Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger and Faun
I am sorry but I'm having trouble keeping up with every person
posting on the other thread for gay marriage and constitutional rights.

Do you mind if I branch off and take where your msgs and questions
left off on the other thread and pull them over here?

I think where we agree is not to let opposing views of marriage
abuse govt to infringe or deny equal rights and beliefs of those
who do support or want equal rights to same sex marriage
and contractual benefits through govt,
and where we DON'T agree is how to use law/govt to establish that.

That is where I find the two camps have such polar opposite approaches,
so that the approach each proposes violates the beliefs of the other approach.

Can we discuss that HERE?
If we can work it out, I don't mind posting back on the original thread,
but it's just branching out so much with 4-5 people replying I can't follow it all. Thanks!

 

[Syriusly]

At this rate I'm not against it. The government has spoken in favor of gay marriage. They'd have to favor marriage between close relatives as well, because the exact arguments apply. It's a logical outcome. Really, I believe some states already allow it. You don't hear about it because incest is taboo, even though species, including humans, lean to incest more than homosexuality.

I think what you are saying is that you believe that the only argument against gay marriage and marriage between a father and his daughter- is that they are taboo?

If you believe that is the only argument against either of them then I can see why you would be in favor of them being treated the same.

And frankly if that was the only argument against incestuous marriage, then it shouldn't be illegal.

But its not the only argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?

The main beneficiaries of marriage, children,.

How can children be the main beneficiaries when in a large portion of marriages there are no children?

 

[Syriusly]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

We have marriage for all.

It is settled.

Set up your own system and let others set up theirs. By my system it was already a right under religious freedom so no court ruling was needed, that freedom already exists and has always existed. Syriusly

My own system is set up- my wife and I have been legally married for over 20 years. The only change is that in the last 50 years, courts have overruled states who have tried to restrict the rights of mixed race couples and gay couples from marrying. Doesn't affect my marriage at all.

By contrast- you want to end my legal marriage so a few Christians feel better.

A. No, I'm not trying to end your legal marriage.
1. You still have your marriage that is between partners and everyone else to still recognize.
but you'd have a CHOICE which system you want it under.
2. What changes is for those who DON'T want govt to mess with marriages,
the govt only manages the civil contract part.
The legal and financial agreements are separated from whatever SOCIAL relationship
the partners have that is not the govt's business.
3. And I guess for people who WANT govt to manage their whole relationship and benefits for them, we'd have to set up a system to allow that, without interfering with those who just
want govt to handle the civil unions and secular contracts, not intervene in anything else.

You are changing whole belief systems. .

No- government is not changing anyone's belief systems.

Because again- civil marriage- my marriage- has nothing to do with anyone else's beliefs.

I still don't see what it is you want.

I have a legal marriage with my wife- that is a legal contract which includes legal restrictions, legal responsibilities and legal benefits. Those we get because we are legally married.

The government has nothing to do with the social or moral aspect of our marriage.

I still cannot figure out what you are proposing.

 

[emilynghiem]

At this rate I'm not against it. The government has spoken in favor of gay marriage. They'd have to favor marriage between close relatives as well, because the exact arguments apply. It's a logical outcome. Really, I believe some states already allow it. You don't hear about it because incest is taboo, even though species, including humans, lean to incest more than homosexuality.

I think what you are saying is that you believe that the only argument against gay marriage and marriage between a father and his daughter- is that they are taboo?

If you believe that is the only argument against either of them then I can see why you would be in favor of them being treated the same.

And frankly if that was the only argument against incestuous marriage, then it shouldn't be illegal.

But its not the only argument.

Why can't two people be in a civil contract that doesn't dictate if they have
any personal or sexual/romantic relations whatsoever? Syriusly TheDude
what if it is solely for the civil partnership of things like shared custody or estate,
guardianship, shared ownership of house or property, etc.

so if people have other beliefs about sexual relations that can be their choice
but has nothing to do with the licensed partnership through govt.

People form LLC and partnerships all the time without being
a related couple or married/romantically involved.

What's wrong with that?
Would that solve the problem?

 

[Syriusly]

At this rate I'm not against it. The government has spoken in favor of gay marriage. They'd have to favor marriage between close relatives as well, because the exact arguments apply. It's a logical outcome. Really, I believe some states already allow it. You don't hear about it because incest is taboo, even though species, including humans, lean to incest more than homosexuality.

I think what you are saying is that you believe that the only argument against gay marriage and marriage between a father and his daughter- is that they are taboo?

If you believe that is the only argument against either of them then I can see why you would be in favor of them being treated the same.

And frankly if that was the only argument against incestuous marriage, then it shouldn't be illegal.

But its not the only argument.

Why can't two people be in a civil contract that doesn't dictate if they have
any personal or sexual/romantic relations whatsoever? Syriusly TheDude
what if it is solely for the civil partnership of things like shared custody or estate,
guardianship, shared ownership of house or property, etc.

Nothing prevents any two people from entering into such a partnership.

But only marriage confers unique responsibilities and benefits and while marriage presumes personal and/or sexual romantic relations, it does not require them.