Would you sign a petition to eliminate civil marriage licenses?

[The Rabbi]

Marriage is a right...and unless the government can come up with a compelling legal reason to restrict it, they must comply with the 14th amendment and treat all law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens the same.

I know that really sticks in your craw....but that's it.

They do treat everyone the same. I've been saying that for pages and pages here. What is so difficult about that concept that you don't understand it?
Is it because you think women are really men without penises?

So a gay couple getting married is treated the same?

A homosexual couple is an "everyone" but a group. And individuals have rights, not groups.

 

[Spoonman]

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

absolutely, in a heart beat. let's keep separation of church and state.

 

[Richard-H]

So far it's always been the States that determine the marraige laws, and it's the responsibility of the states to make laws for the benefit and protection of the people of that state.

Marraige is a commitment - otherwise known as an agreement - and also as a contract.

Ensuring that contracts are honored is one of the most basic requirements of a free enterprise society.

 

[JohnA]

Not that I agree with this particular argument, but homosexual sex is not heterosexual sex. It is not equal, in the least. In fact, as sexual relations are legally defined as a penis penetrating a vagina, homosexual sex is non-existent.
Zero does not and never will equal one.

So if in your opinion sexual relations are* defined* as a penis entering a vagina oraL sex is NOT sex bill clinton must love you

What ever is considered sex needs to be kept in the bed room. No civil rights for sex acts.

why are you restricted to the bedroom expand your horizons a bit ..
on the beach is good

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Very true...homosexuality is a sexual preference....but that would not be why I would be denied a marriage license....gay people marry people of the opposite sex? TOTALLY allowed.

It's not that I'm gay, it that I wish to marry someone of the same GENDER.

It's gender discrimination.

Bod your getting too complex.

The federal govt was not given the power to decide what marriage is or is not by the constitution, therefore the federal govt approving or denying marriages is unconstitutional leaving it to the states and the people (10th ammendment) to decide.

Thats how it should be.

In my opinion there is no legitimate reason to deny a same sex union of 2 people. Also in my opinion married or "unioned" people should not get special status with the govt.

So you agree the states have the power to set marriage criteria.
Thanks.
If some state wants to vote in gay marriage, that's their business. I draw the line at unaccountable judges overturning the will fo the people.

Yeah I agree 100%.

If a state wants to say no to gay marriage then if your gay and want to be married dont move there or move to a state that has the laws you like. Thats on of the reasons we have the 10th ammendment in the first place, to keep states competing for citizenship.

And yes california did it wrong while NY and MA did it right.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thank you for admitting that we do NOT have equal rights.

Neither do all single americans. I say take that special exeption from the married or give the special exemption to all taxpayers (no longer making it special )

When you get to the tax code there are hundreds of categories where there is some favored or dysfavored tax status.
That isn't discrimination.

I think it is. All americans should have the same tax burden in my opinion, like 20% or whatever number it needs to be.

That means the dude making a $1,000,000,000 a year pays $200,000,000 in taxes while the dude making $10,000/year pays $2,000 in taxes.

I am ok with a tax credit that is available to everyone like we have now, say make it $5,000. If we do a tax credit of $5000, using my numbers, those making 25,000/year and under would pay no taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Neither do all single americans. I say take that special exeption from the married or give the special exemption to all taxpayers (no longer making it special )

When you get to the tax code there are hundreds of categories where there is some favored or dysfavored tax status.
That isn't discrimination.

I think it is. All americans should have the same tax burden in my opinion, like 20% or whatever number it needs to be.

That means the dude making a $1,000,000,000 a year pays $200,000,000 in taxes while the dude making $10,000/year pays $2,000 in taxes.

I am ok with a tax credit that is available to everyone like we have now, say make it $5,000. If we do a tax credit of $5000, using my numbers, those making 25,000/year and under would pay no taxes.

It isn't discrimination because anyone in that situation has the credit available, regardless of race, etc.
You want to argue for simplifying the tax code, go right ahead. I couldn't agree more.

 

[mudwhistle]

How odd that all those saying that government should get out of the marriage business are not voting yes in this poll....or else are moving the goal posts.

If you want to end marriage as an institution removing government from it isn't gonna change that.

I'm trying to figure out your point.

 

[The Rabbi]

How odd that all those saying that government should get out of the marriage business are not voting yes in this poll....or else are moving the goal posts.

If you want to end marriage as an institution removing government from it isn't gonna change that.

I'm trying to figure out your point.

Her point is that she is oppressed because she can't do whatever the hell she wants and have everyone applaud her for it.

Isn't that obvious?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How odd that all those saying that government should get out of the marriage business are not voting yes in this poll....or else are moving the goal posts.

If you want to end marriage as an institution removing government from it isn't gonna change that.

I'm trying to figure out your point.

Bod is a gay woman, she obviously wants the ability to marry another woman just like a man and a woman can get married and she wants the same responsibilities, benefits, and status in the eyes of the govt as a married person.

Her initial question was

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

On this point I am 100% in favor of the govt getting out of marriage liscenses.

 

[The Rabbi]

How odd that all those saying that government should get out of the marriage business are not voting yes in this poll....or else are moving the goal posts.

If you want to end marriage as an institution removing government from it isn't gonna change that.

I'm trying to figure out your point.

Bod is a gay woman, she obviously wants the ability to marry another woman just like a man and a woman can get married and she wants the same responsibilities, benefits, and status in the eyes of the govt as a married person.

Her initial question was

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

On this point I am 100% in favor of the govt getting out of marriage liscenses.

Are you also in favor of the gov't getting out of the:
Alimony
Child support
Bankruptcy
Contract
Real Estate
Inheritance

business as well? Because all of these, and probably a bunch I forgot, are intertwined with marriage. It would mean unwinding the entire common law system.
And that aint gonna happen.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If you want to end marriage as an institution removing government from it isn't gonna change that.

I'm trying to figure out your point.

Bod is a gay woman, she obviously wants the ability to marry another woman just like a man and a woman can get married and she wants the same responsibilities, benefits, and status in the eyes of the govt as a married person.

Her initial question was

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

On this point I am 100% in favor of the govt getting out of marriage liscenses.

Are you also in favor of the gov't getting out of the:
Alimony
Child support
Bankruptcy
Contract
Real Estate
Inheritance

business as well? Because all of these, and probably a bunch I forgot, are intertwined with marriage. It would mean unwinding the entire common law system.
And that aint gonna happen.

If you get a divorce and have a kid then you can either come to an amicable agreement, using lawyers, or go in front of a court and let them decide what a good seperation agreement is. (alimony, child custody, child support)

not everything on your list directly relates to what happens in a divorce. The rest can be handled with existing laws that don't relate directly to marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bod is a gay woman, she obviously wants the ability to marry another woman just like a man and a woman can get married and she wants the same responsibilities, benefits, and status in the eyes of the govt as a married person.

Her initial question was

On this point I am 100% in favor of the govt getting out of marriage liscenses.

Are you also in favor of the gov't getting out of the:
Alimony
Child support
Bankruptcy
Contract
Real Estate
Inheritance

business as well? Because all of these, and probably a bunch I forgot, are intertwined with marriage. It would mean unwinding the entire common law system.
And that aint gonna happen.

If you get a divorce and have a kid then you can either come to an amicable agreement, using lawyers, or go in front of a court and let them decide what a good seperation agreement is. (alimony, child custody, child support)

not everything on your list directly relates to what happens in a divorce. The rest can be handled with existing laws that don't relate directly to marriage.

They do relate directly to marriage.
On what basis will lawyers or a court decide? If a woman shacks up with a guy for a week and then claims they're married who is going to decide that? There will be no accepted definition of "married".
If a guy goes to file bankruptcy and has his secretary move in with him and claims marital exemption on all his property, who is going to say differently?
It creates an enormous mess because common law views the "marital state" as something special. Rightly so. And accords the marital state rights and privileges that single people don't have. Rightly so.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Are you also in favor of the gov't getting out of the:
Alimony
Child support
Bankruptcy
Contract
Real Estate
Inheritance

business as well? Because all of these, and probably a bunch I forgot, are intertwined with marriage. It would mean unwinding the entire common law system.
And that aint gonna happen.

If you get a divorce and have a kid then you can either come to an amicable agreement, using lawyers, or go in front of a court and let them decide what a good seperation agreement is. (alimony, child custody, child support)

not everything on your list directly relates to what happens in a divorce. The rest can be handled with existing laws that don't relate directly to marriage.

They do relate directly to marriage.
On what basis will lawyers or a court decide? If a woman shacks up with a guy for a week and then claims they're married who is going to decide that? There will be no accepted definition of "married".
If a guy goes to file bankruptcy and has his secretary move in with him and claims marital exemption on all his property, who is going to say differently?
It creates an enormous mess because common law views the "marital state" as something special. Rightly so. And accords the marital state rights and privileges that single people don't have. Rightly so.

It can be decided by the individuals on a case by case basis, like it is now.

Your example of the secretary, he can claim that...his wife can claim otherwise, then they can pay to take it in front of a court if they disagree.

I just dont agree with you that the "marital state" should be treated different than the "individual state".

I am here listening though if you have some other reasons for me to reconsider my opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you get a divorce and have a kid then you can either come to an amicable agreement, using lawyers, or go in front of a court and let them decide what a good seperation agreement is. (alimony, child custody, child support)

not everything on your list directly relates to what happens in a divorce. The rest can be handled with existing laws that don't relate directly to marriage.

They do relate directly to marriage.
On what basis will lawyers or a court decide? If a woman shacks up with a guy for a week and then claims they're married who is going to decide that? There will be no accepted definition of "married".
If a guy goes to file bankruptcy and has his secretary move in with him and claims marital exemption on all his property, who is going to say differently?
It creates an enormous mess because common law views the "marital state" as something special. Rightly so. And accords the marital state rights and privileges that single people don't have. Rightly so.

It can be decided by the individuals on a case by case basis, like it is now.

Your example of the secretary, he can claim that...his wife can claim otherwise, then they can pay to take it in front of a court if they disagree.

I just dont agree with you that the "marital state" should be treated different than the "individual state".

I am here listening though if you have some other reasons for me to reconsider my opinion.

Your statement about deciding on a case by case basis makes no sense.
Someone makes a claim they are married and entitled to half the other person's assets. How do you adjudicate that claim in the absence of any agreed on definition of marriage?
The solution is to abolish any notion of marriage, so one person is treated like any other person and one relationship is like any other relationship.
So now we have arrived at the point where we disprove the fag lobby's assertion that their campaign is no threat to my marriage. It clearly is, by devaluing the committed relationship I have had for over 20 years.

Every society recognizes marriage under some kind of definition. There is a reason for that. It is a special, sacred relationship that is the building block of any society. Destroy that, you destroy society.

 

[Sallow]

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

Nope.

I think it's a good thing that government encourages marriage and family.

Marriage pre-dates religion.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

They do relate directly to marriage.
On what basis will lawyers or a court decide? If a woman shacks up with a guy for a week and then claims they're married who is going to decide that? There will be no accepted definition of "married".
If a guy goes to file bankruptcy and has his secretary move in with him and claims marital exemption on all his property, who is going to say differently?
It creates an enormous mess because common law views the "marital state" as something special. Rightly so. And accords the marital state rights and privileges that single people don't have. Rightly so.

It can be decided by the individuals on a case by case basis, like it is now.

Your example of the secretary, he can claim that...his wife can claim otherwise, then they can pay to take it in front of a court if they disagree.

I just dont agree with you that the "marital state" should be treated different than the "individual state".

I am here listening though if you have some other reasons for me to reconsider my opinion.

Your statement about deciding on a case by case basis makes no sense.
Someone makes a claim they are married and entitled to half the other person's assets. How do you adjudicate that claim in the absence of any agreed on definition of marriage?
The solution is to abolish any notion of marriage, so one person is treated like any other person and one relationship is like any other relationship.

So now we have arrived at the point where we disprove the fag lobby's assertion that their campaign is no threat to my marriage. It clearly is, by devaluing the committed relationship I have had for over 20 years.

Every society recognizes marriage under some kind of definition. There is a reason for that. It is a special, sacred relationship that is the building block of any society. Destroy that, you destroy society.

Easy, both parties bring evidence to a court, pay a court fee to have a 3rd party examine the evidence and decide if the claim of entitlement to assets is valid or not. I just don't believe that marriage should be an instution that the government has any involvement in. I understand the legal points you are talking about with regards to seperations after marriage but I think they can still be handled as they are now while getting the govt out of defining or giving special treatment to the married.

 

[The Rabbi]

It can be decided by the individuals on a case by case basis, like it is now.

Your example of the secretary, he can claim that...his wife can claim otherwise, then they can pay to take it in front of a court if they disagree.

I just dont agree with you that the "marital state" should be treated different than the "individual state".

I am here listening though if you have some other reasons for me to reconsider my opinion.

Your statement about deciding on a case by case basis makes no sense.
Someone makes a claim they are married and entitled to half the other person's assets. How do you adjudicate that claim in the absence of any agreed on definition of marriage?
The solution is to abolish any notion of marriage, so one person is treated like any other person and one relationship is like any other relationship.

So now we have arrived at the point where we disprove the fag lobby's assertion that their campaign is no threat to my marriage. It clearly is, by devaluing the committed relationship I have had for over 20 years.

Every society recognizes marriage under some kind of definition. There is a reason for that. It is a special, sacred relationship that is the building block of any society. Destroy that, you destroy society.

Easy, both parties bring evidence to a court, pay a court fee to have a 3rd party examine the evidence and decide if the claim of entitlement to assets is valid or not. I just don't believe that marriage should be an instution that the government has any involvement in. I understand the legal points you are talking about with regards to seperations after marriage but I think they can still be handled as they are now while getting the govt out of defining or giving special treatment to the married.

In ordet to examine evidence there has to be an agreed on definition of marriage to see whether the facts meet that definition or not.
If she claims that a sexual act constitutes marriage, how do we know she is wrong? If he claims that giving her a piece of costume jewelry constitutes marriage, how do we decide whether he did or not?
(These two acts are not random, btw. Both are legal ways to contract a marriage under Jewish law).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Your statement about deciding on a case by case basis makes no sense.
Someone makes a claim they are married and entitled to half the other person's assets. How do you adjudicate that claim in the absence of any agreed on definition of marriage?
The solution is to abolish any notion of marriage, so one person is treated like any other person and one relationship is like any other relationship.

So now we have arrived at the point where we disprove the fag lobby's assertion that their campaign is no threat to my marriage. It clearly is, by devaluing the committed relationship I have had for over 20 years.

Every society recognizes marriage under some kind of definition. There is a reason for that. It is a special, sacred relationship that is the building block of any society. Destroy that, you destroy society.

Easy, both parties bring evidence to a court, pay a court fee to have a 3rd party examine the evidence and decide if the claim of entitlement to assets is valid or not. I just don't believe that marriage should be an instution that the government has any involvement in. I understand the legal points you are talking about with regards to seperations after marriage but I think they can still be handled as they are now while getting the govt out of defining or giving special treatment to the married.

In ordet to examine evidence there has to be an agreed on definition of marriage to see whether the facts meet that definition or not.
If she claims that a sexual act constitutes marriage, how do we know she is wrong? If he claims that giving her a piece of costume jewelry constitutes marriage, how do we decide whether he did or not?
(These two acts are not random, btw. Both are legal ways to contract a marriage under Jewish law).

I understand what your getting at and I do have a relatively simple solution that comes to mind.

If 2 individuals decide they are married then they have to make a public declaration of said marriage together. Say by both taking out individual ads in a newspaper to say they are married.

This is a fun discussion, thanks for challenging me and providing me with your thoughts and opinions so far

 

[The Rabbi]

Easy, both parties bring evidence to a court, pay a court fee to have a 3rd party examine the evidence and decide if the claim of entitlement to assets is valid or not. I just don't believe that marriage should be an instution that the government has any involvement in. I understand the legal points you are talking about with regards to seperations after marriage but I think they can still be handled as they are now while getting the govt out of defining or giving special treatment to the married.

In ordet to examine evidence there has to be an agreed on definition of marriage to see whether the facts meet that definition or not.
If she claims that a sexual act constitutes marriage, how do we know she is wrong? If he claims that giving her a piece of costume jewelry constitutes marriage, how do we decide whether he did or not?
(These two acts are not random, btw. Both are legal ways to contract a marriage under Jewish law).

I understand what your getting at and I do have a relatively simple solution that comes to mind.

If 2 individuals decide they are married then they have to make a public declaration of said marriage together. Say by both taking out individual ads in a newspaper to say they are married.

This is a fun discussion, thanks for challenging me and providing me with your thoughts and opinions so far

So if I take out an ad saying I am married to Paris Hilton, and take one out in her name, does that mean I am entitled to half her estate? Kewl.
That of course imposes a cost on people, similar to a marriage license. And people can do it for scam, for jokes, for all kinds of things.
Again, it ultimately renders marriage a joke.