We wouldn't be having these issues if the courts simply recognized the purpose of marriage. Improving the wellbeing of children and their mothers. Its only when they decided that marriage should instead be about the government bestowing respect and dignity upon couples that we run into these issues.
I completely agree. Perhaps we should move to civil union contracts in which 2 individuals can enter into a contract to share benefits and property. Any individual can choose any other individual to partner with. There would be no gender or sexuality issues to be concerned with at all.
The only interests I see the government as having are mostly ones of Contract Law, because let's face it, outside of any religious connotations that's all marriage really is, from a legal standpoint. Considering that, what interests do the government have? Well there is the disposition and care for any minor children. Then there are the tax implications. Lastly there are the matters of Power of Attorney for end of life decisions and post mortem Probate and Inheritance. These are all really matters of Contract or at least Civil Law with the exception, perhaps of children, although even in that case things like child support are contractual issues. I really don't think outside of these confines Government has any compelling interest in concerning itself whether 2, 3, 5 or 20 consenting adults wish to enter into a contractual partnership. Really, there is nothing preventing it today. The way I see it is those both in support of and those opposed the the notions of "traditional marriage" are more seeking some form of social validation or approval of their respective lifestyles in the form of the blessing of Government. IMHO it really isn't their role to approve or disapprove of how I chose to live.
I was thinking the easiest thing to do would be limit the contractual partnership to 2 adults. Otherwise there would be significant disruptions to the way a lot of things are currently done. For example, you wouldn't want to allow 19 people to free load on the one and only adult among the 20 who is willing to work to have insurance. That would not be fair to the insurance company. It would also complicate divorce hearings. But yeah, otherwise any 2 consenting adults whether it is husband/wife, parent/child, brother/brother, brother/sister, or just friends as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of all that entails (power of attorney, insurance, taxes, property, dependent care, etc.). No gender or sexuality issues whatsoever are considered. And don't even call it marriage. Then people can call it what they want whether it's Biblical Marriage, Gay Marriage, or whatever suits their fancy.
And in my opinion the only contract term that gives rise to any legitimate governmental interest would be- § 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if: (1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;
Certainly the gays are seeking social validation through marriage and the courts are awarding it to them on that basis. But, for instance the Lovings, the interracial couple in Virginia that went to the supreme court to win the right to interracial marriage, weren't looking for social validation. They were seeking to avoid being thrown in jail for living as husband and wife in Virginia, without a valid marriage license. It was a crime for a man to have sex with a woman that wasn't his wife. Against the law to even cohabitate in the same house without a valid license. THIS is why marriage was declared to be a constitutional right, because the criminal law required a marriage license to exercise their right to join together to create a home, a family. They couldn't become a father and mother to their children and even live together in the same house. Government didn't invent marriage licenses and make it a crime for men and women to cohabitate or engage in sex without a marriage license, in order to grant social validation to individual couples in marriage. Precisely the opposite, a social condemnation of heterosexual sex outside of marriage. And not because it is immoral but instead because it frequently leads to mothers and children in need of care and no man around to hold responsible for that care. .
Yeah. In my opinion, some 28 yr old bimbo divorcee with no kids who has become accustomed to a wealthy lifestyle in her 3 years of marriage to a rich man, doesn't really give rise to any legitimate governmental interest. Include 2 small children and a new mother unable to get her old job at Hooters back, and a legitimate governmental interest does arise.
Since every state has a statute similar to this § 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if: (1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage; It wouldn't make any sense to do so in the case of two platonic friends.
Yeah. In my opinion, some 28 yr old bimbo divorcee with no kids who has become accustomed to a wealthy lifestyle in her 3 years of marriage to a rich man, doesn't really give rise to any legitimate governmental interest.
Geeze. I feel like I've stepped into a pile of shi'ite just by reading through this. Ultimately, is this someone's pet peeve? Sent via Tapatalk
I have no problem with homosexuals, bisexuals or any type of sexuality unless it infringes on the rights of others such as pedophilia, rapists and such. However where many of the most militants in the LGBT movement seem to forget that there is also such a thing as freedom of religion. While you have the right to practice your sexuality as you see fit, churches and business owners have the right to refuse service for those that that they disagree with...You cannot ask for respect for your personal actions and then throw a hissy fit when someone disagrees with you. That dressmaker who refuses to make gowns for Melania Trump is well within her right to refuse, just as the bakers were within their rights to refuse to bake a cake for a lesbian couple.
I agree, coexistence is more important than vindication. And in order to do that there has to be mutual respect.
While I cannot speak for everyone, the problem I have here is that some Christians are hiding behind their shield of religion which currently protects them from discrimination in services, goods, housing, education, finance, employment, etc while arguing that another group should not have these same protections. The constitution does say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", it does not say individuals or business should be forced to serve them or that states cannot pass laws that potentially effect religious persons as long as they are not directly singled out. Either have public accommodation and apply it equally or remove it entirely.
Yeah, that's what I said. And no discrimination by the government should be tolerated that does not serve a legitimate governmental interest. Lately though, all constitutional standards seemed to be discarded when gays are involved.
The issue is much simpler then you think. Homosexuality is a private activity. Heterosexuality is an activity that has to be controlled by the government (society). If you pay 1000 benefits to homosexuals for no reason, you essentially provide special privileges for politically connected group.
Marriage by design discriminates between the married and unmarried so not sure what you are getting at. And while if they allowed any same sex couple to marry they would eliminate the discrimination within marriage, but they opted for GAY marriage instead.
Anybody of legal age can get married. Do nobody is discriminated against except children but they are discriminated against in every legally binding contact. No they didn't. "gay" marriage is a figment of your imagination. It doesn't appear on any legal documents. It's just marriage. It doesn't discriminate against incestuous marriage or ploygamy because they are different. You've been pitching that dumb argument as long as I've known you here. It's a failed one
