Gay people's opinion should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

License means restrictions and obligations. Restrictions and obligation are not rights.
For instance close relatives cannot get marriage license, because procreation among close relatives is not desired. Also minors cannot get married because procreation among minors related numerous childbearing issues.
If married couple procreates man automatically have an obligation to be a father and woman to be a mother, regardless whether both parents wanted a child or not.
Those restrictions and obligations are totally irrelevant for homosexual couples, so those couples should no be licensed and regulated.
If people want to give homosexual couples special treatment it is fine, but you can't regulate fundamentally different couples with the same law.

 

The fully capable to get equal rights, if marriage is about equal rights.

 

Please do not tell me what to do and I will not tell you where to go.

 

No, the marriage license is just a permit to get married. It involved a background check to make sure the persons aren't already legally married and meet other state restrictions for the license. The license is required by some churches and by the state office that will eventually certify the marriage.

Restrictions upon who can get a license include the fact that folks are unmarried (our laws only support exclusive marriages, otherwise it get's too complicated), of legal age (we do not allow minors to sign contracts), not immediate family (inheritance law and parental influence impact consent and create complications), and of prescribed sex (apparently for some religious reason).

Interesting side note, there are no restrictions or requirements for the marriage license based on the couples ability to have sex or children.

​

 

Actually, license means authority to do something not authorized by the unlicensed.

I think you are confusing the restrictions of obtaining a marriage license with the restrictions imposed on couples who have a marriage license.

Actually, this is the case even if the couple is not married. So marriage is irrelevant to procreation.

See above. You don't have to be married to your fellow parent to have obligations for the child.

Except there's no special treatment in treating others equally.

 

Actually, the issue here is consent. Not child bearing.

 

Wow, you don't take encouragement well. But I like your precedent. I think your suggestion we don't tell other folks what to do will be quoted back to you in the future.​

 

So you have found by yourself that license is not a right.

I think you are confusing purpose of license with government welfare you are trying to get.

cases are absolutely different, when unmarried woman get pregnant she has to go to court, if she is married court already knows a name of a father.
That is a big difference,

See above. Obligations already predetermined with marriage license, no need to go to court, unlike homosexual couple where partners should agree first whether to have a child.

 

So you are saying that only heterosexual people have the right to receive unwarranted and unnecessary benefits (I don't think they're unnecessary - it's just that some people seem to think they are unnecessary) from the government? (some people might call that being a "parasite")

 

A marriage license carries with it no obligations. And the court does not know the name of the child's father, in your example. It may offer the courtesy of presuming the husband is also he father, so he doesn't have to prove he's the father if he so chooses. But he can refute that presumption with a simple statement.

And seriously, what does this very minor legal presumption prove? Marriage is no more about the presumption of fatherhood than it is about the presumption the husband is the beneficiary of the woman's life insurance policy. You want to know what marriage is about? Listen to the vows.​

 

Authority to do something = right once that authority is bestowed. It just makes it a conditional right. The condition is the other party's consent.

???

wut? You admit that the married and unmarried woman would have to go to court to get child support. However, you're saying that the BIG difference is that when the woman is married, the court already knows the name of the father? Are you serious? Is this your argument? Are you sure you thought this through? Just think about it for a minute and get back to me.

Wait. Now you're saying that a woman in a heterosexual marriage would not have to go to court to obtain child support payments from the father? I suppose the law varies by the state, but I would be very surprised to learn this is the law anywhere.

 

If unmarried woman gets pregnant she has to go to court to get child support. If woman is married the husband has an obligation to provide support for a child, court order is not required. That is a big difference between married and unmarried.
In case of homosexual couple if one partner give birth to a child and the second partner disagrees to have a child, father will be determined by the court.
So unmarried woman is equal to married homosexual couple, that means rights of homosexual couple are 100% equal to unmarried woman.

 

This is dead wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.

By your logic, a married woman could have a child from a man other than her husband and force the husband to pay child support. This is just one of the reasons why child support is not implied by marriage.

This is incoherent.

 

No.... in either case if the man acknowledges he's the father (or is proven to be the father) he's obliged. In either case if he claims not to be the father, he isn't.​

​

 

Actually, that is the case...at least in my state. The husband is the implied father for the purposes of custody. Another man cannot even force a DNA test unless the child was born outside the union of marriage.

Hence why I've said that you cannot just say that gay marriage is legal and then rejoice. There would be a huge change in custody laws.

We should just destroy the marriage option--at least in the governmental sense and create contracts. America is a place of many immigrants and different cultures. Marriage and child custody will only become more complicated and current lawmakers will have huge headaches.

 

You sure about that? The presumption of fatherhood is intended to not allow child custody allegations to disrupt the marriage. So yea, another guy can't force a DNA test. But the husband isn't bound by it. He can dispute the presumption and at that point his legal rights should be identical to what they'd be if he wasn't married to the woman.​

The problem with doing away with marriage is some folks have chosen to live as one. Just like others have chosen to be vegan or Jewish. The marriage laws simply try to accommodate the situation where two folks are living as one, in the same way they try not to burden the Jewish guy by requiring stuff that would go against his lifestyle choice.

In neither case can the law fully accommodate them. But if it makes things fairer and doesn't cost anything, why not accommodate folks lifestyle choices?​

 

I didn't say that the husband cannot dispute the presumption. I said that by default the courts accept that the husband is the father and even if another party chose to say that the child was theirs the married parents can deny any request for DNA collection.

You can still live as married people, in fact, you are still married without the state's governance. There are a crotchful (thanks Raven) of Muslims and Hasidic Jews who are "married" outside the boundaries of the state and the courts adjudicate their marital dissolution through use of contract law, and it works much cleaner than the current defaults.

That way the lesbian couple with one biological parent who dissolves can have presubmitted custodial contracts that will engage post-dissolution. Now, the biological mother has sole custody.

I look for the path of least complication. That's it. Contract law.

If marriage is a contract, in some cases, it can continue to be so. If marriage is a romantic relationship, as well as, a contract...it can continue to be so.

 

We're talking about child support/obligations within marriage. Not about custody.

If we're changing the subject from child support to custody, then fine. Presumption of fatherhood is stupid and should be repealed anyway.

There's a lot of room for opportunism there.

 

I'm discussing both and the court's default judgment.

Expediency was the goal.

If everyone just created a contract with their partner everything from child custody to end of life decisions would be 100x simpler.

 

I don't understand. Are you saying that a husband is required to pay child support for any child born within a marriage (in your state)?

I disagree completely. This would require every person to consult an attorney on their own before singing a marriage contract. A uniform system is 100x simpler.

 

Default is that the non-custodial parent (father) is required to pay 17%. Meaning if two parties handed in a uncontested memorandum. Beyond that it goes to adjudication and can be changed, but I'm talking an out of the box case, yes.

What's wrong with that? You'll consult an attorney in slightly over half of all marriages anyway when they dissolve and then it will be at a cost of $10k to $30k (and more in extreme cases) rather than a grand or two. This way you have the marriage contract stipulated, custody resolved, end of life clarified, and assets acknowledged and divided.

 

Edit: I don't mean to sound callous if you are the sentimental type, but over half of all marriages end in divorce, so...pay now or pay more later.

 

So marriage is not necessary for anyone then. Fine. I agree.

But the reality is, heterosexuals are allowed to get married and I can not marry my life partner. That is Unconstitutional. You can't give a right to just one segment of the public without a reason. There is no reason to exclude homosexuals.

End of story.

 

In case of married couple father is known in advance.
In case of unmarried couple father can always refuse to pay child support and woman has to go to court that force father to submit DNA.
Opposite sex couples and same sex couples are fundamentally different so they are not equal. If they are not equal they cannot be licensed and regulated by the same law.

 

No, benefits are not rights. Government has added benefits to marriage, but gay people want to turn marriage into welfare for sexual couples.
I think it is unconstitutional, because if (according to gay community) marriage about benefits (i.e. equal rights) every type of couple should get the same benefits.
That includes non-sexual couples, such as relatives or minors or anything that involve two people.