Should government regulate marriage??

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

Agreed... had I made that assertion it would have, indeed, been a lame one.

[pelathais]

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Agreed... had I made that assertion it would have, indeed, been a lame one.

With all the back and forth maybe I misunderstood you?

[Aquila]

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."

LOL

This and some of the other comments, like sending them to an island, all sound good and get a laugh. But it's not realistic.

I work for the government. The government is real guys. I'm one of those bureaucrats that crunches numbers all day and tries to fund government programs and contracts. I work with the local city commission and issue funding memos etc., so I know many local government officials and how the system around here works. Here's the problem... we can't put them on an "island". And even if we said "No", they are here to stay and they have no plans on stopping their push for the rights they believe they are entitled to as Americans. They are going to push for all out full blown marriage if it goes to the courts. Do you want them to win that? Do you trust that decision in the hands of 9 justices who already have proven that they lean liberal/libertarian on social issues and civil rights? I don’t. I look at it like this. This is politics. Politics is about acceptable compromises to get the job done and move on without tearing our society apart. I strongly advise supporting civil unions. This provides a legal institution whereby they can receive all the same rights and classifications of marriage…without legally being defined as “marriage”. Once they have these “civil unions” they will have no grounds upon which to approach the Supreme Court. They get their rights…we get to keep marriage defined separately from their lifestyle. It’s a win/win situation.

You mentioned telling someone that somebody has to be the “grownup here”. Well folks, that’s what’s truly called for here. They are not going to back down. And they are not going to go away. They are going to push for full blown marriage… unless we can reach a political compromise. That’s what it’s going to take. But the question is… are we grown up enough to accept it, move on, and preach the gospel?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

LOL

This and some of the other comments, like sending them to an island, all sound good and get a laugh. But it's not realistic.

I work for the government. The government is real guys. I'm one of those bureaucrats that crunches numbers all day and tries to fund government programs and contracts. I work with the local city commission and issue funding memos etc., so I know many local government officials and how the system around here works. Here's the problem... we can't put them on an "island". And even if we said "No", they are here to stay and they have no plans on stopping their push for the rights they believe they are entitled to as Americans. They are going to push for all out full blown marriage if it goes to the courts. Do you want them to win that? Do you trust that decision in the hands of 9 justices who already have proven that they lean liberal/libertarian on social issues and civil rights? I don’t. I look at it like this. This is politics. Politics is about acceptable compromises to get the job done and move on without tearing our society apart. I strongly advise supporting civil unions. This provides a legal institution whereby they can receive all the same rights and classifications of marriage…without legally being defined as “marriage”. Once they have this “civil unions” they will have no grounds upon which to approach the Supreme Court. They get their rights…we get to keep marriage defined separately from their lifestyle. It’s a win/win situation.

You mentioned telling someone that someone has to be the “grownup here”. Well folks, that’s what’s truly called for here. They are not going to back down. And they are not going to go away. They are going to push for full blown marriage… unless we can reach a political compromise. That’s what it’s going to take. But the question is… are we grown up enough to accept it, move on, and preach the gospel?

The "compromise" already exists. And I'm puzzled how you can equate my solution of "politely saying 'No'" with the obvious hyperbole involving the island.

And I'm not impressed with your memo writing and numbers crunching when you're posting to the Internet while on the taxpayer's dime.

[ILG]

I don't know. I know there are some old folks that had their vows blessed by clergy but not by the government. The reason? They cannot afford to get married...it affects their income. Government takes cash away from married folks. Do you think these people are doing the right thing?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by ILG

I don't know. I know there are some old folks that had their vows blessed by clergy but not by the government. The reason? They cannot afford to get married...it affects their income. Government takes cash away from married folks. Do you think these people are doing the right thing?

That is none of my business.
It's between them and God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The "compromise" already exists. And I'm puzzled how you can equate my solution of "politely saying 'No'" with the obvious hyperbole involving the island.

And I'm not impressed with your memo writing and numbers crunching when you're posting to the Internet while on the taxpayer's dime.

LOL

Your tax dollars are better spent here on AF than in Iraq chasing phony nukes. lol

Hey, not wanting to impress you, just let you know I'm part of the machine. I'm like Daniel working in the higher ranking office of Babylon. hehehe Most people in my office are Christian though. We read our Bibles and it's not uncommon to hear Christian music here in the office. Yep, a government facility. Kinda nice.

Ok. Have it your way. You say the compromise exists but they don't see it that way. You're going to ensure that get full blow marriage. This is like Chess, you have to put something forward that blocks them. Right now, they're working on a Checkmate. You're call bro.

[pelathais]

My call is the status quo until we can get more information.

*** And futhuhmore! The UN Inspectors were not looking for "nukes" in Iraq, but rather for evidence of a program to build and develop weapons of mass destruction of several types. When the US invasion occurred in 2003, no one expected to find "nukes" but according to British, French and Saudi intelligence (our's was nonexistent) we did expect to find evidence of such a WMD program, and we did.

Centrifuges that had been dismanteled were discovered. Artillery shells equipped and ready to be equipped with chemical warheads were found by the 10,000's. A single envelope of such evidence resulted in the entire UN campus and the surrounding area being evacuated. According to the terms of the 1992 cease fire that were imposed by the UN Security Council, the artillery shells themselves were a gross enough violation that force was promised by the UN to bring Iraq into compliance.

The only thing the Bush admin did that was "wrong" in invading Iraq in 2003 was that they followed the letter and spirit of the 1992 cease fire and the 14 subsequent UN Security Council resolutions that followed. Compliance with UN orders is the last thing the UN expects, no wonder they objected.

The Bush admin then fumbled (IMHO) by holding the entire 4th Infantry Division in reserve and not deploying them right away. Having more boots on the ground at the start would have done a whole lot more to stifle the rise of the feddayim and their terrorist allies.

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by ILG

I don't know. I know there are some old folks that had their vows blessed by clergy but not by the government. The reason? They cannot afford to get married...it affects their income. Government takes cash away from married folks. Do you think these people are doing the right thing?

To my understanding this only affects people who are on government assistance. Their benefits will be less as a married couple then as two individuals. Though I have no problem with them "shacking up" so to speak, I do however have a problem with them playing the system to get additional benefits. But only because I don't believe that it is the governments job to support people who couldn't be bothered to save for retirement, or whose kids don't want to deal with them, or who the church ignores. But that is a whole nother discussion!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The only thing the Bush admin did that was "wrong" in invading Iraq in 2003 was that they followed the letter and spirit of the 1992 cease fire and the 14 subsequent UN Security Council resolutions that followed. Compliance with UN orders is the last thing the UN expects, no wonder they objected.

First, perhaps I shouldn't have said "nukes", I was being silly. But you bring up a good point here. I agree, however, I believe that President Bush was exploiting 9/11 to generate public support for the invasion of Iraq. Had 9/11 not taken place I don't believe the American people would have been as agreeable to an invasion of Iraq. I see it as manipulation of the public trust. In addition I am leery of the idea that the United States is bound to enforce UN Resolutions. Iraq wasn't an immediate threat. We should have spent the time, manpower, and resources to bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Just my opinion.

The Bush admin then fumbled (IMHO) by holding the entire 4th Infantry Division in reserve and not deploying them right away. Having more boots on the ground at the start would have done a whole lot more to stifle the rise of the feddayim and their terrorist allies.

I fully agree here. There was a Frontline documentary that covered that very problem among other things.