A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

Marriage is just two people choosing to live one life. You might want to take a look at a few wedding vows. Of course, you are welcome to whatever opinion you might have on what marriages, handshakes, or sunsets are for. You are not entitled though to insist others limit themselves to your opinion.​

 

The solution is simple. The government should not be into licensing marriage in the first place. All unions should be civil unions to begin with.

Marriage licensing is simply a hold over from Jim Crow. It took after the civil war as a way to prohibit interracial marriage.

 

Hair color and sexual preference are both nouns. We have no laws against any sexual preference.​

 

Rubbish, the facts are the facts. And the law is the law.

In this case, the Constitution is the Constitution.

And the fact is, the state despite prohibitions against it in the Constitution has decided that it will insert itself into a religious ceremony, and while doing so, based upon that religious ceremony, afford some citizens certain rights and legal protections, while based upon the gender of other citizens, refusing to afford the same rights and protections under the law.

This is expressly forbidden by the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.

If some don't like that, instead of attempting to play semantics games with redefining words.

I suggest they lobby to have the Constitution amended so that the state can then afford some rights and protections to some citizens, while denying other citizens the same rights and protections.

Either that, or get government out of the marriage business all together, as well the first amendment attempts to ensure the government does in the first place.

 

The civil recognition of a marital union is just that - a form of civil unions. We don't need a new word for it.

 

Marriage is a cultural institution in part because it enjoys legal recognition. As I pointed out to Windigo above, the civil recognition of a marital union is a form of civil unions.

Since this is already true, I'm not seeing why the name of the government's civil recognition of marital unions needs to change.

 

I agree that what we have learned in exploring space has value, but it's hardly reason to argue going to the moon was a necessity. Your paranoia about space men and speculation about government conspiracies are illuminating but hardly proof that our government only provides necessities.​

 

There has never been a national vote on same sex marriage.

That some people might have an issue with gays marrying or driving or running a business isn't relevant, they can even take a vote if they want. But we've made a clearer and more fundamental choice which is recorded in this nations constitution. That choice is that our laws won't discriminate between citizens based on arbitrary differences like race, or religion, or sex.

Our constitution does allow us to discriminate, in a limited way, when a compelling state interest requires discrimination. The reasons why we discriminate against blind drivers or minors have been discussed and are well established. But no one has yet shown even one reason why it is necessary to limit marriage based on race, religion, or sex.

In the absence of that reason, there is no legal basis for contradicting the will of this nations people expressed in our constitution. Even if some guys in North Carolina took a vote.​

 

I don't agree. Most issues of property and mutual responsibility are a matter of contract law, but many other laws are about allowing folks living as a couple to work inside a system that expects to treat people as individuals. Laws governing relations between the state and the couple, rather than the state and each of two individuals, don't seem to be replaceable with contract law.

Laws regarding inheritance and income are really about recognizing that a couple amasses property, works, and contributes as a single unit. The laws that recognize those joint contributions are an attempt to not unfairly penalize one half of that unit when the other half dies. They also simplify merging income and expenses, so married couples don't have to have separate accounting's of their personal and partnered lives. Not unduly burdening that union is also why we extend 5th amendment privilege to the couple as a whole, not only saying a person can't be required to testify against himself but also cannot be required to testify against either half of the union.

I think the fundamental problem with removing the legal status of married from our legal system is that our legal system would then unduly burden and punish folks who try to live as one married couple. I think alleviating that unfairness is why we introduced those laws in the first place.​

 

hahahaha "Americas wholesome institutions" hahahah when might I ask has this country ever been a moral nation???

 

Legislation cannot be based upon religious opinion (Re: Raymond v US) and laws defining marriage based upon religious beliefs, which is what the same-sex [gender] prohibition marriage laws were based upon, violates the First Amendment's protection of Religious Freedom as well as the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

 

Not when Christians have been controlling our government, that's for sure.

 

So what? In Australia, and I'm pretty sure in some US states, there are "Civil Unions" which is a "form of civil union" for homosexuals, and a "marriage act" which is "a form of civil union" for heterosexuals. What they want is legal equality not legal segregation. That's like saying, blacks only schools are the same as white only schools, because they're both schools.

Because the Christian Church obviously feels some kind of ownership over the Marriage Act. There needs to be a clear separation.

 

Then let the Christian church start capitalizing their Marriage to distinguish it from legal marriage, like the way God is distinguished from other gods. Whites felt some ownership of this nations schools too, didn't see any reason to honor that claim either.​

 

Marriage is a term taken from the bible. There's a reason we don't call Laws "Commandments". Call it what it is, a Civil Union.

 

Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. There is no requirement of fertility to get a marriage license. NONE!!!!

 

The word "marriage" is not from the bible. The word marriage comes from the English word "mariage" which dates back to 1250-1300 C.E.

 

I didn't say it originated in the bible.

 

The word marriage is 700 years old. The Bible is older. Modern translations of the Bible might borrow the word marriage as a label for the various unions described in the Bible, but it's not fair to say that word belongs to it. (and Bibles also use the word 'law')

You want to call legal marriage a civil union -- I really don't mind. But unless you're going to pick up the tab for it I see no reason to start the monumental and expensive task of rewording every U.S. law that relates to marriage just to accommodate the prejudices of some religious group. I'm certainly not inclined to ask people to put their civil rights on hold why we spend decades accomplishing it.​

 

I'm sorry, do you have ANY actual knowledge, or ANY evidence, at all, of how much it would cost to do? Why would it be any different to abolishing marriage, which is another common suggestion?

Can anyone give me a good reason why the title of "High Court Judge" shouldn't renamed to "High Court Bishop"?

Is anyone seriously suggesting that modern marriage law was not derived from the Christian Bible?

And yes "law" is in the Bible, but it means the same thing. What you want to do is change the definition of marriage.

 

I appreciate your apology, thank you. I've argued repeatedly that abolishing all reference to marriage would be neither practical nor fair. If you can offer an economical solution to changing our laws to accommodate these religious prejudices, and still provide equal rights under the law, I'm happy to hear it. I'm not averse to accommodating folks sensibilities where reasonable.

My solution would be to simply remove or declare unconstitutional the handful of recent laws which discriminate against couples who would marry based on their sex. Pretty sure that's what's going to actually happen, but again -- I'm happy to listen to alternative proposals.​

 

What you have done is made a "claim" you haven't "argued".

 

Gods Law is not the same as mans laws. And I have no interest in changing the definition of marriage.​

 

*shrug* Thought I offered arguments as to why it would be neither here. But I'm not going to get hung up on what label you want to use.​

 

This does not at all relate to your claim that it would be "too expensive" or "too hard". You're just saying it would be "unfair".

And No, "God's Law" is not the same as "Man's Law", what point are you trying to make with that exactly?

Anyway I really can't be bothered. Unless you can actually come up with some cash figure that shows me it would be "too expensive" and "too hard" then its a redundant point.

Again, can you give me any good reason why we shouldn't rename "High Court Judge", or "Chief Justice" to "High Bishop". Or why you shouldn't rename "Police" to "Crusaders"?