Marriage poll

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I favor having all civil involvement in marriage, that is permissions, permits, licenses, benefits, taxes, insurance and recognition of any sort, eliminated.

I'm wondering how others feel.

28 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Sounds okay
	7 (25%)
	Hate the idea
	21 (75%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[XemaSab]

1. So people who are married would no longer be legally related?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. In the dictionary sense...

...of the word, if you live together, share common goals and/or beliefs, share children or property then you are "related".
There would however not be a sense of legal union by marriage. If you belong to a religion which includes marriage there's no problem but this is outside of legal, civic and government control.

Marry a person of same sex, marry 3 legged horse if you like. It's none of my business.

[xchrom]

2. If I understand the question: not gonna happen. Nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. I kind of figured that. n/t

[Permanut]

3. As heard on Thom Hartmann...

Marriage is actually a civil contract; try getting a divorce in a church.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. marriage began as...

...a religious institution when religious institutions frequently ran governments.

[xchrom]

7. But it's a civil contract NOW.

Even the state marries people - that's a 'marriage' not a civil union.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Yes...

I just favor eliminating it as a government controlled, sanctioned... institution.

[etherealtruth]

21. I favor it if it is not for all consenting adults.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. I not clear...

...on what you favor.

[etherealtruth]

32. I favor [your response] ... with my caveat

"I just favor eliminating it as a government controlled, sanctioned... institution..." if it is not for all consenting adults

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Thanks

Since it isn't currently (for all consenting adults) I feel that it is simpler to eliminate the civil institution than fix the laws everywhere. I also think other benefits will come from de-governmentizing marriage.

[jeff47]

145. No, it didn't.

Marriage was a transfer of property. Specifically, a woman and her dowry. This predates things like Christianity.

It became a religious institution as a means to keep that woman in line.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

147. What's your point?

[jeff47]

148. My point is that your claim is wrong

You claim marriage is a religious institution. This is wrong because marriage predates all modern religions. Thus it's silly to let modern religions dictate what marriage is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

151. Very true...

...but no sillier than letting government dictate what it is.

[jeff47]

155. Someone has to record them.

Otherwise, you have no way to prove you're married.

Option 1: Government does it for $20-60.
Option 2: Private attorney must prepare documents, which must be notarized. Cost >$150. Plus you'll have to store said documents in a safe place, so tack on a few hundred for your own fireproof safe, or about $10/mo for safety deposit rental.

Yeah, that private method is about as good idea as private health insurance.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

156. It's been 30 years...

...I have yet to have need to prove I'm married.

[jeff47]

162. And I've had to do so multiple times

Health insurance companies don't just take your word for it.

You'd also need to prove it if you want a divorce, or if your spouse claimed you aren't married for whatever reason. You would probably need it for more extreme medical decisions on an unconscious spouse, like a DNR.

Your argument is similar to this one: I've never broken my arm, so arm casts are clearly not necessary for anyone. The fact that you haven't doesn't mean nobody has.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

163. My point isn't...

...no one needs to. My point is no one should need to.

[jeff47]

164. Ok, you're unconscious in the hospital.

I walk in, claim we're married, and order them to stop trying to save your life. Once you die, I demand all your assets as your spouse. Your actual spouse? Bah, I've got just as strong a claim, since there's no proof.

In the real world, people lie. That's why we created birth, death, and marriage certificates.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

165. Shame on my spouse...

...(and me) for not handling these details. Besides, my insurance company knows who my spouse is.

[Bluenorthwest]

177. So did your insurance company find out who your spouse is using telepathy?

They just 'know'? No, you told them, and they checked your voracity against other records. Sheesh.

[Bluenorthwest]

176. That's because it is automatic, kid.

Do you file a joint return? Of course. So you understand that on the form, you swear under penalty of perjury that your form is honest, you swear that you are married? If their records did not match yours, you would be asked to prove it. If you can not, then you committed a crime. Think about it straight boy. If I filed jointly with my partner, do you think that would work? Or would they say 'you are not married'? Think it through, you are part of the problem, not even aware of your own damn life and your own advantages. Makes me sick.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

183. I didn't say...

that no one check it out. I just said that I haven't been asked to prove it.

"...you are part of the problem.." How exactly?

[CreekDog]

208. you're part of the problem because when the LGBT community was about to gain marriage rights

you leaped to post that all benefits of marriage should be taken away.

and you claimed to be just saying, when in fact, it was all quite calculated and understood on your part.

take it as a compliment that i credit you with more intelligence than empathy.

[MNBrewer]

189. Marriage may predate all modern religions, but superstition has probably been around even longer

and by superstition, i mean religion.

[jeff47]

200. Except the anti-"Gay Marriage" people are basing it on Christianity.

So the fact that ancient Egyptians worshiped Aton really doesn't matter for their clams.

[cynatnite]

9. This is what I don't like...

People making these decisions for me. I get told what marriage is no matter what I think it should be to me and my SO. I like being married and it pisses me off that anyone thinks they have a right to make judgments on that. That is why I'm an over-the-top advocate for marriage equality.

The bottom line is that if two people want to get married, they should be able to. Period.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. so then...

...why favor government control of marriage?

[cynatnite]

14. I'm not saying that...

There are laws in place for things like polygamy, inter-family marriage and children that forbids marriage in these situations. I do not advocate lifting those restrictions. Are you in favor of lifting the laws regarding these?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. In a word...

...yes. There are polygamists in the US and I don't necessarily think that polygamy makes them evil. Not that it's for me but if they have an arrangement that works, fine by me. Having children with a close relation is a really bad idea but that only requires sex, which in most places is still legal for adults.

Trying to legislate common sense to those who lack it is usually a waste of money, time and attention.

[cynatnite]

26. This is one time when it should be legislated..

There are too many examples of abuse and oppression. Remember Warren Jessup? The LDS nutjob that was marrying off young girls to old men. He has 31 children himself.

You can trust the vast majority to have common sense in regards to marriage. For those who don't, who want to oppress and abuse so they can control and get their rocks off, it should be illegal so that they will get their just due.

It is not a waste of time or money. I gladly support legislating marriage in these instances because it is immoral and criminal.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. nutjobs

AFAIK, all of that crap Jessup did was illegal. He did it anyway. Having sex with minors is now and should remain against the law.

It will remain immoral for a man is his 50s (like me) to be having sex with a minor. That ought to remain a crime.

[cynatnite]

33. Agreed. I just did a bit of reading on polygamy...

I don't know enough about polygamy or anyone who practices it to say whether a healthy relationship is possible. Who am I to judge in that regard?

I could probably be okay with it if there were the needed protections for women who may want to divorce and leave the relationship. I could probably be okay with it if women were allowed more than one husband who had the same protections.

I'm all for equally consenting adults doing what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. I support that.

I think polygamy is something that could probably be legal and I'd be okay with. I'm challenging my thinking on the subject.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. Don't get all...

...progressive on me, now.

[eridani]

96. So there is some other institution in our country for enforcing contracts?

Try collecting child support from a church sometime.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

98. I think you'd have better luck...

...if you try collecting from your baby daddy/mommy. You don't need to be married to have a child or collect support.

[eridani]

100. So, you are agreeing that the government, and only the government, enforces collection?

Thank you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

102. Yes but...

...this thread is about marriage.

[eridani]

107. Which is legally a contract between two people n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. That is the current reality.

This thread was about changing that.

Thanks for your patience.

[eridani]

116. And the alternative to the government for dealing with contract disputes is what?

Duelling with sharpened sticks in an arena?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

118. Settling a disagreement...

...after terminating a contract can be pursued in court without requiring the contracting parties to obtain a license or permission from the state to initiate the contract.

[eridani]

121. Where else but at state archives would such records be kept? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

126. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at.

If you've signed a contract or agreement, it seems like a good idea to keep a copy. You attorney should keep a copy as well.
Where are you going with this?

[eridani]

136. Not all people can afford personal attorneys, and records get lost

The government keeps records of births, deaths, marriage and other contracts for a reason.

[napoleon_in_rags]

10. Of course there are big common sense issues with it... But ideologically I'm with you.

The issue is the first amendment. The US government doesn't have the right to block religious practices of any kind. Marriage is a religious practice with thousands of years of precedent before the creation of the constitution. Many do it in churches. The combination of law with marriage in the current sense goes back to nations LONG before the separation of church and state and the birth of the first amendment.

As a religious rite, by the first amendment, marriage should be what your church says it is or what you believe it to be. If you believe it involves gays, than the government does not interfere. If you believe it doesn't, the government should not interfere. The job of the government would be to provide the legal frameworks for people to join into that we currently associate with marriage: shared property, the rest, regardless of the personal religious beliefs behind the partnership.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. other options exist

for those who wish to share property, inherit, etc

I don't like government granting benefits for or controlling marriage. Marriage, IMHO, would be better off, as would most things, without government involvement.

[napoleon_in_rags]

13. Most personal matters, like faith and love are better without government involvement, yes.

But the larger something becomes, and the more people it effects, the more government involvement is justified. For instance, security demands a strong military, and that's necessarily a huge endeavor so its run entirely by the govenrment.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. There is no essential reason for marriage to be...

...run by the government except tradition. Government maintains deed records and, for those who die without a will, controls the passage of real estate to your spouse. The same can be accomplished with a will.

I like the idea of your church/temple/mosque... qualifying your marriage (if you want one). Beyond that I think any attorney should be allowed to "marry" any two people by signed declaration. Include a prenup if you like. Make the general form will. Declare next of kin. No fee to city hall. No blood test as some places require.

I don't think the unmarried should be saddled with a higher tax rate as they are now. I don't think the state should decide who can be added to your health insurance by controlling who you marry either.

[jeff47]

146. Marriage is not a religious practice

It's a civil practice that predates all modern religions.

Modern religions grabbed onto civil marriage as a way to exert control.

[napoleon_in_rags]

166. Religions WERE civil law for most of recorded history.

You think the Romans, where Caesar was worshiped as a god, has separation of church and state?

[jeff47]

169. Because Caesar existed for all of the Roman Republic/Empire

...oh wait.

[Bluenorthwest]

178. The Romans ran an empire, and they did not impose their own religion onto

those in the empire. So their civil law was not the religion of the bulk of Roman citizens, who had all manner of religions. They did not make others 'marry like a Roman' nor did they make them worship like Romans. This fact was key to their endurance as empire. The old gods remained in place.

[napoleon_in_rags]

203. Interesting facts.

But the connection between state and religion in much of the ancient and past world is well recorded, Take ancient Egypt, where temples of various Gods were correlated directly with political factions, or move forward in time to Europe in the dark ages, where the Church clearly played a role that went beyond inspirational talks on Sunday. For much of human history, Church and state had been inseparable, and therefore the rebellion against Britain's state controlled Anglican church (by pilgrims, quakers etc.) is a major and significant part of American History, and the enlightenment in general.

[RC]

15. You forgot the "Hell NO!" option

Religion is what is the problem with marriage. Marriage itself has always been a legal contract. First between the Groom and the Bride's father, with something of value thrown in to make it worthwhile for the groom. And now, between the two people wanting marriage themselves. The are not married until they sign that piece of paper, the marriage contract. No matter what kind of ceremony the couple had.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. And aside from...

...having government limit who can marry who, and consequently who gets a tax break, inheritance rights without a will, health insurance...

What exactly does marriage get you?

[RC]

72. See post #17

[Iggo]

17. I feel like I've heard this argument before.

Instead of allowing same-sex marriage, let's just get rid of ALL marriage.

Smacks of taking your ball and going home.

Or did I misunderstand?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. Not "get rid of"

...but remove from government. If government is out of the loop, then gay marriage or polygamy is just fine.


"Smacks of taking your ball and going home."
More like "take your boxing gloves and go home". No need to continue battling with states or localities to be able marry who you want.

[alphafemale]

18. I'm not sure you phrased that right. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Well...

...neither am I so feel free to pitch in and help.

[ZombieHorde]

23. I don't hate the idea, but I am against it, so I can't accurately vote in your poll. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. You could hit the "Pass" button :) n/t

[ZombieHorde]

35. That would pass the time, but it wouldn't mean very much. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

104. You seem to be a very precise person.

[ZombieHorde]

106. I try. Thank you for noticing. nt

[NutmegYankee]

29. Marriage grants important legal rights

It allows a couple's finances to be joined and grants them legal say for the other in a medical situation. Without those legal entitlements, a widower could lose everything to the kin of the deceased and in medical scenarios they would have to defer to the next of kin, since the spouse is not a blood relative. These entitlements are enforced by the government.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. These same entitlements...

...are available by means other than marriage.

[NutmegYankee]

34. Please detail then.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. Whatever you need...

...stop by the attorney's office and get it. A will, power of attorney... it's all there to be had.

[uppityperson]

47. So why not keep them available in the package they are in now? Why go fill out numerous forms, file

and pay for numerous things when there it is, all together?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. The lawyer is probably cheaper than a wedding. ;) n/t

[uppityperson]

60. wtf? No. Here in WA it costs $35-65 for a license, depending on the county. License fees are much

cheaper than a lawyer. Other states I checked are comparable. You want to get rid of the fast, inexpensive and easy legal partnership papers and mandate we pay more to lawyers for the same thing.

Oh. Thank you for clarifying that.

[Iggo]

61. Because now gay people want them, too, silly.

[NutmegYankee]

49. You must be a lawyer...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. That's a negative!

No not me. I formed a corp soup to nuts for $1510. Painless; told the lawyer to do it; it was done. If only my wedding was that cheap... 30 years ago!

[wickerwoman]

204. Not immigration.

If two people love each other and are willing to make a lifelong commitment to each other, they should be allowed to live in the same country on a permanent basis. That is not possible if governments don't recognize some form of civil union.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

205. I would suggest...

...that any US citizen be allowed to sponsor 1 foreign person for as long as it takes for that person to obtain citizenship.

[Nye Bevan]

31. How would that work with immigration and green cards? (nt)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. Same as now...

...but without marriage. Get a green card then you can stay here.

[Nye Bevan]

50. How can it work "the same as now, but without marriage"?

Right now, if a foreigner falls in love with and marries an American, they can become an American citizen.

So would you give citizenship to any foreigner who claims to love an American?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. No.

If you want to marry an American, come to America legally. Get a sponsor, long term visa, green card... then marry an American.

[Bluenorthwest]

179. So you would prevent Americans from marriage to those outside the country.

Because it is not 'if you want to marry an American' it is 'if an American wants to marry another national'. And I note that you speak of how to 'marry an American' when the rest of us are speaking about couples who meet here or abroad and wish to get married to each other. The implication that it is about marrying 'an American' rather than marrying the person you love seems like the tip of a bad hat.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

185. bad hat

It seems to me that the "sexual orientation" restrictions on marriage unfairly benefit hetero individuals seeking both marriage and a desire to live in the US.

[treestar]

197. Well you have not provided, in your little system

for Americans who fall in love with someone not American abroad. Do they have to stay abroad with that person then? Can't bring them back here to live as an American?

Just how would your system provide for this? There is no marriage, so anyone who is a partner of an American for any length of time should be able to live in the US?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

199. I would suggest...

...that any US citizen be allowed to sponsor 1 foreign person for as long as it takes for that person to obtain citizenship.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Yes, please anything to avoid letting TEH GAY have the M word!

No, marriage is a Civil institution and its not going away. People who are upset about LGBT citizens having equal rights Nate just gonna have to grow up.

The "solution" is equality. Nothing more, nothing less.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. "avoid letting TEH GAY have the M word!"

Huh? Where are you coming from? What does "equal rights Nate" mean?

I don't believe I said anything against equality.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Saying "get rid of civil marriage entirely" is a no sale argument, not to mention

A cop out most often promoted by folks "concerned" about the delicate sensibilities of bigots and fundamentalists.

Yes, I understand the larger logical underpinnings of the argument, but civil marriage is a well ingrained element of our society that is not going away.

A far better tack is to educate people on the difference between civil and religious marriage, but I think that information is seeping in. There has been a sea change on this issue, particularly along generational lines.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. Well the equal rights aspect...

...was not what motivated my post. Single folks pay higher taxes. Married folks have advantages in getting insurance coverage for spouses. Everyone should just be equal. Married or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Good luck with that.

No, really.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. Thanks

[CreekDog]

209. he wasn't actually wishing you good luck

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

210. I'm not actually wishing you good luck either.

[CreekDog]

211. That's ok

Considering the source

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

212. ~

I know

[H2O Man]

41. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair.

Civil vs hair spray. Touchdown.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. Why? n/t

[H2O Man]

45. Obvious answer:

Jayne Mansfield & son.

[uppityperson]

46. If all those legal things are available otherwise, I don't get why you don't want them available.

You want all legal things related to marriage eliminated in legal/civil court. But they are all available by using lawyers, filing papers, etc, in legal/civil court. So what is the difference? Seems there is a fine set of all those things put together in a package that we can sign for, and pay the fee, so why make it so they all have to be filed separately, will their own fees?

What's the difference?

[SoutherDem]

48. I this what you meant?

Separate civil union and marriage totally.

Marriage would be the religious aspect but no legal. Similar to baptism.
Civil unions would be the legal aspect but no religious. Including Federal and survivor benefits.

If you are currently married a civil union will be grandfathered unless you request it not to be.
If you have a civil union you automatically get the legal aspect.

Under new standard to get the legal aspects you have a civil union.
Under new standard to get the religious aspect have a marriage.

If you want both get both.

With the legal aspect resting with the civil unions the LGBT should be happy.
With the religious aspect with the marriage the religious right should be happy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. I would be fine...

...with or without a civil union and favor not government devised benefits or penalties for them.

If you would like a religious union, that's fine. I don't want the government deciding who can get hitched and if they're out it completely, the problem is solved.

[MattBaggins]

70. If it's quite alright with you

I want no one but the government recognizing my marriage and quite frankly, I don't want you involved in defining my marriage thank you very much.

Did you ever stop to think of us folks who are not insane and realize that there has to be a legal definition and system of rules to define marriage.

I WANT THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED.

[Chellee]

132. Why not just have...

the government grant civil unions to any two, (for those who are concerned about polygamy), adult, (for those who are concerned about child endangerment), people, (for those *cough, cough, Mr. Santorum* who are concerned about bestiality)?

Then, as SoutherDem said, all the legal rights that go with marriage currently, would go with civil unions.

Marriage, being a religious ceremony, could then be performed or not, if the couple so chooses.

I know there are churches and temples out there that will marry gay couples, it's only the government that doesn't recognize them. Why not just leave the government out of religion entirely, and make everybody get civil unions for the legal stuff?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

133. This is essentially...

...what I am saying. I'm not sure I'd rule out polygamy. I'm not aware of specific compelling reasons against it. I don't see the advantage to have the government control or qualify the parties involved. I've always been against having single folks pay higher taxes just because they aren't married.

[alarimer]

58. I do not believe marriage should have privileges not given to other types of relationships.

I.E. taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation. All of those things should given to any kind of relationship between two people, whether the relationship is sexual or not.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. I would prefer...

...relationships have neither privilege not penalty.

[Bluenorthwest]

184. It is funny to me that those who say that are ALWAYS married themselves

And no one put a gun to your head. You take advantage of all the privilege and again, you do not have to do so. Why are you and your spouse married if you are against it? Why don't you dissolve your marriage and make an agreement with a series of contracts and prove that you mean what you say you feel so passionately? Because without doing that, without walking the walk you claim we should walk, it always strikes me that the marrieds against marriage are only against gay people getting allowed that right.
Upthread you said you are 30 years married. So you married and you remain married, while claiming others should not be allowed that which you take advantage of, full tilt and continuously. I say put your marriage where your mouth is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

186. My wife and I...

...attach religious significance to our marriage. Our commitment would be the same with or without the restrictions and narrow focus and definition that the state attaches to the contract. I was not against marriage 30 years. I'm not against marriage now. I just think the government has no business in qualifying the parties. I considered the this position on marriage maybe a year ago. Some groups are being treated unfairly by these laws. I don't see that these restrictions lend anything to marriage. I also don't like the IRS and insurance restrictions/benefits. Those are also unfair.

Hope this helps.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

59. Nope....I'm all for the civil union recognized by the government taking precedence

Churches can choose to discriminate as to whom they marry if they wish, I really don't care what they do.......the feds and the state should not. They're what counts when it comes to recognition of legal rights.

[joshcryer]

63. I vote "pass" though I agree in princple, in reality it doesn't work that way.

Marriage conveys rights that non-married people don't have, so if you're going to get rid of marriage (which I do not really consider necessary, and am ideologically opposed to), then you will have to endow those rights to non-married people. There has to be some sort of contract to convey property, permissions (who pulls the plug, who gets to visit, who takes care of possessions, etc). That, however, is a relic of the society we have set up, not necessarily some sort of endowment by a religious entity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. "Marriage conveys rights that non-married people don't have..."

That doesn't sound equal or fair to me.

[joshcryer]

69. You didn't read the rest of my post. That's what society endows marriage, not some magical...

...aspect of "marriage."

Society uses marriage as that determining factor.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. It is easy...

...to make a will, draw up a power of attorney, designate a person to be responsible for your minor children and designate a "plug puller".

[joshcryer]

108. Yes. And we'd call it marriage, because that contract has, by our societal standards...

...considered marriage that "contract."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

112. My route eliminates...

...getting permission from the state, which certain states won't give if you have the wrong sexual orientation. In addition the IRS makes the folks who are unmarried pay extra for the privilege of not being married.

[joshcryer]

123. Your route requires institutions to stop recognizing the institution of marriage.

They aren't equipped for that.

[MattBaggins]

71. It has nothing to do with "fairness" and everything to do with reality

Survivor Benefits
Property and Ownership
Testifying in court
Children
"pulling the plug"

In your dream world who makes medical decisions for an individual?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. Why is it okay...

...for single people to pay higher taxes than married people?

[uppityperson]

73. Can't have it both ways. Signing a legal document conveys rights that those who don't sign don't

have.

You want people to have to sign a bunch of legal documents to get what is given already by signing the legal marriage documents. You don't think it "equal or fair" for those who sign legal doc to have rights that those who don't sign don't have.

You can not have it both ways.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. I don't think it's fair that...

...government decides who's allowed to marry.

...government unfairly taxes unmarried people at a higher rate.

...insurance companies allow you to add your wife to your policy but not a parent, girlfriend...

...and other things I'm not remembering now.

[uppityperson]

85. DUers HELP please? I can never remember the difference between a strawman and a red herring.

Are they both examples of nonsequitur or is that something different?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. At your service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Herring

[joshcryer]

109. The poster is for relationship equality, but against marriage.

In principle, so am I, but the institution of marriage is already established and it is not going away any time soon.

Therefore the rights conveyed by marriage are more practically obtained by extending marriage rights as opposed to ending the institution of marriage.

Make sense?

I do disagree with the poster for those reasons stated, but I still maintain that I am, in principle, against marriage as an institution.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

130. I think we mostly agree...

...on all of those points.

I basically feel fine with individuals who want a religious ceremony and then make the civil arrangements with an attorney. I am only against government involvement in marriage. If your religion sponsors a concept of marriage to which you subscribe or should you wish to create your own individually defined contractual relationship, I'm okay with that. I feel that the "one-size-fits-all" (except Gays, Lesbians...) version of marriage is superfluous to the nature of government and hinders the rights of some.

[joshcryer]

134. It's a slippery slope. If you advocate for this (which is in theory more egalitarian)...

...you wind up overlooking or neglecting the very real impacts that marriage inequality has.

It's similar to the argument that "it's not racism / sexism / homophobia, it's class" argument. That argument basically says to jump over the practical intermediaries that reduce suffering and exploitation and go to the root cause, class. You're saying skip over the root cause of marriage and just bring about equality. I agree with both, of course, in principle, but the world simply doesn't work that way. We're not magically going to have a revolution whereby class is abolished any more than we're going to abolish marriage overnight.

Let's say we got rid of the designation of marriage, government is still conveying property rights. Now, let's say we have an All In One Contract that actually conveys all the rights that marriage conveys. Government could still prevent same sex couples (or even interracial couples) from being able to sign such a contract, if a referendum was passed by a bigoted swath of the country. You haven't really solved anything that way, either. In reality government is what conveys property rights, and all other rights that follow, so you're still going to have to deal with government.

Government must respect the equality of individuals itself, it can't just magically change, it takes decades of evolution for these things to happen. We'll likely have gay marriage legalized this year by the SCOTUS.

[Bluenorthwest]

187. And yet you are personally married. As are all of the folks who claim they are 'against it in

principle'. This is what makes me think that the 'principle' did not come to mind until gay people wanted equal rights. I mean, for 30 years you have taken part in a union you do not believe in? Why? If this is how you think it should be for all, then why is it not how you live yourself? Why not dissolve your government marriage and make one out of your own contracts right now, you and your wife? Why don't you walk the walk, you just talk the talk. 'Well, I'm married, others should not get married, I'm keeping mine, I'm concerned about yours'. I see little reason to listen to a person who does not do what he says others should do. Marriage is fine and dandy for you, apparently. Good enough to keep. You do not really want the government out of YOUR relationship, you do not wish to convert to a civil union, nor to forgo the many perks of your marriage, you just don't think others should get what you got. What you maintain and keep as it is, by choice, according to you for 30 years.
Why not practice what you preach? Well, I think you do not practice it because it is not as good as what you now have, which is of course marriage licensed by the government. You like it that way, or you would change it, as you have all rights to do as you wish. One must assume you are content with your own current marriage status or you would change it, using lawyers and contracts and wills and such, as you offer others should do. Others, just not you and your wife.
If you really liked the cauliflower, you would eat it yourself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

190. Were the government to...

...remove the barriers, benefits and penalties, my wife and I would be free to make whatever arrangements we thought best or just continue to live as we do now which I believe would be unwise. When non-hetero folks started protesting marriage it did get me thinking about the unfairness of the government limitations. I've always been against the IRS crap of singles paying a higher tax rate. The Mormons have always been stuck in the back of my mind as another group that were driven underground by the government.

This is not a single issue solution in my mind. The fact that my marriage works for my current expediencies doesn't prevent me from seeing the problems of excessive government involvement.

The medical problems of the country need more government involvement and subsidy. Domestic relationships could use less government interference with and qualification of the parties.

[SheilaT]

64. There are all sorts of civil things that accrue to

married partners. Which is why any two humans who want to get married should be able to, regardless of the gender assortment. The state is right to set minimum ages, and to restrict each person to one spouse at a time.

Something no one in the thread has mentioned so far is Social Security benefits that spouses get. Even divorced spouses if the marriage lasted long enough, at least ten years. I believe there are also benefits that military spouses and widows get. If the government is out of the picture entirely these things will disappear.

While many people do choose to have a religious ceremony when they marry, what makes it legal in this country, what confers the benefits and privileges is the civil union. No civil union, no legal marriage.

I have too often seen the down side of couples who say they don't need to be married, that marriage is just a piece of paper and then wham! something terrible happens to one of the two and the other is completely left out of something or another, such as social security benefits, inheritance, medical coverage.

As to that last, since our system in this country is that people mostly get their medical insurance through the employer, and spouses and children up to a certain age are covered, imagine all the millions who would suddenly be without health-care coverage if your idea were put into effect.

I'm not sure you've really thought through the consequences.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. IMHO...

...there should be a minimum age at which anyone can take steps like marriage. I'm not sure about one spouse at a time.

What happens if a divorced single mom with ages children 10 and 12, who was abandoned, marries a decent guy after being alone for 6 years? If she dies before the new husband formally adopts the children, they and their social security go to the loser (who doesn't really want them but is okay taking their checks) that left their mom years ago. The new widower who likes the kids and would make a decent dad is left with a choice between a legal fight that could bankrupt him and seeing the kids go to the loser.

Marriage isn't always fair.

Hypothetically, I'd like to be able to signup my disabled dad, my live-in girlfriend and/or laid off brother who's going back to school to get into a new line of work. Right now, I can only signup a spouse or children.

I'm a creative thinker and I like everyone being equal without unfair penalties or benefits.

[SheilaT]

137. Chances are, in the hypothetical case of the

divorced and remarried mom, the guy who abandoned her in the first place won't be rushing in to take the kids back. You've outlined the case for people having good wills in place at any age, rather than a case for overthrowing the current system.

If you want your live-in girlfriend to benefit somewhere down the road from your SS benefits, then marry her. And your disable dad probably already gets benefits of some kind.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that people be able to designate anyone and everyone they want as beneficiaries, or simply noting that there are limits on who benefits from one given person's SS. In any case, I think the current system works just fine for the most part. There are important benefits that accrue to people who marry each other, which is exactly why same sex couples need to be allowed that same privilege with all the benefits involved. Meanwhile, let's not take any of the current ones away.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

140. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Yes same sex couples should be equal to other couples in all respects. I look at the situation of same sex couples as a subset of issues more widespread. Many households could benefit from various aspects of privilege that are now reserved to those who are married. People who maybe operate like a family in some respects are currently taxed at a higher "single" rate, pay for insurance individually and are legally regarded as "roommates".

I realize removing marriage from our culture would be more difficult than was removing slavery. I also accept that marriage has social connotations beyond anything religious to most everyone so this would NEVER happen. I am just a person who buys decongestants, antihistamines, cough suppressants and analgesics all separately and take only the ones I need one at a time. There are times when a cold combo formula might be more convenient but more frequently I need only one or two of those drugs. I feel better with one less type of drug to stock.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. and undo hundreds of years in women's rights? no thanks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. Which rights are you talking about?

[uppityperson]

74. For starters, the right to inherit property and other such spousal rights.

I am thinking you are playing with us or else haven't learned much about much.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. I had no trouble...

...inheriting from my aunt without marrying her.

[uppityperson]

84. Nonsequitur. eom

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. Irony ;) n/t

[Honeycombe8]

76. Civil Marriage provides legal protections. It's a contract. So the govt has to be involved, if you

want the govt to protect your interests, such as property interests, inheritance interests, whatever.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. "It's a contract. So the govt has to be involved..."

No it doesn't. I sign contracts on a regular basis. I don't have to pay a tax and get permission from the state, to be allowed to sign.

[uppityperson]

86. Of course not every contract demands a fee but laws and contracts are by civil, ie government, autho

authority. Legal contract = upholdable legally, in courts. Which makes....gvt involved.

You sign a tenant contract? Yup, gvt was involved with passing the laws inherent in it. Car loan contract? Same thing.

What contracts do you sign on a regular basis that have no legal status?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

89. A contract is...

...an agreement generally with a list of conditionals and duties on the part of all parties involved.

Contracts, while legally binding and potentially court enforceable, do not require the government to approve the participation of the parties.

I own an S-corp. Why would you assume a signed contract has no legal status?

[uppityperson]

90. If it is legal, the gvt is involved. eom

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. You are free to believe as you wish.

Have a nice evening.

[uppityperson]

92. And you are free to believe that "while legally binding and potentially court enforceable" has

nothing to do with the legal court system, which IS gvt.

You are free to continue to confuse "I don't have to pay a tax and get permission from the state, to be allowed to sign" with the gvt not being involved.

You are free to confuse "legally binding and potentially court enforceable" with "do not require the government to approve the participation of the parties. "


You are free to believe "Contracts, while legally binding and potentially court enforceable, do not require the government to approve the participation of the parties" though the gvt does indeed need to approve the participation of the parties. They do it by restricting who can sign for that S-corp. They restrict by age and sobriety (typically) wherein a 5 yr old is not legally able to sign. Or, in most contracts, a person under the influence (though that is often ignored). Many contracts also have residency requirements to make them legal.

The legal system is gvt involvement. Laws are passed by the gvt (well, 1 branch pass laws, another instates them, 3rd rules on them). But they are all gvt involvement.

[ProfessorGAC]

139. If The Contract Is Breached, What Do You Do?

You sue in court. Gov't now involved. Your solution is one in search of a problem.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

141. A family unit is good thing.

For simplification let's just use the term household. Why in the world would same sex couples be interested in establishing a household if there weren't substantial advantages to doing so? Should those advantages be restricted to only those want to establish a monogamous romantic relationship?

The idea of a household being limited in definition, privilege and benefit to a narrow government controlled ideal is just archaic. In almost all cases when things go bad, government gets involved.

Just my opinion.

[uppityperson]

93. Yes, gvt does approve participation of the parties. Can a 6 yr old sign a legal contract for S-corp?

No? Well then, see? there are gvt requirements to approve participation of the parties.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

94. We are and are discussing adults and adult actions here.

Or at least I thought we were. Adults of all ages, races, religions, national origins, sexual preference.

To work in this country you need to prove you are legally allowed to work. But you don't need to get a work permit.

I'll just accept for you state recognition of your relationship (hypothetical or real) means more to you than it does to me. I'm okay with that. You are in excellent company here, last I looked the overwhelming votes were for hating my idea. I'm okay with that, also. This country has gone too far down the road it is on to make a major effort to change this minor aspect of itself. The majority opinion here has great historical and traditional validity.

[uppityperson]

95. It is sexual ORIENTATION, not "sexual preference". Orientation is hard wired, preference not

So, unless you are one who thinks being gay is by preference, please use the correct term.

And we were talking about contracts and governments.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. I'm an engineer.

I'm lucky to able to spell preference. But thanks for the correction and I agree.

[TBF]

99. Exactly - and the people who want to do that are likely

doing it to undermine consenting civil unions between ANY adults. Just a backdoor homophobic question in my view ...

[treestar]

198. It could be just a contract

You put your contract down on paper, and go to court only if something goes awry.

People could move in together and sign a contract (likely one would become standard) about how they will handle property they each bring to the relationship and how they would divide in in the event of children, death, split up. Now states have statutes that cover it, but this would allow each couple to make their own "law."

There is something to be said for that. Often, divorcing people are shocked at what the law is and don't like it and think it should be something else. While handled by statute, that law will always be that generated by the legislature, which means it is standard for society. If you want to get around that, you need a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement. If there were no marriage, everyone would need that agreement in writing.

[barbtries]

77. i think marriage should mean something.

even by law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. Me too.

I also think that a relationship ought to be more subject to beliefs of the individuals than what government believes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

83. AN UPDATE:

I thank everyone who replied and/or voted for their time and attention. Many of you have gotten me thinking and I hope I've done the same for you. Sorry if anyone was offended, that was not my intention.

Please everyone be safe and have a great evening.

[barbtries]

101. for the record

i'm not offended. we're allowed to disagree.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

103. Yay!

I try to be a good sport and sometimes I succeed.

Stay safe.

[unkachuck]

105. question....

....I'm extremely old-fashioned and I do not believe in any sex before marriage. How would I go about having my fiancee examined for kooties without the need of a marriage license?

....me and wee-willie want to know....

[uppityperson]

111. Question....

If "marriage" was gotten rid of, could you never have sex?

When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws would get it on?

[unkachuck]

113. 'If "marriage" was gotten rid of, could you never have sex?'

....that would present a major problem....for I do get massively horny around a full moon....

....I might consider becoming a Catholic priest....wait, that might be a bad example....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

115. Why would anyone outlaw marriage? n/t

[uppityperson]

117. Why would anyone outlaw it for those of the same sex? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

120. I asked you first. :)

[uppityperson]

124. Because.

Ok, your turn.

Actually, am off to prepare for tonight's viewing of Sherlock. Catch you later.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

128. Have a great time.

I'll get back to you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

144. You made a reference to marriage being outlawed.

I was curious about where the "outlawed" idea originated. It was never my idea to ban marriage only to remove it from government control and to eliminate the unfair government penalties/benefits derived therefrom.

[uppityperson]

154. Outlawed, taken outside the law. The law being put in place by the gvt.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

114. You and your intended...

...should visit a doctor.

[unkachuck]

119. "You and your intended..."

"...should visit a doctor."

....that would be a terribly awkward conversation with her....how would I bring the subject up? It could raise many questions, of trust, of sincerity or doubt.

"Who does he think he is?"...."Doesn't he love me?"...."Doesn't he want me?"...."What does he think I am?"....she may even question the veracity and capability of wee-willie....

....I would be very dubious about personally approaching my fiancee with the request to have her blood or private parts examined for kooties, yet I fully acknowledge that kooties are everywhere....

....kootie fa presto!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

122. I can think of a number of strategies but...

...perhaps the best idea may be to ask your doctor how to bring it up. You do actually pay him/her for sound medical advice. It would seem ill advised to take my advice rather than his/hers.

[uppityperson]

125. What? Take a doctor's advice over that of an anonymous internet forum poster?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

127. I know my limits.

If you want advice on recreating a government, I ready but talking to your spouse or intended spouse? Oh! Not me, please.

[Renew Deal]

129. Unfortunately the legal aspect of marriage is important.

It is basically a legal contract between two people that grants them certain benefits. And if they choose to terminate that relationship, the law states how that will take place. If there is no civil involvement in marriage, then there will be a lot more prolonged lawsuits over how to deal with complicated family issues.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

131. Could you be more specific...

...on what aspects would be more complicated and why?

[Renew Deal]

135. Property, children, who is and isn't married...

What if one person considers themselves married and the other doesn't? It would create a lot more work for lawyers. Now that's all covered by a marriage license fee and a divorce lawyer if necessary.

[The Link]

138. This whole "burn it all down" thing seems to crop up any time progress is made for gay civil rights.

It's almost like clockwork.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

143. I didn't primarily have gay civil rights in mind.

[Bluenorthwest]

194. But you are yourself married, so clearly you don't have yourself in mind either....

It is always straight married people who make the claim that they are 'against all marriage'. Of course, none of them replace their own marriages with sets of contracts although they are free to do so. Thus, this is purely theoretical, or meant to apply to others and not to yourself, as you currently maintain the very thing you claim to oppose. If you were against marriage, you'd not be married, yet you are married. So it is fitting to question the motives. If you will not apply it to your own life, why do you think others should do so?
First rid yourself of the meddlesome government in your own life, then come tell us how great that is!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

195. Maybe if I used CAPITAL letters.

I'm not against marriage. I'm just against government involvement, qualification and limitation.

"Ridding myself of meddlesome government is called revolution. I'm not interested.

[Taverner]

142. There is not enough information to make a decision

[Blue_Tires]

149. Why do you feel that way?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

153. Because...

Inequitable tax structures,
Inability to chose the sex of your partner,
Restrictions on the number of partners...

All are sponsored interference with personal freedom.

[Blue_Tires]

158. ok...

1. If you want to bitch about inequitable tax structures, there's probably 100+ things on the list higher than married/single filing

2. Would still be a major issue if marraige was just left in the hands of churches...And make no mistake, it is the churches who have been the biggest political players in getting the same-sex marraige bans passed to begin with

3. If multiple wives/partners is your thing, then there are plenty of other legal countries you can emigrate to

Besides, if there is no official, state-recognized marraige, too many other things become a mess --

divorce
child custody/visitation rights
allocation of assets
inheritance
marrying multiple partners but none of them know about each other
even legally proving you were married to someone in the first place
getting recognized as a married couple when working or moving abroad
and the list goes on...


I get the general point of your idea (sort of), but it's an opening for a whole world of fraud and abuse...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

161. I get that what I propose...

...isn't going to be the answer. It's just an opinion and a new way to look at the problem.

[kristopher]

150. You have it backwards.

Require all marriages be registered in person at an appropriate government office by the bride and groom. Remove the authority of religious institutions to perform the civ.l function,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

152. No I don't.

Why do you think single folks should be charged a higher tax rate for the privilege of not being married?

Why does government get to decide the sex of your partner or how many there should be?

[kristopher]

157. Beats letting religious institutions do it.

All societies have rules related to families. If you think those rules are best defined by religions, good for you. I'd rather them be formed on the basis of civil requirements related to management of family property ownership/transfer.
In either case the issue of marriage equality is going to present problems. However I'd argue that in the same way it was easier to change the legal code to reflect the changing norms of race discrimination, it would also be easier to go through the courts for than to effect broad changes to the social mores anchored by religious belief.

YMMV

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

159. rules, religion and discrimination

I think marriage should be defined by the folks who marry each other. Religious people want to have their beliefs and marriage in harmony, which is fine with me. You are quite correct about the court battles.

I see these struggles over rights for marriage reflective of the struggles for voting rights. For a hundred years only white males voted. Finally we started recognizing that voting needed to expand because how we define "people" was discriminatory. African Americans got to vote then women got to vote finally, Native Americans got to vote. Before the 15th Amendment African Americans not only had severely limited or non-existent voting rights, they couldn't marry or own property. Women got to vote 50 years later. Some Native Americans had to wait until 1956 to be allowed to vote.

I guess we'll have years of battles over the scope and nature of marriage. It just makes me sad. Freedom isn't free.

[closeupready]

160. Whatever happens, it has to be EXACTLY IDENTICAL v-a-v straight/gay

marriages.

That's my priority.

I do think the government should extricate itself from marriage entirely, leave that up to religious institutions, and then recognize partnerships as 'civil unions'.

[OmahaBlueDog]

167. Marriage is still the most straightforward way to convey inheritance rights

It is also the chief reason the diamond and floral industries exist.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

168. True enough!

I don't want marriage to be eliminated, only government interference.

[uppityperson]

170. Since laws are the government, how do you propose gvt getting out of anything to do with

marriage?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

171. I would prefer...

...to have the tax benefits/penalties associated with marital status eliminated. I would like to have all of the remaining associations, obligations, benefits and rights available individually without government interference or limitations.

If at some point, people want to change or terminate any or all of those associations, obligations, benefits and/or rights it is between them.

For folks who belong to a religion that believes in marriage, they are free to marry but that marriage has no legal significance.

[uppityperson]

172. How can you have legal things without the gvt? Laws are passed, implemented, upheld, BY the gvt.

You keep missing that point.

I agree that people who want a church wedding should be allowed to do so, but, as is current law, it has no legal significance unless the proper legal papers are signed and filed with the government.

Legal benefits, rights, etc, by the fact of being "legal" involve the government.

So how do you propose having any sort of LEGAL anything without it involving the government? It is a catch-22. Laws, legalities, involve gvt. You want them without gvt. Which then makes it not legal.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

173. I sign a contact with...

...another. I make a will. I name a next of kin. Having the government "bless" choice of persons for these roles does nothing for me. But YES in the event of a dispute, the courts my become involved. Aside from marriage, any number of any sex adults can sign a contact without getting a permit from the government.

I was married in PA. Application was made in person with results from an MD certifying we were both negative for syphilis... A fee is charged. Our permit was given to our priest. He performed the ceremony, signed the certificate and registered us as married.

Most places you can only marry a person of opposite sex. Everywhere, you are constrained to only one spouse. Why, if I am unmarried, can I not add my disabled brother to my company health insurance? A person is a person. Period.

If I am divorced and want my grown daughters to inherit my property and not my second wife, I need at least a will and some extra legal hoop jumping to make it incontestable.

When IBM, with HQ in NY, signs a contract with Intel, HQ in CA, they don't need "permission" from the government. An executive of each company just signs the contract. Yes it is legally binding. There is recourse to the courts in the event of a disagreement but the parties WRITE the agreement. They define the terms. They specify the time period for which they are bound and numerous other details. The existing marriage contract has prewritten terms and qualifications for the prospective parties involved. It all just seems like government intrusion.

I'm missing nothing. Hope this helps.

[uppityperson]

174. So you just don't want to have to get "permission", not have gvt out of legal affairs.

Any signed contract, any will, all end up following the laws of the land ie by the government. It seems you don't want gvt out of it, since you want legal (gvt) contracts, but to not have to get "permission".

"Legally binding" MEANS the gvt is involved since laws are written, passed, enforced by the gvt. Legal. Law. How can there be a law, legally binding anything, without there being gvt involvement somewhere? If IBM signs a contract, and that contract is legal, legally binding, it is so because of the law, which is congress, judges, executive branch all working together. And they are ALL gvt.

"The existing marriage contract has prewritten terms and qualifications for the prospective parties involved." So does that contract between IBM and Intel. There are other limiting terms and qualifications, basic ones per the law (gvt law).

Do you think there is any sort of law that does not involve the gvt? What? How? Who wrote the law? Who passed the law? Who signed it into law? Who rules on it? All 3 branches of GOVERNMENT.

Edited to add, I do agree that the current marriage statutes in most states are far too restrictive. See my sig line for more.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

180. "statutes in most states are far too restrictive"

"So does that contract between IBM and Intel." Really??? Which of those two is male and which is female? Two corps can participate in contracts of a type other a "merger".

The marriage "contract" is entirely prewritten by statute. The only choice involved is to agree or not. Of course all contracts need to be written in language respecting case law and legal considerations.

Have a good holiday.

[Bluenorthwest]

188. That's utterly false. Many people make their own pre nuptial agreements which define the

marriage as that couple wishes to define it, they make many, many choices that are different from the 'off the rack' marriage agreement. Couples agree that none of their holdings from prior to the marriage are shared and if divorce happens, you take yours and I take mine. They create the marriage as they like it. This is a simple fact. Such agreements can and often do address many aspects of the relationship, some spell out what is expected sexually, what will not occur sexually, who gets the dog, the fact that there will never be a dog, you name it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

191. You proved my point.

The necessity of the pre-nup as a modification of the "standard marriage" just highlights that in many cases the "standard marriage" isn't the right thing for some couple, today. A pre-nup is not the answer for a Mormon looking for that second wife either. I don't have a problem with people getting married. I think the government needs to accept a wider definition of a domestic relationship.

If I don't have a "wife" and want to declare my invalid brother as a domestic partner, next of kin... and add him to my company insurance plan, I should be free to do so... without "marrying" him... like that would ever happen.

[Bluenorthwest]

192. No, you said all marriages are made out of a preset contract to which the parties can only agree

not agree. Clearly that is not the case. What you said was incorrect.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

193. I don't recall...

...there being individual boxes on the contract for one to elect or not. The fact that a pre-nup is required to make those changes evidences that as true.

[sarcasmo]

175. Kick.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

182. Thanks for the kick. :) n/t

[maggiesfarmer]

181. i've always felt that laws and policies promoting long-term, monogamous relationships would benefit

society, but I'm open minded. please walk through the logic that leads to a contrary opinion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

196. I'm not sure that I disagree with you that...

Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

..."long-term, monogamous relationships would benefit society" but [font color="red"]I'm not sure[/font] having government constrain the sex of a partner, the number of partners and imposing unfair financial incentives is right for today.




ETA: in red

[WriteWrong]

201. My government represents me, at least partially, or it has failed.

No religion represents me, even partially, or else it has failed.

Given that marriage still governs property and children, I would MUCH rather have it, as an institution, managed by my government than by churches.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

202. I can accept that.

[tabbycat31]

206. Hate the idea

And I am not married.

I would be in favor of eliminating the power of the clergy (of all religions) to perform civil marriage ceremonies at the same time as the religious ceremony as many other countries already have.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

207. Okay by me. n/t :)