income and giving them tax benefits.

The question is: Why should the government be involved in personal living arrangements? Why not return marriage to the way many want it and in which the benefit of marriage is their own value system, not governmental special rights? Anyone can marry. Just don't give the near minority who want to be married special rights.

tres borrachos · Jul 2, 2015

iliveonramen said:
"Waaaaahhhhhhh...since the gays can play I'm taking my toys and going home".

Nobody cares what that geriatric **** thinks.

I guess you aren't voting for any of the Democratic candidates, considering they're all older than this "geriatric". Or do you just suffer from acute bigotry against old Republican people?

Gaius46 · Jul 2, 2015

Henrin said:
You lose more income then you make back by one of the parents staying home. When you take into account there is cheap opinions someone could decide upon for child care and that cleaning can still be done free of any additional cost if both parents work, there isn't really much the woman is doing in terms of saving money.

What would lead you to think men are going to speak up when the woman wants to stay at home? He might voice his concerns, but when it comes right down to it if she wants to do it then more then likely he isn't going to even attempt to stop her. Society doesn't teach men it's their place to have much of any power or equal say in relationships, while it does tell women it's their place to assume control. If you haven't realized by now that women are in control over many things from the house to the children then you sir aren't paying attention.

Sure you do lose more income than you make back. I was merely talking about avoided expenses that reduce the cost of the decision and not suggesting that they made up 100% for lost income. For most decent jobs they don't.

My wife stayed home after our kids were born, giving up a career in finance because we both came from families with stay at home mothers and both felt - yes it was a joint decision and one I made without hesitation or qualification - that having the kids raised by their parents was the right thing to do. She stayed home simply because I was making more money and my earning potential was better. She could never go back into the job market in finance after all these years, though in our case it doesn't matter since she started a business in an unrelated field - she's a website designer and graphic artist - that brings in a decent income. She did control the house and finances for many years because, frankly, I was out of the house working and commuting 12-14 hours a day, everyday, often six days a week, and just didn't have the time or energy to be more than superficially involved in a lot of the home decision making. So I'd suggest that stay at home women often assume control because, at least in my experience, the working guy is too busy with earning a living. ( Feel free to reverse the genders if you don't like the way I laid it out. It's equally valid).

Eric7216 · Jul 2, 2015

iliveonramen said:
"Waaaaahhhhhhh...since the gays can play I'm taking my toys and going home".

Nobody cares what that geriatric **** thinks.

Don't you think that you are projecting your own biases?
The question to me has to do with why does the government care what your personal living arrangements are, or what your sexual persuasions are, and why should the government give out special benefits on the bases of those living arrangements/sexualities?
What possible concern does government have in this and why?
Perhaps it is only coming up now because it is so clear now how biased these government benefits are. The LGBT community is right-it is discriminatory to give these special benefits to some but simply giving them to a few percent more people doesn't make it less discriminatory. Many people today are single for life, by choice, by lack of opportunity, or by discriminatory laws that don't allow one to marry a sibling or other relative (platonically or not). Where do they go for relief from discrimination?

johndylan1 · 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?

If; as the supreme court has now ruled, marriage is about the autonomy to love who one chooses, It is a right of all people based on their need to live a dignified life and not a state sanctioned activity designed to promote the states interests, Then yes the state should not be involved in the licensing nor in the ceremonial aspect.

All legal matters arising from family unions can be handled via private contract. I would be for a plan where states provided standard legal forms for free download that anyone could fill out and submit for filing.

roguenuke · Jul 2, 2015

WorldWatcher said:
Why would you assume my response to "holy matrimony" would indicate that?

"Marriage" exists in two realms: Civil and Religious. Just because you choose to forgo a religious marriage doesn't invalidate your civil marriage.

>>>>

I agree, almost. Instead of "civil and religious" though, I'd say civil and personal. The personal level is where religious marriage resides, but not everyone has a religious marriage. Civil is about the benefits, rights, responsibilities, social recognition, and other such parts of marriage. Besides religious marriage, personal marriage includes the reasons why someone got married, how they feel about children as part of their marriage, and other things that are basically for the couple to decide to include or not in their marriage, at least to me.

roguenuke · Jul 2, 2015

Henrin said:
So really it mostly just comes down to cost and the amount of work needed to get what people want. I really don't think those are very strong reasons, sorry.

We refer to that as "being efficient". Most consider efficiency to be a good thing.

Henrin · Jul 2, 2015

roguenuke said:
We refer to that as "being efficient". Most consider efficiency to be a good thing.

Arguing to expand or maintain governments authority because you can't be arsed to write your own contracts or you don't want to spend a little coin is hardly convincing.

roguenuke · Jul 2, 2015

Eric7216 said:
You are getting carried away by a number of strawman arguments. This whole episode has made me wonder why the government gives out special benefits for married couples. At one time, perhaps it made sense as most married couples produced children and it is good public policy to support families. However, as almost 50% of the adult population are unmarried, many for life and many couples remain child-less why should the government give the married people special benefits? We are still discriminating against the unmarried, many of whom are unmarried not by choice but by opportunity. We are contributing to inequality of income as wealthier people tend to marry wealthier people, doubling their income and giving them tax benefits.

The question is: Why should the government be involved in personal living arrangements? Why not return marriage to the way many want it and in which the benefit of marriage is their own value system, not governmental special rights? Anyone can marry. Just don't give the near minority who want to be married special rights.

The government is involved in personal living arrangements because they are involved in recognition of legal kinship. Refer to birth certificates and adoptions. There is also the fact that people, in general, want the government involved in these personal relationships. The majority would not be happy with giving up marriage, especially not if they knew exactly what it meant to do this.

roguenuke · Jul 2, 2015

Henrin said:
Arguing to expand or maintain governments authority because you can't be arsed to write your own contracts or you don't want to spend a little coin is hardly convincing.

So give up efficiency just so people can work harder? The people want the government involved in this matter.

Henrin · Jul 2, 2015

roguenuke said:
So give up efficiency just so people can work harder? The people want the government involved in this matter.

I don't really care if the government is more efficient at doing something. I don't base government authority on efficiency and I see no reason to start doing it now. If people want certain terms added to their relationship they have all the power in the world to do it.

Lovebug · Jul 2, 2015

It depends on what marriage means to you. If it is just a contract, get a contract at the courthouse. If you enter a marriage for the basic biblical purpose, by all means, get it sanctioned by the church.

Wiggen · Jul 2, 2015

Moot said:
Too late, Steven King....

U.S. Episcopalians vote to let gay couples wed in churches | Reuters

Everybody knows Episcopalians aren't real Christians. For one thing, they've only been born once!:lamo

TheLastIndependent · Jul 2, 2015

As much as I dislike Rep King and his absurd defense of NSA spying, I agree with the action here. I truthfully don't care who gets married and who doesn't, it is none of my business, but I think "civil marriage" is a ridiculous idea. You can say it's about love all you want but if you need a title to be in love then you obviously don't know love. It's a legal issue, one that shouldn't exist. If a church wants to marry two people then that's fine; but, a legal household partnership should be nothing more than what it really is- a civil union. Civil unions, being done through the government, should then have an equal definition and be available to any consenting persons that apply

Lursa · Jul 2, 2015

roguenuke said:
The government is involved in personal living arrangements because they are involved in recognition of legal kinship. Refer to birth certificates and adoptions. There is also the fact that people, in general, want the government involved in these personal relationships. The majority would not be happy with giving up marriage, especially not if they knew exactly what it meant to do this.

Cant all that just be recorded in the courts, by magistrates, etc anyway? Stamped by a notary...boom! So noted. And now your kid can inherit your stuff, visit you in the hospital, be recognized legitimately in custody hearings, etc?

Peter Grimm · Jul 2, 2015

notquiteright said:
Ah the 'I have no one to play with so ya'll can't play' school of thought.

If you ever convince someone of equal or opposite sex to wed, you'll appreciate the tax bennies of marriage and dependents as a family isn't cheap to raise and wages rarely are boosted per child...

I'd wager a shiny nickel you'd be one of the first ones to decry removing the tax bennies if you did marry as you seem far more self centered than willing to understand something called the greater good.

Are you planning on staying single or is it a temporary condition you want the entire tax code to be changed for?

You can have tax benefits for getting married, but I want equal tax benefits for being single. There is no reason for inequality on this issue

Peter Grimm · Jul 2, 2015

Gaius46 said:
What about spouses who sacrifice their careers to raise children? Are they able to support themselves? A woman, or man for that matter, going back into the job market after caring for kids for a couple of decades is going to take a significant financial hit. Should that be uncompensated if a couple decides to split up?

Sorry, an adult human being doesn't need an allowance, allowances are for children.

Yes, someone who left the job market and gets a divorce should have to get a job to support themselves, of course.

Real Korimyr #9 · Jul 2, 2015

Peter Grimm said:
You can have tax benefits for getting married, but I want equal tax benefits for being single. There is no reason for inequality on this issue

Marriage is the foundation of civilized society and government has a compelling interest in encouraging it.

Peter Grimm · Jul 2, 2015

Korimyr the Rat said:
Marriage is the foundation of civilized society and government has a compelling interest in encouraging it.

Fine, it can encourage marriage I have no problem with that, but I want the same equal tax breaks that a married guy gets. There shouldn't be inequality on that issue.

I'm not saying take away tax benefits to married ppl, but I am saying give single ppl those same tax write offs

Real Korimyr #9 · Jul 2, 2015

Peter Grimm said:
Fine, it can encourage marriage I have no problem with that, but I want the same equal tax breaks that a married guy gets. There shouldn't be inequality on that issue.

I'm not saying take away tax benefits to married ppl, but I am saying give single ppl those same tax write offs

Then it's not a benefit for married couples and it doesn't encourage people to get married.

Peter Grimm · Jul 2, 2015

Korimyr the Rat said:
Then it's not a benefit for married couples and it doesn't encourage people to get married.

Sure it does, why wouldn't it?

And why do we need to encourage people to get married...aren't they encouraged by the thought of spending the rest of their lives each other?

WorldWatcher · Jul 2, 2015

Peter Grimm said:
Fine, it can encourage marriage I have no problem with that, but I want the same equal tax breaks that a married guy gets. There shouldn't be inequality on that issue.

I'm not saying take away tax benefits to married ppl, but I am saying give single ppl those same tax write offs

Can you provide an example of a specific tax break that a married couple (the married couple being two people of course) gets that is not available to a single person?

For example the deduction per person for the 2015 taxable year was $6,300, for married filing jointly it's $12,600 (x2 for two people).

Deductions for dependent children of course don't matter because the same deduction is available whether you are single or married.

>>>>

Real Korimyr #9 · Jul 2, 2015

Peter Grimm said:
Sure it does, why wouldn't it?

Because if single people get the same tax break, there's no difference between being single and being married. Therefore, it's not an incentive.

Peter Grimm · Jul 2, 2015

Korimyr the Rat said:
Because if single people get the same tax break, there's no difference between being single and being married. Therefore, it's not an incentive.

So really what you're saying is you want single ppl like me to pay higher taxes, right?

Real Korimyr #9 · Jul 2, 2015

Peter Grimm said:
So really what you're saying is you want single ppl like me to pay higher taxes, right?

Your grasp of basic logic continues to astound me. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: single people should pay higher taxes in order to encourage them to get married.

Try not to swallow your tongue while composing your reply.

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

Be humble and kind

Tenacious

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency