Why do so many Goppers oppose Gay Marriage ?

[Hutch Starskey]

Marriage laws are state laws. There is no genuine basis for any federal legislation.

Except for equal protection of course.

 

[initforme]

If it's this much of a problem let this white male Christian traditionally married man say I would be in favor of abolishing all marriages including my own so that all are free to do what they want. I will lead the charge.

 

[BackAgain]

The question is why? We don't need to create two names within the legal system for the same thing.

Why not? It’s none of the government’s business except for certain related consequences. So if Joe wants to “marry” Jane, he’s free to do so. But as far as the state is concerned, the happy couple is bound by a simple civil contract.

Who cares if it’s called marriage? Maybe the couple. Maybe for religious reasons. Fine. Get married then. But for non religious secular purposes, the state just treats them as the parties to a contract with related legal consequences.

 

[BackAgain]

Except for equal protection of course.

Nope. States are not Constitutionally permitted to treat their own citizens unequally. So again, no basis for Federal involvement.

 

[BackAgain]

If it's this much of a problem let this white male Christian traditionally married man say I would be in favor of abolishing all marriages including my own so that all are free to do what they want. I will lead the charge.

It isn’t a big problem. It would be easy and efficient.

 

[initforme]

Live and let live.

 

[BackAgain]

Live and let live.

My proposal would serve that very purpose.

 

[Flopper]

In the age of computers, a simple line of code that replaces any mention of marriage with civil union would be simple and they would all be changed with a key stroke.

It is not that simple. Every state legislature has to vote on a bill that would change ever law that references marriage. Cities and counties would have to change their laws also. And for next 50 years the public would believe that there is difference between a marriage license and civil union license. Couples would ask for marriage licenses. And some smart ass would question why is government wasting tax payer dollars to change the marriage license when there is no change.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The difference is that there is no such thing as Adultery Pride parades, and no one glorifies the practice.

There is no adultery flags, and no one stands before Congress demanding that discrimination against adulterers be prohibited.

Hmmmm....are you joking? We just had a president who one of his claims to fame was his philandering

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Federal law does that in one move.

Why should anyone follow federal law when the feds won't even follow federal law?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who cares if it’s called marriage?

If nobody cares if it is called marriage, why to go all the trouble to change the name?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is not that simple. Every state legislature has to vote on a bill that would change ever law that references marriage. Cities and counties would have to change their laws also. And for next 50 years the public would believe that there is difference between a marriage license and civil union license. Couples would ask for marriage licenses. And some smart ass would question why is government wasting tax payer dollars to change the marriage license when there is no change.

While doing the dishes a bit of irony struck me, these people are all claiming that marriage is religious institution yet the vast, vast majority of churches would not consider a couple married if they did not have that piece of paper from the Civil authorities.

 

[Concerned American]

Every state legislature has to vote on a bill that would change ever law that references marriage.

Done on the federal level, as has been done when they codified same sex unions, it would be a procedural vote at best. Those other government entities are bound by their superior organizations.

 

[Rogue AI]

71% of Americans disagree with you. Take your right wing fascism and shove it up your ass.

Good thing Constitutionality isn't a popularity contest.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Done on the federal level, as has been done when they codified same sex unions, it would be a procedural vote at best. Those other government entities are bound by their superior organizations.

And then go about changing 10s of thousands of documents in all the different departments that mention marriage.

All so people like you are not triggered.

Yeah, fuck that. You are not worth the cost

 

[Flopper]

Marriage is a religious institution. No matter how many times you try to change the definition. Anything else is a civil union or domestic partnership. BTW, apparently you care or WTF are you doing here?

And it is a legal institution also. We have a term for marriages done in church, religious marriages and a term for marriage in a civil office, a civil marriage. Since both types of marriages accomplish the same thing, people call them just marriages.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nope. States are not Constitutionally permitted to treat their own citizens unequally. So again, no basis for Federal involvement.

Until SCOTUS removes that you mean. Hence the need to codify it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If nobody cares if it is called marriage, why to go all the trouble to change the name?

Because they care.

 

[BackAgain]

It is not that simple. Every state legislature has to vote on a bill that would change ever law that references marriage. Cities and counties would have to change their laws also. And for next 50 years the public would believe that there is difference between a marriage license and civil union license. Couples would ask for marriage licenses. And some smart ass would question why is government wasting tax payer dollars to change the marriage license when there is no change.

It would be basically simple. Politicians collectively have the capacity to screw up a wet dream. Here, they could do something simple and effective.

There is an interstate agreement on detainers whereby most (all?) States passed almost identical legislation regarding the legal process for one state to arrange to have a criminal defendant wanted in one state held in the state the person is found in — and what needs to then be done to have him (or her) brought back to the state that has the outstanding warrant on him (or her).

It wouldn’t be hard (overall) to do this in pieces in all states.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Good thing Constitutionality isn't a popularity contest.

It is though. Just 5-4 or 6-3.