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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Wrong! Major fail!!

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

A year after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as Americans should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017


We had experience with civil unions here in New Jersey. It did not go well:

Since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect in February 2007, many employers across New Jersey have refused to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, and therefore do not grant equal health benefits to partners of employees. Employers and hospitals say that if the legislature intended for the civil union law to be the same as marriage, the legislature would have used the same name.

Because these employers and hospitals don’t recognize civil unions as they would marriage, many same-sex couples go without adequate health insurance – a horror in this economy. And because of the real-world disparity between civil unions and marriage, some hospitals do not allow civil union partners to make medical decisions for one another, or even to visit one another in the emergency room. http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


Here is more:

Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality

This article first appeared in The Sunday Star-Ledger on Feb. 17, 2008.

When civil unions became available one year ago, Gina Pastino of Upper Montclair was "thrilled" to form one with her partner of a dozen years, Naomi Cohen.

But the couple are frustrated after a year of trying to explain -- at the bank, the passport office and repeatedly in hospitals -- that their civil union entitles them to be treated like spouses.

"People don't understand what civil unions are," said Cohen.

Judy Ford of Port Norris formed a civil union last April to add her partner to her health insurance plan. But the medical center that employs Ford used a loophole in federal law to deny coverage to her partner, Yvonne Mazzola.

Now, because of her civil union, she would be liable for her partner's uninsured medical bills. They might dissolve their civil union.



"It only puts us in a precarious legal situation," said Ford. "Now we have a civil union with no benefit and only detriment." Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality

And New Jersey is not the only state to experience a failure to achieve equality through civil unions:


Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure | Chicago Illinois Family Law Blog



And let’s not forget that the federal government only recognizes “marriage “ for the myriad of benefits and privileges that are attached to that status. Change federal laws and regulations? Good luck with that. We can’t even get a none discrimination law in employmen passed. Back in New Jersey, a state judge ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples following the Windsor decision by SCOTUS for just that reason. Previously, the state supreme court had ruled that same sex couples must be treated the same as opposite sex couples but that it did not have to be called marriage. Once the section of DOMA that dealt with federal benefits for married same sex couple was overturned, there was no longer even a pretense of equality in same sex unions could be called marriage.

 

[Divine Wind]

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?

I disagree. You've bounced around like ping ball, made false assumptions about my comments. Now, after a lot of angry diatribes, you are declaring victory and making snide remarks. No one is stopping you from taking your emotional ball and going home.

I still don't understand what your specific problem is on this matter, other than your claim of "federal supremacy". Are you angry for being married 26 years? Do you want to ban religion in marriage? What's the problem?

 

[Divine Wind]

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

Once again you are conflating a "right to marriage" with a ban on marriage. If a state doesn't issue marriage licenses, that's their choice. People can go to Vegas.

If "Federal case law establishes marriage as a fundamental right" why doesn't the Federal government issue marriage licenses?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

I disagree. You've bounced around like ping ball, made false assumptions about my comments. Now, after a lot of angry diatribes, you are declaring victory and making snide remarks. No one is stopping you from taking your emotional ball and going home.

I still don't understand what your specific problem is on this matter, other than your claim of "federal supremacy". Are you angry for being married 26 years? Do you want to ban religion in marriage? What's the problem?

Angry for being married? Hell no! that is absurd. Wanting to ban religion in marriage ? That is just stupid and uncalled for. It seems that you are the one becoming emotional and irrational here. As I have made clear, my "problem" if you want to call it that, is with people who want to destroy the institution of marriage for no good or discernable reason that they can articulate- and deprive millions of American of the benefits of legal marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Once again you are conflating a "right to marriage" with a ban on marriage. If a state doesn't issue marriage licenses, that's their choice. People can go to Vegas.

If "Federal case law establishes marriage as a fundamental right" why doesn't the Federal government issue marriage licenses?

Oh come on!! Are you serious with that one? Now you're just trolling. How would that go over with the states rights freaks who think that the constitution revolves around the tenth amendment?

 

[Divine Wind]

Angry for being married? Hell no! that is absurd. Wanting to ban religion in marriage ? That is just stupid and uncalled for. It seems that you are the one becoming emotional and irrational here. As I have made clear, my "problem" if you want to call it that, is with people who want to destroy the institution of marriage for no good or discernable reason that they can articulate- and deprive millions of American of the benefits of legal marriage.

Hardly, but you should listen to yourself.

...Thank you for finally acknowledging that it is an untenable proposition. Can we all go home now?

Oh come on!! Are you serious with that one? Now you're just trolling.

BTW, no one I've seen has suggested destroying "the institution of marriage" for any reason.

Additionally, the "institution of marriage" isn't a government entity, federal or state. It's existed far longer than either.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsorybefore pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world, arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and sometimes forced marriage, may be practiced as a cultural tradition.

 

[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.

Wrong! Major fail!!

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

A year after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as Americans should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017


We had experience with civil unions here in New Jersey. It did not go well:

Since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect in February 2007, many employers across New Jersey have refused to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, and therefore do not grant equal health benefits to partners of employees. Employers and hospitals say that if the legislature intended for the civil union law to be the same as marriage, the legislature would have used the same name.

Because these employers and hospitals don’t recognize civil unions as they would marriage, many same-sex couples go without adequate health insurance – a horror in this economy. And because of the real-world disparity between civil unions and marriage, some hospitals do not allow civil union partners to make medical decisions for one another, or even to visit one another in the emergency room. http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


Here is more:

Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality

This article first appeared in The Sunday Star-Ledger on Feb. 17, 2008.

When civil unions became available one year ago, Gina Pastino of Upper Montclair was "thrilled" to form one with her partner of a dozen years, Naomi Cohen.

But the couple are frustrated after a year of trying to explain -- at the bank, the passport office and repeatedly in hospitals -- that their civil union entitles them to be treated like spouses.

"People don't understand what civil unions are," said Cohen.

Judy Ford of Port Norris formed a civil union last April to add her partner to her health insurance plan. But the medical center that employs Ford used a loophole in federal law to deny coverage to her partner, Yvonne Mazzola.

Now, because of her civil union, she would be liable for her partner's uninsured medical bills. They might dissolve their civil union.



"It only puts us in a precarious legal situation," said Ford. "Now we have a civil union with no benefit and only detriment." Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality

And New Jersey is not the only state to experience a failure to achieve equality through civil unions:


Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure | Chicago Illinois Family Law Blog



And let’s not forget that the federal government only recognizes “marriage “ for the myriad of benefits and privileges that are attached to that status. Change federal laws and regulations? Good luck with that. We can’t even get a none discrimination law in employmen passed. Back in New Jersey, a state judge ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples following the Windsor decision by SCOTUS for just that reason. Previously, the state supreme court had ruled that same sex couples must be treated the same as opposite sex couples but that it did not have to be called marriage. Once the section of DOMA that dealt with federal benefits for married same sex couple was overturned, there was no longer even a pretense of equality in same sex unions could be called marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution always has been always will be. The state should have never been involved in issuing licenses in the first place.

 

[Divine Wind]

Marriage is a religious institution always has been always will be. The state should have never been involved in issuing licenses in the first place.

The reason a state is involved is for legal reasons protecting the spouses and any children. The cost of the license is to cover the taxpayer costs of the paperwork.

 

[Nosmo King]

The marriage contract is one established at the state level. This contract is more than a mere property agreement. This contract establishes not only a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed, but it establishes a new legal entity: the joined spouses.

Federal benefits include Social Security and Medicare benefits and pension guarantees. Tax benefits are also extended by the IRS. States also protect and extend certain benefits like hospital visitation and adoption procedures.

As for 'protecting the rights of the religious', I don't see how their 'rights' extend to avoiding commerce with homosexuals. I am a Christian. Never in my 59 years have I ever heard my minister admonish the congregation to avoid commerce with Gays and Lesbians. Where did this dogma, this mandate come from?

Are these alleged Christians simply using a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a bad purpose? When they claim their 'right' to discriminate is constitutionally protected, are they using a document that mandates equal justice for all to serve a bad purpose?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Angry for being married? Hell no! that is absurd. Wanting to ban religion in marriage ? That is just stupid and uncalled for. It seems that you are the one becoming emotional and irrational here. As I have made clear, my "problem" if you want to call it that, is with people who want to destroy the institution of marriage for no good or discernable reason that they can articulate- and deprive millions of American of the benefits of legal marriage.

Hardly, but you should listen to yourself.

...Thank you for finally acknowledging that it is an untenable proposition. Can we all go home now?

Oh come on!! Are you serious with that one? Now you're just trolling.

BTW, no one I've seen has suggested destroying "the institution of marriage" for any reason.

Additionally, the "institution of marriage" isn't a government entity, federal or state. It's existed far longer than either.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsorybefore pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

Individuals may marry for several reasons, including legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious purposes. Whom they marry may be influenced by socially determined rules of incest, prescriptive marriage rules, parental choice and individual desire. In some areas of the world, arranged marriage, child marriage, polygamy, and sometimes forced marriage, may be practiced as a cultural tradition.

no one I've seen has suggested destroying "the institution of marriage" for any reason.? Oh really. Bull! I do not care what the Wikipedia definition of marriage is or how it has been defines in various cultures. I'm concerned about how it's defined and practiced here and now, and in preserving that. We are done here bubba

 

[RodISHI]

Marriage is a religious institution always has been always will be. The state should have never been involved in issuing licenses in the first place.

The reason a state is involved is for legal reasons protecting the spouses and any children. The cost of the license is to cover the taxpayer costs of the paperwork.

County recorders collect a fee when they record a contract. Courts charge fees when contracts are involved and laws can be set to service civil unions just as any others civil laws are created (the base is already there).

 

[Divine Wind]

...Bull! I do not care what the Wikipedia definition of marriage is or how it has been defines in various cultures...

Of course you don't.

 

[Slyhunter]

It makes PERFECT sense.

If you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "no you have brown hair, so no license for you" that is discrimination
If on the other hand, you go to the courthouse and ask for a license and they say "we don't issue licenses" that isn't discrimination because you got EXACTLY the same thing as everyone else, NO LICENSE, because one is not required.

Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Is Marriage a Civil Right?

There is nothing here to suggest that a state can deny marriage to all people and not be in violation of constitutional law. If what you're saying is correct, a state could also ban freedom of assembly, or speech, as long as they did it across the board and not just target certain groups. Your argument fails big time.

Well, I argue that the Bill of Rights was NEVER meant to apply to states anyway, but that is another matter.

YOU are conflating issues.

you have a right to marry, you do NOT have a right to a state license to do so.

Really this isn't any different than in the case of free speech in that regard. Do you have to have a license to practice free speech?

I know that the bill of rights was not originally intended to apply to the states. But, the southern yahoos rose up and brought the 14th amendment down on themselves.

You keep repeating that you don't have a right to state licensed marriage but I have documented otherwise. Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true. I will add that the fact that you need a license to marry in itself does not mean that it is not a right. The reasons for the license have changed over time and currently it is simply to ensure that the participants meet very minimal requirements

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order:

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?

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.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

Maybe I'm just not being clear. I am proposing that states remove all requirements to obtain a license from said state to marry. As for divorce court , or what have you, clearly family court could manage divorces whether the marriage was approved by a church, a state, or wal mart even. For that matter , in most states if you live with someone and then ditch them with all the bills, courts will hold you responsible for your share of those bills.

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.

And now you are proposing that a civil court could grant a divorce to people who were married by a church and only a church? To legally dissolve a union that was never legally recognized in the first place.? You are becoming garbled now Some religious folks might have a problem with that.

And only a few states are common law, by the way

Actually logically speaking, if your married by the church you get divorced by the church.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is nothing here to suggest that a state can deny marriage to all people and not be in violation of constitutional law. If what you're saying is correct, a state could also ban freedom of assembly, or speech, as long as they did it across the board and not just target certain groups. Your argument fails big time.

Well, I argue that the Bill of Rights was NEVER meant to apply to states anyway, but that is another matter.

YOU are conflating issues.

you have a right to marry, you do NOT have a right to a state license to do so.

Really this isn't any different than in the case of free speech in that regard. Do you have to have a license to practice free speech?

I know that the bill of rights was not originally intended to apply to the states. But, the southern yahoos rose up and brought the 14th amendment down on themselves.

You keep repeating that you don't have a right to state licensed marriage but I have documented otherwise. Constantly repeating something doesn't make it true. I will add that the fact that you need a license to marry in itself does not mean that it is not a right. The reasons for the license have changed over time and currently it is simply to ensure that the participants meet very minimal requirements

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order:

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?

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.

Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.

In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.

Maybe I'm just not being clear. I am proposing that states remove all requirements to obtain a license from said state to marry. As for divorce court , or what have you, clearly family court could manage divorces whether the marriage was approved by a church, a state, or wal mart even. For that matter , in most states if you live with someone and then ditch them with all the bills, courts will hold you responsible for your share of those bills.

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.

And now you are proposing that a civil court could grant a divorce to people who were married by a church and only a church? To legally dissolve a union that was never legally recognized in the first place.? You are becoming garbled now Some religious folks might have a problem with that.

And only a few states are common law, by the way

Actually logically speaking, if your married by the church you get divorced by the church.

Doesn't the church only sanctify a marriage? The license, the marriage contract, is a state sanctioned thing.

 

[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?

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?

I can accept your assertion that marriage is a right. I however, have yet to see a compelling argument that any state is required to recognize, sanction, or license ANY marriage. This is my point, one which you seem hesitant to address.

No, I am not playing word games, I am asking you if walking upright is a right, or a privilege. My your own words if it not one, then it must be the other. Need I remind you what you said? "If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities." See bolded passage above. Does your logic not transfer to walking upright?

 

[oldsoul]

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

The Supreme Court has also ruled that free speak is a right, however, one does not need to be licensed by any government body to exercise said right. What makes marriage different?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why doesn't this guy seem to understand that marriage is a right, a state issued marriage license is not?

 

[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.

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

You seem to be missing the point here. Where is the requirement for states to issue licenses to ANYONE? I agree, IF they issue licenses, they MUST issue them in compliance with federal law. However, if a state chooses to do away with said licenses for EVERYONE, however improbable, what law/ruling would compel them to continue issuing licenses? All I ask for is the law/ruling that would compel a state to issue licenses in the first place. I really don't know how to be more clear. Is there something confusing about my request?

 

[oldsoul]

Why doesn't this guy seem to understand that marriage is a right, a state issued marriage license is not?

No idea. Maybe he just wants the control factor. Who knows, he certainly is not explaining it, so all we have is speculation...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why doesn't this guy seem to understand that marriage is a right, a state issued marriage license is not?

No idea. Maybe he just wants the control factor. Who knows, he certainly is not explaining it, so all we have is speculation...

The answer is obvious. He understands what we are saying, but his true motive is he wants those who don't approve of gay marriage to have to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage as just that. He isn't interested in what is lawful, or right. He's interested in his gay agenda.