CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

[oldsoul]

You are quite clear. And, by removing all requirements, you are also removing state/government recognition of marriage and all of the benefits and protections that go with it, right? You want to remove the right to be married in the eyes of the state despite the fact that I have shown that the courts have established that as a right.

No, you have established that IF a state grants marriage licenses, they must issue them to everyone, except in certain cases. To the best of my knowledge there is NOTHING ANYWHERE on the federal level that requires a state to recognize marriage, let alone sanction it and issue licenses.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't even know why the "marriage" issue is such a difficult one. Were it my decision I'd:

• Let churches be the sole domain of marriage.
• Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," and everyone who wants one -- boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl -- can get one.

That way:

• folks who want to get married can get married
• folks who want to get married and bound can do both
• folks who want to get bound can get bound
• folks who want to get bound and married, but no church will marry them, have to get over it.

Regardless of what one does, the only "pairing" that comes with any legal standing at all is a "union" or "bonding" or whatever "non-marriage" term is chosen.

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

Red:
??? If the short paragraph I see you've posted a few moments ago in reply to Jillian is basically your proposal, the substance of yours and my proposal is the same.


Update after reading this: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally
Yes. We're saying the same thing.

Yes, but you leave in the word marriage in state terminology it seems, and I don't. I honestly believe that if two or ten gay men want to have a ceremony and say they are married,t hat is certainly not the state's business.

Blue:
???

• What part of "Let churches be the sole domain of marriage," suggests in any way that "marriage" remains in the terminology of state documents of folks willful "life pairing?"
• What part of "Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," suggests the word "marriage" should be part of anything the state legally documents/sanctions?
• Did I anywhere hint even that churches have a role in conferring legal "anything?"

 

[oldsoul]

But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege

So, then, with your own words in mind, is walking upright a right or a privilege? Can government take away your freedom to do so? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. So what about marriage makes it different than walking upright?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

That won't work because the gays absolutely, positively want the state to sanction the words "gay marriage" that's the truth of the matter.

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

Red:
??? If the short paragraph I see you've posted a few moments ago in reply to Jillian is basically your proposal, the substance of yours and my proposal is the same.


Update after reading this: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally
Yes. We're saying the same thing.

Yes, but you leave in the word marriage in state terminology it seems, and I don't. I honestly believe that if two or ten gay men want to have a ceremony and say they are married,t hat is certainly not the state's business.

Blue:
???

• What part of "Let churches be the sole domain of marriage," suggests in any way that "marriage" remains in the terminology of state documents of folks willful "life pairing?"
• What part of "Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," suggests the word "marriage" should be part of anything the state legally documents/sanctions?
• Did I anywhere hint even that churches have a role in conferring legal "anything?"

Churches shouldn't be the sole domain. I don't care if Wal Mart marries people. Why should you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You keep mentioning this post so I will address it. Let me preface this with the fact that I am in agreement with FairandBalanced - the state should have no part in marriage and should not be sanctioning any relationship at all. This has nothing to do with gay marriage for me just like Fair - I also have argued for gay marriage as long as marrage itself remains state sanctioned as the government has no ability to discriminate against them in this manner.

OK, we agree that gays should have equal rights but disagree on the matter of the state’s involvement in marriage and I don’t suppose that will change. Tell me, do you really think that there are many people who would accept the total destruction of marriage as we know it, including the loss of government benefits, rights and protections? And for what purpose? There are not enough people who hate government enough to get a hair brained idea like that passed.

1. TheProgressivePatriot said: ↑

Actually I have not overlooked anything having been involved in this issue since way before Obergefell. On the other hand, it appears that you have not thought much about it at all. You ask why is it unacceptable and I will be happy to tell you.

· It panders to the religious right and other bigots, while not really getting government out of marriage and not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions. Why? Keep reading.

· Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.

This speaks to the fact that eliminating marriage would not work politically rather than being legally impossible. I agree and reality makes this obvious. I don't see this as a debate over what is politically tenable at this moment, many such threads here go over possibilities or positions that are not politically tenable at the moment. That does not mean such is impossible or the position does not have merit.

Further, originally, this was a statement against the idea of converting to a civil union. I find that entire stance to nonsensical. What we call marriage is meaningless - you can call it whatever you want. The crux has always been what special privileges that marriage, civil union and whatnot bring.

It would not work politically , legally or pragmatically. The question is not only whether or not it would be possible, but also why? What useful purpose would it serve and ho would life be any better for anyone.? I will add that civil unions are in no way the same as marriage. Marriage has a special, universally understood meaning. There is no point to this a all

More later.

Why would government rights be destroyed?

It's simple

No more state marriage licenses, but if you have a marriage license from wal mart, a church, or wherever else, that license is a contract and valid in terms of state benefits. END OF DISCUSSION.

Are you sure about that? I have said this before but it continues to fall on deaf ears. A contract between two people does NOT compel any third part- not government, not a private entity to do anything. Only marriage-licensed by the state does that. The federal government does not recognize anything but marriage. Hundreds of federal and state laws would have to be changed in order for a contract or civil union or whatever you call it can have the same force of law as marriage.

The longer this goes on, the more idiotic it becomes because there is just NO POINT to it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.

As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.

If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege

So, then, with your own words in mind, is walking upright a right or a privilege? Can government take away your freedom to do so? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. So what about marriage makes it different than walking upright?

Did you read or understand anything that I wrote? Marriage is a right, but as with all rights it is not absolute. There are basic criteria that needs to be met. That does not mean that it is not a right. Are you just playing word games now?

 

[320 Years of History]

I bet you they'd compromise if they were given the legal rights and the pairing that accords those legal rights were the one that's not called marriage.

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

Red:
??? If the short paragraph I see you've posted a few moments ago in reply to Jillian is basically your proposal, the substance of yours and my proposal is the same.


Update after reading this: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally
Yes. We're saying the same thing.

Yes, but you leave in the word marriage in state terminology it seems, and I don't. I honestly believe that if two or ten gay men want to have a ceremony and say they are married,t hat is certainly not the state's business.

Blue:
???

• What part of "Let churches be the sole domain of marriage," suggests in any way that "marriage" remains in the terminology of state documents of folks willful "life pairing?"
• What part of "Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," suggests the word "marriage" should be part of anything the state legally documents/sanctions?
• Did I anywhere hint even that churches have a role in conferring legal "anything?"

Churches shouldn't be the sole domain. I don't care if Wal Mart marries people. Why should you?

I don't care if Walmart marries people. Are you being willfully obtuse by asking that question?

Truly I don't care what organization(s) marries people and what organization(s) "bind" people as "life partners." What I care about is that the "joining" that carries the legal weight be the one that is not called "marriage," and that non-"marriage" one is the "joining" that is sanctioned/conferred by the state or an agent of the state.

As for marriages, I don't care who performs that act nor do I care who bothers to undergo doing so. If folks want to have the clerk at 7-Eleven marry them, fine. Seeing as it's a marriage and not a state sanctioned "bonding," it makes no difference so long as the couple or cabal that gets married is content with who performs the ceremony and where.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You fail to see what my disagreement is? You may have acknowledged that there are un-enumerated rights-I don't recall but that is beside the point. You are insisting that because marriage is NOT an enumerated right, the states can do away with it.

You are misunderstanding. I'm not saying states can ban marriage. I'm supporting the idea that states can ban laws regarding marriage and the requirement for marriage licenses. What consenting adults do is up to them. They can start their own church and marry any other consenting adult. The state would have no say in it.

Start their own Church!!?? Brilliant ! If there is no state/ legal recognition of it, it is not marriage.

You shouldn't be allowed to force the States to license what they don't want to license. If they choose not to license fishing and everyone can fish without a license that's ok. Same goes for marriage.

Errrrr Because this is a constitutional republic and the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that marriage is a right.. We are no longer governed by the Articles of Confederation, in case you haven't heard

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You fail to see what my disagreement is? You may have acknowledged that there are un-enumerated rights-I don't recall but that is beside the point. You are insisting that because marriage is NOT an enumerated right, the states can do away with it.

You are misunderstanding. I'm not saying states can ban marriage. I'm supporting the idea that states can ban laws regarding marriage and the requirement for marriage licenses. What consenting adults do is up to them. They can start their own church and marry any other consenting adult. The state would have no say in it.

Start their own Church!!?? Brilliant ! If there is no state/ legal recognition of it, it is not marriage.

Do you really believe states grant marriages? Do you really believe marriage came after the Constitution or the States? Sorry to bust your bubble, but marriage is a religious rite and has existed for thousands of years. No state sanctioning was required then and none now.

So what is the purpose of issuing marriage licenses? As mentioned before, it's solely for legal reasons such as parentage, survivorship, tax benefits, etc.

Yes states grant marriage. That is a simple fact. And I don't care when "marriage came." or that it was a strictly religious institution at some point in time. The fact is that here and now , it is a civil legal matter. For whatever reason, it is the system that we have now and it works. In an increasingly secular society it's ludicrous to think that it could revert to a strictly religious matter.

Yes, I agree it's solely for legal reasons such as parentage, survivorship, tax benefits, etc. It does not bestow the blessings of God. So what? For many, Marriage is a secular matter but it is still marriage. You seem to be trying to reserve marriage for the religious but that is not happening. If any changes to the current system are in order it should be that everyone should be required to be married in a civil ceremony. Remove the power of granting legal marriage from clergy . Those who want a religious marriage can the go to their house of worship for it-after they are legally married. It is done that way in some other countries but it is all marriage.

 

[320 Years of History]

Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that marriage is a right.

Frankly, I think folks on both sides of the aisle will attest to the SCOTUS' having been mistaken before. I'm sure it'll be mistaken again, in spite of efforts to keep that from happening.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Some would, but the militant ones would not. My proposal is obviously far superior.

Red:
??? If the short paragraph I see you've posted a few moments ago in reply to Jillian is basically your proposal, the substance of yours and my proposal is the same.


Update after reading this: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally
Yes. We're saying the same thing.

Yes, but you leave in the word marriage in state terminology it seems, and I don't. I honestly believe that if two or ten gay men want to have a ceremony and say they are married,t hat is certainly not the state's business.

Blue:
???

• What part of "Let churches be the sole domain of marriage," suggests in any way that "marriage" remains in the terminology of state documents of folks willful "life pairing?"
• What part of "Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," suggests the word "marriage" should be part of anything the state legally documents/sanctions?
• Did I anywhere hint even that churches have a role in conferring legal "anything?"

Churches shouldn't be the sole domain. I don't care if Wal Mart marries people. Why should you?

I don't care if Walmart marries people. Are you being willfully obtuse by asking that question?

Truly I don't care what organization(s) marries people and what organization(s) "bind" people as "life partners." What I care about is that the "joining" that carries the legal weight be the one that is not called "marriage," and that non-"marriage" one is the "joining" that is sanctioned/conferred by the state or an agent of the state.

As for marriages, I don't care who performs that act nor do I care who bothers to undergo doing so. If folks want to have the clerk at 7-Eleven marry them, fine. Seeing as it's a marriage and not a state sanctioned "bonding," it makes no difference so long as the couple or cabal that gets married is content with who performs the ceremony and where.

This is really getting bizarre and I'm getting bored with it. A 7-11 clerk ....really? Neither you or anyone else has the right to say that a secular marriage that is strictly for legal purposes is not marriage . You might as well get over that nonsensical idea right now because that is not happening My wife and I were married by a judge 26 years ago- we are Atheists and we are damned sure married and no one better mess with that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

sealybobo asked very specific questions on another CDZ thread that deserve answers but weren't directly on the topic of genetics vs. choice.

To keep this in the same section I pose the question as yes or no: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and still protect people equally.

In other words is managing benefits through govt the ONLY way to make this work (so that people who disagree with same sex couples getting benefits just have to put up with this religious conflict similar to people who don't believe in race mixing with marriage and family); or for the sake of separating beliefs from govt are there feasible options for separating marriage/benefits from govt and still manage these programs where everyone can access and have security/equal protections the same as going through govt, but without imposing conflicting beliefs on anyone (since people could have a choice of which programs to fund or not if this was separated somehow, such as by party).

Here are SB original questions:
==================
Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?
===============

My answer to this is to give people and parties a choice of how they want to manage it, instead of trying to mandate one system for everyone through federal govt whether they agree or not.

They can go through state, through party, through nonprofits; give people an option to opt out and go through local groups if they want to manage their marriages, benefits, HEALTH CARE, etc that way and quit trying to micromanage "one policy fits all" through the federal/Congressional level that isn't designed for social work which requires one on one individualized decisions.

Now, SB question is basically how do you expect to protect and provide benefits etc. if you don't go through govt.

So the debate question I will frame this as, are
"Are there ways to manage this BESIDES forcing policies through federal govt that conflict with various people's beliefs. and STILL provide the same equal protections or better than what is offered now"

Of course there is, stop issuing government marriage licenses.

OK Then. I'll be looking forward to you comprehensive and detailed plan as to exactly how that would work in reality. Please address the legal aspects as well as the political ramifications when the American people are told that they can no longer be legally married.

Before you embark on this venture, you might want to first review my posy #90 to some perspective as to what the pitfalls and obstacles might be.

Thank you in advance for what I anticipate to be a much a scholarly and thoughtful essay.

I will get right to that, as soon as you show the class where I said anyone should be told that they can't legally marry. In fact that is the complete opposite of my position. I believe, correctly, that the USG has NO business telling anyone who they may or may not marry. By anyone I mean consenting adults , obviously.

Ah yes, now I recall....anybody should be able to marry anybody without government approval.

But, I am not arguing that there should be restrictions on consenting adults being married- I am arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it for the primary purpose of appeasing those opposed to same sex marriage.

Please note that with the removal of the gender requirement, we already have a system where anyone can marry anyone as long as they are consenting adults-so what purpose does doing away with the license serve - especially if there is going to be any form of government recognition? Would there be ? If not please address the pitfalls that I outlines.

Now get to work

You're ignoring the rights of those who want to be in group marriages.

No, I'm not. I'm simply arguing against the abolition of marriage as we know it and the blanket removal of all restrictions on who can marry who. I was actually in a group marriage ( not legally of course) and support the right of people to do so. But the government has a right and responsibility to regulate certain matters and to consider the impact on individuals and society with regards to certain things. If a movement develops that advocates for group marriage they may pursue it through the legal process. If people want to marry their siblings or children- same thing. But we can't just open the floodgates and say anything goes, without a public debate and careful assessment of the consequences.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
??? If the short paragraph I see you've posted a few moments ago in reply to Jillian is basically your proposal, the substance of yours and my proposal is the same.


Update after reading this: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally
Yes. We're saying the same thing.

Yes, but you leave in the word marriage in state terminology it seems, and I don't. I honestly believe that if two or ten gay men want to have a ceremony and say they are married,t hat is certainly not the state's business.

Blue:
???

• What part of "Let churches be the sole domain of marriage," suggests in any way that "marriage" remains in the terminology of state documents of folks willful "life pairing?"
• What part of "Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," suggests the word "marriage" should be part of anything the state legally documents/sanctions?
• Did I anywhere hint even that churches have a role in conferring legal "anything?"

Churches shouldn't be the sole domain. I don't care if Wal Mart marries people. Why should you?

I don't care if Walmart marries people. Are you being willfully obtuse by asking that question?

Truly I don't care what organization(s) marries people and what organization(s) "bind" people as "life partners." What I care about is that the "joining" that carries the legal weight be the one that is not called "marriage," and that non-"marriage" one is the "joining" that is sanctioned/conferred by the state or an agent of the state.

As for marriages, I don't care who performs that act nor do I care who bothers to undergo doing so. If folks want to have the clerk at 7-Eleven marry them, fine. Seeing as it's a marriage and not a state sanctioned "bonding," it makes no difference so long as the couple or cabal that gets married is content with who performs the ceremony and where.

This is really getting bizarre and I'm getting bored with it. A 7-11 clerk ....really? Neither you or anyone else has the right to say that a secular marriage that is strictly for legal purposes is not marriage . You might as well get over that nonsensical idea right now because that is not happening My wife and I were married by a judge 26 years ago- we are Atheists and we are damned sure married and no one better mess with that.

Are you really arguing over the idea that what you and she got was 26 years ago in law called "marriage" might at some point and prospectively be called a "pair bond" but everything else about it remain the same?

 

[Divine Wind]

OK, we agree that gays should have equal rights but disagree on the matter of the state’s involvement in marriage and I don’t suppose that will change. Tell me, do you really think that there are many people who would accept the total destruction of marriage as we know it, including the loss of government benefits, rights and protections? And for what purpose? ....

Sorry, but that's a bit of goal-post moving.

One is the general discussion of individual and state's rights vs. the Federal government. The second is whether or not it would happen.

As mentioned earlier, much of this is legal; specifically where kids are concerned, survivorship (what if one spouse is incapacitated in the hospital and there was no medical power of attorney?) For those reasons, most parents, grandparents and married couples don't want the hassle of doing away with marriage licenses. Factor in taking away tax breaks and they definitely wouldn't support it. The status quo would be maintained.

 

[Divine Wind]

This is really getting bizarre and I'm getting bored with it. A 7-11 clerk ....really? Neither you or anyone else has the right to say that a secular marriage that is strictly for legal purposes is not marriage . You might as well get over that nonsensical idea right now because that is not happening My wife and I were married by a judge 26 years ago- we are Atheists and we are damned sure married and no one better mess with that.

I was "married" once by a county clerk too. It fills the legal side. In the 1990s I attended a gay marriage with my girlfriend in Key West. They were married by an ordained preacher but it wasn't recognized by the law. Two different topics.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, but you leave in the word marriage in state terminology it seems, and I don't. I honestly believe that if two or ten gay men want to have a ceremony and say they are married,t hat is certainly not the state's business.

Blue:
???

• What part of "Let churches be the sole domain of marriage," suggests in any way that "marriage" remains in the terminology of state documents of folks willful "life pairing?"
• What part of "Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," suggests the word "marriage" should be part of anything the state legally documents/sanctions?
• Did I anywhere hint even that churches have a role in conferring legal "anything?"

Churches shouldn't be the sole domain. I don't care if Wal Mart marries people. Why should you?

I don't care if Walmart marries people. Are you being willfully obtuse by asking that question?

Truly I don't care what organization(s) marries people and what organization(s) "bind" people as "life partners." What I care about is that the "joining" that carries the legal weight be the one that is not called "marriage," and that non-"marriage" one is the "joining" that is sanctioned/conferred by the state or an agent of the state.

As for marriages, I don't care who performs that act nor do I care who bothers to undergo doing so. If folks want to have the clerk at 7-Eleven marry them, fine. Seeing as it's a marriage and not a state sanctioned "bonding," it makes no difference so long as the couple or cabal that gets married is content with who performs the ceremony and where.

This is really getting bizarre and I'm getting bored with it. A 7-11 clerk ....really? Neither you or anyone else has the right to say that a secular marriage that is strictly for legal purposes is not marriage . You might as well get over that nonsensical idea right now because that is not happening My wife and I were married by a judge 26 years ago- we are Atheists and we are damned sure married and no one better mess with that.

Are you really arguing over the idea that what you and she got was 26 years ago in law called "marriage" might at some point and prospectively be called a "pair bond" but everything else about it remain the same?

Exactly! It is a crock of bovine excrement! Why? Why? Why?? This whole thing just gets more ridiculous with each post!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK, we agree that gays should have equal rights but disagree on the matter of the state’s involvement in marriage and I don’t suppose that will change. Tell me, do you really think that there are many people who would accept the total destruction of marriage as we know it, including the loss of government benefits, rights and protections? And for what purpose? ....

Sorry, but that's a bit of goal-post moving.

One is the general discussion of individual and state's rights vs. the Federal government. The second is whether or not it would happen.

As mentioned earlier, much of this is legal; specifically where kids are concerned, survivorship (what if one spouse is incapacitated in the hospital and there was no medical power of attorney?) For those reasons, most parents, grandparents and married couples don't want the hassle of doing away with marriage licenses. Factor in taking away tax breaks and they definitely wouldn't support it. The status quo would be maintained.

I'm not moving the goal posts. All along I have comedown on the side of federal supremacy, and I have been consistence in my critique of the political, legal and social ramifications. Thank you for finally acknowledging that it is an untenable proposition. Can we all go home now?

 

[RodISHI]

A simple civil union contract would do it. It could be registered at the county level just like any other contract. The churches can keep marriage arrangements within the guidelines of their religious practice.

 

[320 Years of History]

Blue:
???

• What part of "Let churches be the sole domain of marriage," suggests in any way that "marriage" remains in the terminology of state documents of folks willful "life pairing?"
• What part of "Legally sanctioned unions can be called just that "unions," or "bondings" or pretty much any damn thing someone wants to call it other than "marriage," suggests the word "marriage" should be part of anything the state legally documents/sanctions?
• Did I anywhere hint even that churches have a role in conferring legal "anything?"

Churches shouldn't be the sole domain. I don't care if Wal Mart marries people. Why should you?

I don't care if Walmart marries people. Are you being willfully obtuse by asking that question?

Truly I don't care what organization(s) marries people and what organization(s) "bind" people as "life partners." What I care about is that the "joining" that carries the legal weight be the one that is not called "marriage," and that non-"marriage" one is the "joining" that is sanctioned/conferred by the state or an agent of the state.

As for marriages, I don't care who performs that act nor do I care who bothers to undergo doing so. If folks want to have the clerk at 7-Eleven marry them, fine. Seeing as it's a marriage and not a state sanctioned "bonding," it makes no difference so long as the couple or cabal that gets married is content with who performs the ceremony and where.

This is really getting bizarre and I'm getting bored with it. A 7-11 clerk ....really? Neither you or anyone else has the right to say that a secular marriage that is strictly for legal purposes is not marriage . You might as well get over that nonsensical idea right now because that is not happening My wife and I were married by a judge 26 years ago- we are Atheists and we are damned sure married and no one better mess with that.

Are you really arguing over the idea that what you and she got was 26 years ago in law called "marriage" might at some point and prospectively be called a "pair bond" but everything else about it remain the same?

Exactly! It is a crock of bovine excrement! Why? Why? Why?? This whole thing just gets more ridiculous with each post!

Oookaaay....be you Montague or Capulet?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are quite clear. And, by removing all requirements, you are also removing state/government recognition of marriage and all of the benefits and protections that go with it, right? You want to remove the right to be married in the eyes of the state despite the fact that I have shown that the courts have established that as a right.

No, you have established that IF a state grants marriage licenses, they must issue them to everyone, except in certain cases. To the best of my knowledge there is NOTHING ANYWHERE on the federal level that requires a state to recognize marriage, let alone sanction it and issue licenses.

To the best of your knowledge?? Your knowledge is wanting my friend. Federal case law establishes marriage as a fundamental right. Look it up.