Should government regulate marriage??

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

In Ohio a couple who are legally married have joint ownership of property. If one dies, the property goes to the other. There is a term for that but I don't know it.

My wife and I have legal documents that we each have full power of attorney for one another. Any two people whether married or not could do that. Our wills state that the other inherits everything if one of us dies. Any two people whether married or not could do that. Our checking account has both names with an "or" between them so either one of us has access to the total checking account. Any two people whether married or not could do that.

I have a few questions Sam...

Do you think that the gays will stop fighting for full blown marriage?
Do you think they will win the right to full blown marriage it somehow goes to the Supreme Court?

It may be a strategic move to grant them civil unions to prevent them from having grounds to take it further. Just a thought.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have a few questions Sam...

Do you think that the gays will stop fighting for full blown marriage?
Do you think they will win the right to full blown marriage it somehow goes to the Supreme Court?

It may be a strategic move to grant them civil unions to prevent them from having grounds to take it further. Just a thought.

In my opinion it will eventually get to the U.S. Supreme Court and states will not be allowed to prohibit anyone from getting married based on gender or sexual preference. To deny marriage to anyone based on gender or sexual preference would be unlawful discrimination and not be equal access under law. All states will have to accept anyone married in another state. Common law marriage with partners of the same gender or even more than one partner will eventually be recognized. That is my opinion of what will happen. I don't agree that it is right.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It seems like you've really constructed a false dilemma here. American government isn't a "they" it's a "we" (even if special interests rule the day from time to time). Government regulates marriage at the state level because we wanted it that way.

In over 200 years of state regulation over the issuance of marriage licenses can you think of a single case where the state forced someone to take out a license with another party against their will? It has never happened. The license is issued when two starry eyed youngsters show up at the courthouse. You can't get a marriage license any other way.

How long ago was it that the said question could have been asked about bills that call it hate speech and a punishable crime if you preach against homosexuality?

We are moving in that direction.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't.

And... yes... marriage is a state issue... that will change if people get marriage defined on a federal level. These things SHOULD absolutely be handled on the state level but people are calling for a federal definition... this will start the ball rolling to move marriage from a state issue to a federal issue... and that is a bad direction.

The move is on now to make drivers license a federal document rather than a state document. Get the federal government delving into the definition of marriage and marriage licenses will move that same direction.

Also... Marriage Licenses have not been a part of American Society for over 200 years. Marriage Licenses began to be issued in the mid 1800's but not for everyone. The initial Marriage Licenses were required for blacks & whites to marry. Every one else could marry without one (and did) but if a black and a white wanted to marry they had to get a license from the state to do so.

Some time after these licenses came into play the move toward everyone having to have one started up. All states had not adopted marriage licenses laws until 1929.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A lot of that same sentiment was popular regarding blacks and whites marrying. The issue is that you have two adult citizens who want to enter a consensual civil contract with one another in what is supposed to be a free society. I'm no prophet, but I predict that like it or not, gays will get the right to full "marriage" if we are not careful. You see, if we grant them "civil unions" they will not have any grounds upon which to take it all the way to the Supreme Court because the "civil unions" will provide them all the rights they desire. However, if we resist this politically they will go to the Supreme Court and fight for "marriage". My prediction is that given the libertarian view of social liberties in our country they will win it. Granting civil unions will in fact protect "marriage".

The problem with comparing this to "interracial" marriage is that an interracial couple makes babies - a gay couple does not. Fundamental difference.

And they already have all the rights that heteros (how do you spell that slang?) have. What they want is a sanction and acceptance for something that the vast majority of people really don't want to sanction nor accept.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If there's no difference, why worry about it?

Because there's "no difference" in the individual liberties and rights the way things are now - without gay marriage. Gays activists want to have their lifestyle sanctioned and accepted with a legal seal of approval. Our society has chosen to accept and tolerate gay lifestyles without forcing everyone to necessarily approve.

I tolerate gay lifestyles and even accept a few associates who behave like ladies and gentlemen with their gay lifestyle. However, I do not approve nor do I like being told that I must sanction and approve of gay marriage.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Because there's "no difference" in the individual liberties and rights the way things are now - without gay marriage. Gays activists want to have their lifestyle sanctioned and accepted with a legal seal of approval. Our society has chosen to accept and tolerate gay lifestyles without forcing everyone to necessarily approve.

I tolerate gay lifestyles and even accept a few associates who behave like ladies and gentlemen with their gay lifestyle. However, I do not approve nor do I like being told that I must sanction and approve of gay marriage.

This is the bottom line for me also.

[Truthseeker]

How about we send all to an island far away with their own GOV and laws.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

How long ago was it that the said question could have been asked about bills that call it hate speech and a punishable crime if you preach against homosexuality?

We are moving in that direction.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't.

Just because the government hasn't forced you to marry an albatross doesn't mean it won't. However, in any discussion of public policy it is incumbent upon those in the discussion to use reason and common sense.

What interest does the state have in who marries who (or whom)? The only possible interest involves the reproduction of the next generation; we don't want you marrying your first cousin. We lightly regulate who can reproduce with whom because the inbred offspring of some unions will produce a burden on society.

I get the impression that there is a sizeable number of Apostolics who actually support gay marriage just out of anti-social feelings. It seems some folks hate their society to the point that they actually want to impose new and onerous laws just to vex everyone else.

Has life lost all meaning for you? Do you really want to stand before the Judge of your soul and answer for your dereliction of duty?

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

And... yes... marriage is a state issue... that will change if people get marriage defined on a federal level. These things SHOULD absolutely be handled on the state level but people are calling for a federal definition... this will start the ball rolling to move marriage from a state issue to a federal issue... and that is a bad direction.

I agree, but there are complexities to the issue involving one state recognizing the "full faith and credit" clause. If one state goes wack-a-doddle then all other states might be compelled to accept their licenses. A federal amendment would stifle that and protect the interests of the majority of states.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

The move is on now to make drivers license a federal document rather than a state document. Get the federal government delving into the definition of marriage and marriage licenses will move that same direction.

Also... Marriage Licenses have not been a part of American Society for over 200 years. Marriage Licenses began to be issued in the mid 1800's but not for everyone. The initial Marriage Licenses were required for blacks & whites to marry. Every one else could marry without one (and did) but if a black and a white wanted to marry they had to get a license from the state to do so.[/quote]
I have copies of marriage licenses granted to my ancestors dating from the 1600's in Virginia. The marriage license was used in 38 states at one time to prohibit interracial marriages - and some states were more broad and inclusive in their discriminations than others. But the license wasn't issued to regulate just interracial marriages but also to prevent consanguity and incestuous marriages and polygamy.

The way to get around the restrictions was to simply exercise one's own right to free assembly. Common-law marriages were recognized unions that did not have the sanction of the state. "Gay" unions are established on the same basis. The courts have ruled in the famous celebrity "Palimony" cases of several years ago that cohabitation establishes rights and claims for the cohabitants.

The argument that is being made - "If we don't license gay marriage then the government will force me to marry Bubbles the Chimp or that Ugly Girl in my 3rd Grade Class!!" is lame.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Some time after these licenses came into play the move toward everyone having to have one started up. All states had not adopted marriage licenses laws until 1929.

Yes, not all states, however the practice of licensing marriages goes back to colonial times.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

How about we send all to an island far away with their own GOV and laws.

How about we all just politely and graciously tell then "No" on this issue. Tell them that we want the very best for them and for all of us and that we think it's best if someone acts as the grownup here and simply says, "No."

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by pelathais

How about we all just politely and graciously tell then "No" on this issue. Tell them that we want the very best for them and for all of us and that we think it's best if someone acts as the grownup here and simply says, "No."

Nope round em up and send em to cuba.

I was j/k about sending them to an island. They need God too.