Fine. But why not just get rid of state-sanctioned marriage altogether? I still do not understand why it is necessary for the state to intervene to declare people married at all.
I note Amorph's well-written and thoughtful intervention on the benefits of state marriage above, but I believe that all of the meaningful state support for couples with children can be provided quite apart from any state intervention to recognize the marriage itself.
I am a strong supporter of marriage, and of marriage as an institution that can be beneficial to the offspring that can arise as its consequence. But to me marriage is a pledge that I made to my wife (and, in my case, before God). I don't see what it added when I signed the register afterwards as "married". That did nothing extra for me in terms of my feelings about the marriage itself.
I agree Chinney that the state really shouldn't be as involved as they are with the institution of marriage. However the biggest reason they are is likely not because of marriage, but because of divorce or dealing with estates.
As you said who really cares who sanctifies or validates the marriage. However what happens when a church won't grant say, a no fault divorce, or deal with the custody issues.
I'll tell you what, I would fully support homosexual marriage today with no equivocation if we could get the government out of the business of ALL families, not just homosexual families. It would be much more interesting in my opinion to let people who are religiously married have to actually deal with a church when it comes to divorce.
Strangely enough, homosexuals are clammering for the institution that many heterosexual men are avoiding in droves due to the unfair treatment they get from family courts.
I know, I said "no one with a sane mind". I consider you sane. Reactionary and fearful, but sane.
Again, separate but equal is inherently unequal.
I don't know if you remember this, but I also advocated civil unions for HETEROSEXUAL couples as well.
So you have common-law couples, homosexual couples, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't want a religious connotation wtih regard to their union. I'd probably add anyone who doesn't believe in til' death do you part.
I'll tell you what, I would fully support homosexual marriage today with no equivocation if we could get the government out of the business of ALL families, not just homosexual families.
You *would* support something you seem to acknowledge is Constitutionally correct *if* something else happens.
There should be no "if" there at all.
It should read. "I fully support homosexual marriage with no equivocation. We should get the government out of the business of ALL families."
You *would* support something you seem to acknowledge is Constitutionally correct *if* something else happens.
There should be no "if" there at all.
It should read. "I fully support homosexual marriage with no equivocation. We should get the government out of the business of ALL families."
No I support something that is Constitutionally correct if it is applied to all people under the Constitution. Right now we have "selective" privacy rights regarding individuals. That is why you asked about polygamy. It hasn't been challenged but suppose it was and via some sort of twisted reasoning was not allowed. That wouldn't make sense via the prior reasoning.
A 12 year old girl has a right to an abortion because of privacy but cannot legally have the sex that created the abortion need. A 39 year old man doesn't have the right to have defaulted paternity payments removed even if he could prove he had a vasectomy during the time of the alleged parenting or even prove he had no sex at with the female party at all. If the government doesn't care that I have sex with a man, it shouldn't care that I didn't have it with a woman who cared to name me.
This has happened with men who haven't fathered children but have supported them while living with the woman for a period of time too. It is the government getting into the pocketbook via the bedroom.
Comments
Originally posted by Chinney
Fine. But why not just get rid of state-sanctioned marriage altogether? I still do not understand why it is necessary for the state to intervene to declare people married at all.
I note Amorph's well-written and thoughtful intervention on the benefits of state marriage above, but I believe that all of the meaningful state support for couples with children can be provided quite apart from any state intervention to recognize the marriage itself.
I am a strong supporter of marriage, and of marriage as an institution that can be beneficial to the offspring that can arise as its consequence. But to me marriage is a pledge that I made to my wife (and, in my case, before God). I don't see what it added when I signed the register afterwards as "married". That did nothing extra for me in terms of my feelings about the marriage itself.
I agree Chinney that the state really shouldn't be as involved as they are with the institution of marriage. However the biggest reason they are is likely not because of marriage, but because of divorce or dealing with estates.
As you said who really cares who sanctifies or validates the marriage. However what happens when a church won't grant say, a no fault divorce, or deal with the custody issues.
I'll tell you what, I would fully support homosexual marriage today with no equivocation if we could get the government out of the business of ALL families, not just homosexual families. It would be much more interesting in my opinion to let people who are religiously married have to actually deal with a church when it comes to divorce.
Strangely enough, homosexuals are clammering for the institution that many heterosexual men are avoiding in droves due to the unfair treatment they get from family courts.
Nick
Originally posted by 709
Or exaggerate aspects of the homosexual lifestyle.
Steven Cojocaru is an affront to gayness.
touche'
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
w00t!
Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
I know, I said "no one with a sane mind". I consider you sane. Reactionary and fearful, but sane.
Again, separate but equal is inherently unequal.
I don't know if you remember this, but I also advocated civil unions for HETEROSEXUAL couples as well.
So you have common-law couples, homosexual couples, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't want a religious connotation wtih regard to their union. I'd probably add anyone who doesn't believe in til' death do you part.
Nick
I'll tell you what, I would fully support homosexual marriage today with no equivocation if we could get the government out of the business of ALL families, not just homosexual families.
You *would* support something you seem to acknowledge is Constitutionally correct *if* something else happens.
There should be no "if" there at all.
It should read. "I fully support homosexual marriage with no equivocation. We should get the government out of the business of ALL families."
Originally posted by groverat
Here's the problem...
You *would* support something you seem to acknowledge is Constitutionally correct *if* something else happens.
There should be no "if" there at all.
It should read. "I fully support homosexual marriage with no equivocation. We should get the government out of the business of ALL families."
No I support something that is Constitutionally correct if it is applied to all people under the Constitution. Right now we have "selective" privacy rights regarding individuals. That is why you asked about polygamy. It hasn't been challenged but suppose it was and via some sort of twisted reasoning was not allowed. That wouldn't make sense via the prior reasoning.
A 12 year old girl has a right to an abortion because of privacy but cannot legally have the sex that created the abortion need. A 39 year old man doesn't have the right to have defaulted paternity payments removed even if he could prove he had a vasectomy during the time of the alleged parenting or even prove he had no sex at with the female party at all. If the government doesn't care that I have sex with a man, it shouldn't care that I didn't have it with a woman who cared to name me.
This has happened with men who haven't fathered children but have supported them while living with the woman for a period of time too. It is the government getting into the pocketbook via the bedroom.
Nick