- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
The only reason it's currently impractical is because we've been sticking government into marriage for so long. I do agree with you that under our current framework, it is impractical. But that framework can be changed at any time, and there are ways to streamline or or broaden its useage.
What if I want to assign some of those rights to a close friend, rather than a lover? What if I'd like to assign them to mutliple people for whatever reason? The only reason that's impractical is because it is currently only streamlined to work within marriage, and trying to do it outside marriage is extremely expensive. But we can change that any time we like, and whenever society is ready. The red tape doesn't have to be there.
It would be entirely unrealistic for government to get out of marriage entirely. There are inheritance disputes, child custody issues, splitting assets in divorces, joint credit issues... all sorts of property and financial problems to sort out from marriage that courts are pretty well required for. Where there is ownership involved, there will need to be government involvement to help sort it out.
Secondly, the courts are ruling left and right that preventing two consenting adults from marrying is unconstitutional, so the scenario in the OP is unlikely to happen. SSM is 100% about civil rights. If marriage is a right, then it is a right that must be applied equally to everyone. There is absolutely no way around this. It has nothing to do with pushing an agenda, it has nothing to do with pandering to get votes, it has nothing to do with indoctrinating children, it has nothing to do with making being gay "cool". It's about equal rights. Period.
I see no reason for polyamory (thanks MistressNomad for the clarification between this and polygamy) to be illegal. It's complicated, in terms of inheritance and all those other issues I mentioned above, since it more resembles a corporation than a partnership, but it's not impossible to sort out. Again, these are consenting adults. The slippery slope fallacy about children and animals does not apply, since they are not legally able to enter into contracts, and thus cannot marry anyone. However, this discussion is not about any form of marriage besides SSM. There is no "if SSM is okay, then others have to be okay, too". It is an invalid argument.
Marriage is not a religious institution. It's not even a human institution. Many animals pair off, and do so for life. No single culture or religion can lay claim to marriage as its own. It has been a part of many (if not all) cultures that have existed throughout history in this world. To state that marriage is the sole providence of Christianity is ignorant and arrogant. Many Americans do not believe what some Christians in this country believe, and it is wrong to attempt to force us to comply with your beliefs. And NO, it is not the same in reverse. To prevent you from living how you wish would be to infringe on your religious rights, not to prevent you from stopping others from living how they wish. If you cannot handle that your neighbors do not believe as you do, then you have no place in the United States, a land where everyone is free to pursue whatever theological beliefs they choose.
These are my thoughts on what has been discussed in this thread.
Only technically can "that framework can be changed at any time". Yes single people should "assign some of those rights to a close friend"; but, they don't. People will continue to be stupid, but they can be assisted in making reasonable contracts at a very low cost to society compared to not assisting. I'm not suggesting taking rights away or having the government involved in marriage. Just adding options in a 'suggested contract' for marriage. This might be doable sooner. The red tape is not in the way, it’s actually a simple enabler. Red tape is requiring people to find a private lawyer to do it then having to take unique contracts with you at all times. Otherwise we agree, that happens so seldom to me. thx
I've asked this question before in other threads: What happens if gay marriage passes in a state and ministers in that state refuse to perform the ceremony. Do they violate the ministers First Amendment Rights and make it mandatory that they perform the ceremony or strip them of their ministerial license, or do they put a special provision in the law that allow's the minister to refuse. You know that many ministers are going to refuse to perform the ceremony. I'm thinking about putting a poll up to see what reaction I get to the question.
So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?
True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.
I've asked this question before in other threads: What happens if gay marriage passes in a state and ministers in that state refuse to perform the ceremony. Do they violate the ministers First Amendment Rights and make it mandatory that they perform the ceremony or strip them of their ministerial license, or do they put a special provision in the law that allow's the minister to refuse. You know that many ministers are going to refuse to perform the ceremony. I'm thinking about putting a poll up to see what reaction I get to the question.
True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.
True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.
No law against interracial marriage is enforceable.
Straw man. There is no liberal agenda to force churches to do any such thing. Why do you think there is no push to force Catholics to allow female priests?
The Right has gotten some flack for wanting a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But the GLBT community definitely has a dogmatic definition of marriage in mind as well. It is a social contract between two consenting adults. Even the mention of Polygamy just angers the pro-gay marriage crowd.
So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?
You apparently haven't heard the latest about St. Xavier University. The NLRB is trying to Unionize them because they are not "Catholic enough."
No way. Because I believe gays want one main thing. Normalcy. And in order to get it, they need SSM, and once they get that, they're going to demand that churches perform SS marriage ceremonies.
And then, us liberals are going to make it illegal to not be gay, and then there won't be any more kids, and then the US will die, and then the terrorists will get our nuclear weapons, and then the world will end. That is our plot, oh yes. How clever of you to figure it out.
Actually, you just came up with that, since you typed it out,
One kind of amendment falls in line with what our constitution represents, one is so vilely against its very purpose that it disgusts me to be on the same side ideologically as the people trying to push it.
No, I wouldn't support a Constitutional marriage amendment that forced gay marriage to be legal. States issue marriage licenses. The federal government should tell the states how they need to issue out licenses or who can qualify for one. It's a states rights issue, not a federal one. I support the rights of states to define marriage according to the morality of the populace who votes. That right should not be denied.
True, but with the liberal agenda the way it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they didn't try to force it on them. Of course there are ministers who refuse to perform a second wedding ceremony after ther first marriage ended in divorce as well. Oddly enough, in Kentucky (unless they have changed the law since I moved from there) interracial marriage is still illegal.
The Right has gotten some flack for wanting a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But the GLBT community definitely has a dogmatic definition of marriage in mind as well. It is a social contract between two consenting adults. Even the mention of Polygamy just angers the pro-gay marriage crowd.
So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?
The state handles contractual disputes. God has nothing to do with it.
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?