Killing Homosexual Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

LOL... I said nothing about rejecting your marriage or ending anything.

You have advocated ending the legal form of marriage that I and millions of Americans enjoy.

You have advocated eliminating every 'government benefit' associated with marriage- and yeah- that is ending a lot for my wife and I.

Social Security survivors benefits: gone
Inheritance tax exemption for surviving spouse: gone
Automatic legal assumption of a spouse being a legal guardian: gone

You are willing to end legal marriage for all Americans- just to kill legal marriage for homosexuals.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.

I'm loving thd idea actually. I hope it spreads across this whole country!

Do you think the backlash for this will go against those who supported interracial marriage, or the Obergfell supporters?

I think that the backlash will go against anyone who suggests telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

What ever party tells the citizens of Alabama that they are no longer legally married.

I just can't believe the stupidity and hatred exuded by Pop and Boss Man.

 

[Boss]

They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.

LMFAOooo... Where are you "explaining" anything here... other than your bigoted moral-based opinion? You are making the exact same argument against brother-sister gay marriage as was made against gay marriage. But for some reason, you think that stomping your feet and pounding your fist proclaiming that "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage" is somehow supportable now.

Are you that much of a narcissist? You honestly think the world genuflects toward you for wisdom on what IS or ISN'T something?

 

[Boss]

What your proposal would do would require my wife and I to set up specific contracts to replace what is already in place...

Nope. Not what I advocated at all.
Please try to read my posts without interjecting your own interpretative methodologies.

When you can do that honestly, we can talk further.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.

It doesn't recognize ANY marriage from an official state standpoint... that is the point.

Again, what does that mean? Do you think the bill would have ended marriage laws? Prevented benefits? Stopped people from being legally recognized as next of kin? Other than not needing a license to be married, what is the change this bill would have enacted which would make the state stop recognizing marriage and what does that mean?

Nothing in the text of the bill seems to indicate what you claim, you have yet to actually quote the bill to support your claim, yet you keep repeating it as though you expect someone to just take your word for it.

 

[Syriusly]

They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.

LMFAOooo... Where are you "explaining" anything here... other than your bigoted moral-based opinion? You are making the exact same argument against brother-sister gay marriage as was made against gay marriage. But for some reason, you think that stomping your feet and pounding your fist proclaiming that "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage" is somehow supportable now

Where does he say "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage"

 

[Skylar]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that.

Getting rid of the 'perks' of marriage were one of the changes of your proposal. Can we add that to the list of shit that you've said....that you now admit the bill *doesn't* do?

Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

He never mentioned the constitution. You're just running from his argument.

There's no state that does what you do propose. There's not state that is even considering doing what you propose. And there's utterly insufficient support among the public for it.

Which of course, you know. As whenever the topic is raised......you run from it. Exactly as just did.

Even in Alabama, one of the most right wing states there are.....all they proposed was changing the method of entering marriage. Not the laws, not the perks, not the records, not the recognition.

You made up all of that. And your imagination has no relevance to the law.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties.

Unless they can't....which is almost always the case. As the pensions involve a third party: the organization paying them. Which almost never offers pensions to any adult 'beneficiary' of your choice. But instead, to a spouse or dependents. Social Security certainly doesn't.

You're confusing a savings account with a pension plan. They aren't the same thing.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. And instead offer us layer upon layer of pseudo-legal gibberish that is invariably meaningless.

 

[Syriusly]

What your proposal would do would require my wife and I to set up specific contracts to replace what is already in place...

Nope. Not what I advocated at all.
Please try to read my posts without interjecting your own interpretative methodologies.

When you can do that honestly, we can talk further.

If I waited for an honest post from you, I would never be responding.

You have called for an end for all government 'benefits' to marriage.

All the benefits my wife and I either currently have access to- or would be eligible for as a married couple or surviving spouses.

That would specifically harm my wife and I. It would harm almost every married couple in America.

And you are okay with that.

 

[Skylar]

They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.

LMFAOooo... Where are you "explaining" anything here... other than your bigoted moral-based opinion? You are making the exact same argument against brother-sister gay marriage as was made against gay marriage. But for some reason, you think that stomping your feet and pounding your fist proclaiming that "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage" is somehow supportable now

Where does he say "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage"

Where is any of the silly shit he's said in any law? Again, he's making this up as he goes along. The only source he ever cites.....is the rectal database.

And he's almost always wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage.

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic t partnership and leave that to the individual.

I have a pension from the State of New Jersey. I have Social Security as well. If I die, my wife will continue to get those benefits BECAUE WE ARE MARRIED ! She will inherit everything that I have tax free BECAUSE WE ARE MARRIED. No contract or will or anything else would result in her getting those benefits if we were not MARRIED. You are an idiot!

 

[Syriusly]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage.

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic t partnership and leave that to the individual.

I have a pension from the State of New Jersey. I have Social Security as wall. If I die, my wife will continue to get those benefits BECAUE WE ARE MARRIED ! She will inherit everything that I have tax free BECAUSE WE ARE MARRIED. No contract or will or anything else would result in her getting those benefits if we were not MARRIED. You are an idiot!

You don't understand.

That is okay- because at least homosexuals won't get those benefits!

 

[Boss]

Most likely because a mail box is inanimate and lacks the capacity for consent necessary to enter into any legal agreement.

But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.

It doesn't recognize ANY marriage from an official state standpoint... that is the point.

Again, what does that mean? Do you think the bill would have ended marriage laws? Prevented benefits? Stopped people from being legally recognized as next of kin? Other than not needing a license to be married, what is the change this bill would have enacted which would make the state stop recognizing marriage and what does that mean?

Nothing in the text of the bill seems to indicate what you claim, you have yet to actually quote the bill to support your claim, yet you keep repeating it as though you expect someone to just take your word for it.

Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.

 

[Skylar]

But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage.

The states clearly disagree with you. Including Alabama which most definitely sets criteria of marriage. And per the USSC have every right to, subject to constitutional guarantees.

Once again, you're ignoring the actual law and the actual supreme court rulings....in favor of what you want to be true. And what you want has no relevance to the law.

This is why your predictions of legal outcomes are almost always wrong: you keep replacing the actual law with your desires. And the law doesn't give a shit what you 'desire'.

 

[Faun]

They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.

LMFAOooo... Where are you "explaining" anything here... other than your bigoted moral-based opinion? You are making the exact same argument against brother-sister gay marriage as was made against gay marriage. But for some reason, you think that stomping your feet and pounding your fist proclaiming that "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage" is somehow supportable now.

Are you that much of a narcissist? You honestly think the world genuflects toward you for wisdom on what IS or ISN'T something?

You're fucking deranged.

I said none of what you think I said.

What I did say is that no siblings can marry each other.

Who knows what the fuck is wrong with your brain that it translated that into what you posted?

 

[Syriusly]

But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

Clearly you do hope that legal equality in marriage will end legal marriage.

I do have a problem with you proposing eliminating every government- and private- recognition of my legal marriage and requiring every married couple to come up with alternate arrangements.

 

[Faun]

They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.

LMFAOooo... Where are you "explaining" anything here... other than your bigoted moral-based opinion? You are making the exact same argument against brother-sister gay marriage as was made against gay marriage. But for some reason, you think that stomping your feet and pounding your fist proclaiming that "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage" is somehow supportable now

Where does he say "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage"

I didn't. Boss truly is fucking deranged.

 

[Boss]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage.

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic t partnership and leave that to the individual.

I have a pension from the State of New Jersey. I have Social Security as wall. If I die, my wife will continue to get those benefits BECAUE WE ARE MARRIED ! She will inherit everything that I have tax free BECAUSE WE ARE MARRIED. No contract or will or anything else would result in her getting those benefits if we were not MARRIED. You are an idiot!

And the law Alabama proposed would not change that. Nor have I advocated changing that. If, in the future, you have a Civil Union contract, it serves the exact same purpose.

 

[Skylar]

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

Clearly you do hope that legal equality in marriage will end legal marriage.

I do have a problem with you proposing eliminating every government- and private- recognition of my legal marriage and requiring every married couple to come up with alternate arrangements.

Especially when doing nothing.....has the same outcome: legal equality.

Its simple, free and instantaneous.

 

[toxicmedia]

But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

Wow....in charge, and on point.

Do you drive a huge 4-wheel drive?

At any rate...it sounds like the only thing you'll accomplish, and it also sounds like it's what you want...

If gays change the definition of marriage, you won't care about marriage anymore.

If so....what does it matter what's rattling around in your psyche?

Gay will still fall in love, have sex, and since natural selection hasn't resulted in their elimination...absolutely nothing reslts form you being in charge, and on point, wit your anti gay marriage crusade

 

[Skylar]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage.

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic t partnership and leave that to the individual.

I have a pension from the State of New Jersey. I have Social Security as wall. If I die, my wife will continue to get those benefits BECAUE WE ARE MARRIED ! She will inherit everything that I have tax free BECAUSE WE ARE MARRIED. No contract or will or anything else would result in her getting those benefits if we were not MARRIED. You are an idiot!

And the law Alabama proposed would not change that. Nor have I advocated changing that. If, in the future, you have a Civil Union contract, it serves the exact same purpose.

You have advocated getting rid of all the perks of marriage. And social security benefits are one of those perks.