PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage vs Civil Unions: Separate Is Not Equal




Reason
03-17-2009, 07:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QsgG_tuxsc

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom compares the issue of same-sex marriage to racial discrimination and chastises politicians who claim they support equality for all, yet do not support gay marriage. "How can you argue separate is not equal and then argue that separate is equal, but only if you're gay?"




I agree completely.

Jeremy
03-17-2009, 07:36 PM
Government shouldn't have the authority to define marriage at all.

euphemia
03-17-2009, 07:36 PM
I do not think it is the business of the federal government to codify marriages at all. It's a state issue, and that's pretty much what happens now. For example, South Carolina recognizes common law marriage. Tennessee does not.

Reason
03-17-2009, 08:01 PM
Government shouldn't have the authority to define marriage at all.

I agree, however because it has become part the of the current gov't authority I believe that they have an obligation to provide it equally.

MRoCkEd
03-17-2009, 08:07 PM
I agree that government should not be in the marriage business at all.
But if they MUST be, they should offer equal legal marriages to all people, but let churches decide whether or not to perform religious marriages.

AutoDas
03-17-2009, 08:56 PM
They would be discriminating against us single people.

tremendoustie
03-17-2009, 09:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QsgG_tuxsc

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom compares the issue of same-sex marriage to racial discrimination and chastises politicians who claim they support equality for all, yet do not support gay marriage. "How can you argue separate is not equal and then argue that separate is equal, but only if you're gay?"




I agree completely.

I don't, I think marriage should not be defined by the government at all. It's impossible not to abuse someone's rights when you start making the government the source of moral definitions. Gay people have a right to equal treatment, and those who believe in traditional marriage have a right to use the traditional definition.

It would be as if you had the government define what an "honest" person is. It would be just as ridiculous, and just as impossible to get right.

We needlessly fight over all this stupid crap which would be almost entirely taken care of if we just let people be free.

Omphfullas Zamboni
03-17-2009, 09:25 PM
The state should have no licensing agency with marriage whatsoever, shouldn't discourage it, shouldn't encourage it, shouldn't address it at all. Shouldn't tax it at a different rate, and shouldn't even acknowledge it exists. The very act of giving government a say in licensing marriage at all, violates the notion of the American citizen being above the state, or sovereign, which individual sovereignty was the foundation of the original concept of the American Republic, a nation both of sovereign states and sovereign men, and it remains the fundamental principle of the US Constitution today, although this principle is ignored by those who seek power over you, to steal your liberty.

A REPUBLICAN
take on the Defence of Marriage Act
January 29, 2009 by Glen Bradley

torchbearer
03-17-2009, 09:25 PM
everyone get's civil unions or even better, governments regulate no marriage.

TastyWheat
03-17-2009, 09:43 PM
everyone get's civil unions or even better, governments regulate no marriage.

I agree with this more or less. It needs to be equal for both groups. If straight people want to save the sanctity of marriage they will have to take it out of the government's hands. Separate but equal is on the losing side of this issue.

nate895
03-17-2009, 10:02 PM
I agree, however because it has become part the of the current gov't authority I believe that they have an obligation to provide it equally.

And I believe the government shouldn't force me to recognize gays as married.

idiom
03-17-2009, 10:05 PM
Or let groups marry too.

Why doesn't anyone stand up for communal marriages anymore?

Also there is the idea floating around that joint ownership of things is not possible...

In New Zealnd if you live together for three years, or the courts decides you sort of live together, then you are defacto married gay or not and the other person owns half your stuff.

nate895
03-17-2009, 10:05 PM
The state should have no licensing agency with marriage whatsoever, shouldn't discourage it, shouldn't encourage it, shouldn't address it at all. Shouldn't tax it at a different rate, and shouldn't even acknowledge it exists. The very act of giving government a say in licensing marriage at all, violates the notion of the American citizen being above the state, or sovereign, which individual sovereignty was the foundation of the original concept of the American Republic, a nation both of sovereign states and sovereign men, and it remains the fundamental principle of the US Constitution today, although this principle is ignored by those who seek power over you, to steal your liberty.

A REPUBLICAN
take on the Defence of Marriage Act
January 29, 2009 by Glen Bradley

Marriage has a lot to do with other public stuff. When you get married you are merging with another human being and becoming one for many purposes. The government should recognize that in some way without licensing it.

Theocrat
03-17-2009, 10:08 PM
Government shouldn't have the authority to define marriage at all.

Simply put, I agree with that.

TurtleBurger
03-17-2009, 10:10 PM
Government recognizes heterosexual marriage because the institution of heterosexual marriage is known to have a strong positive effect on society. Homosexual marriage has not been shown to provide the same benefits. Of course government intervention in marriage, like government intervention in anything else, has proven to be more damaging than supportive.

ChaosControl
03-17-2009, 10:17 PM
San Francisco Mayor

Yeah like anyone is going to listen to the lunatic in charge of one of worst cities in the nation, if not the worst.

Government has no place in marriage at all, in any kind of romantic relationship business. If some combination of individuals who are legally able to sign a contract decide to sign a contract to grant certain rights to one another, then fine it is okay for the government to uphold that contract. Beyond that, no involvement whatsoever. That means no marriage, no domestic partnerships or whatever other b.s.

While marriage does exist as a legal entity though, then it can be defined however the masses want it to be. The preference is of course to keep the government out of it to obtain true liberty, but while the government is involved we are better off leaving it up to the tyranny of the majority than the dictatorship of the elitists in d.c.

idiom
03-17-2009, 10:18 PM
As long as I can marry a hot 13 year old lets go for it.

Edit: SEVERAL hot 13 year olds.

Reason
03-18-2009, 01:35 AM
logical =

Marriage should have nothing to do with the govt and should be a private religious ceremony with the civil union being the legal govt aspect of it.

Because marriage is part of the govt the govt has an obligation to provide it equally just like civil unions.

Therefore I see complete legitimacy in the campaign to have the current govt involved marriage system revised to include same sex couples.

Therefore I see complete legitimacy in the campaign to have marriage taken out of govt hands.

.Tom
07-07-2010, 01:29 AM
logical =

Marriage should have nothing to do with the govt and should be a private religious ceremony with the civil union being the legal govt aspect of it.

Because marriage is part of the govt the govt has an obligation to provide it equally just like civil unions.

Therefore I see complete legitimacy in the campaign to have the current govt involved marriage system revised to include same sex couples.

Therefore I see complete legitimacy in the campaign to have marriage taken out of govt hands.

My thoughts exactly.

Krugerrand
07-07-2010, 06:34 AM
Because marriage is part of the govt the govt has an obligation to provide it equally just like civil unions.

Is marriage something that is provided?

jmdrake
07-07-2010, 07:00 AM
Or let groups marry too.

Why doesn't anyone stand up for communal marriages anymore?

Also there is the idea floating around that joint ownership of things is not possible...

In New Zealnd if you live together for three years, or the courts decides you sort of live together, then you are defacto married gay or not and the other person owns half your stuff.

Because moralists view it as wrong despite Biblical precedent and feminist see it as "anti woman" even though some societies allow one women to marry two men. Discrimination against polygamists is actually worse than discrimination against gays. If two gay people go to their local Unitarian church and get "married" there is no legal sanction for that. If three people have a "pretend ceremony" they can go to jail. They can all three have all the sex they want, but just have a ceremony that looks like a marriage and the Supreme Court has held that's enough for the states to be able to lock you up. This fact also differentiates the current fight over gay marriage from the old fight against miscegenation laws. Those laws allowed the state to arrest and/or deport interracial couples.

I've heard goofy legal arguments like "Our laws are set up for two people and it wouldn't work if you had three". Of course such arguments ignore the fact that if you adjust the laws to accommodate same sex marriage, you can adjust the laws to accommodate multiple partner marriages. One simple solution is having a "primary" spouse. (What happens in Muslim countries).

Anyway, back to the thread. As Nate pointed out, the problem isn't gays getting having a private contract to order their own affairs. That's possible to do in every state in the union, even those that don't recognize "civil unions". The problem is that marriage is a public contract that gives the parties rights that they can impose on third parties not part of the contract. As some people have pointed out, the problem is how much government has injected itself into marriage. Unwinding this will be no easy task. Taking marriage out of the tax code is one first step. Another would be to change the tax code with regards to benefits. The IRA kind of does that. I can assign an IRA to anybody because it's my money based on my defined contribution. The old style "pensions" are the ones tied to marriage. The same needs to happen to health insurance. Individuals should get the tax benefit instead of employers so they can decide what kind of health insurance package they want. If I want a health insurance plan that includes benefits for my aging parents or the homeless guy down the street that should be my right as it is my money.

ChaosControl
07-07-2010, 08:03 AM
Edit Delete

osan
07-07-2010, 08:13 AM
government shouldn't have the authority to define marriage at all.

hello.

osan
07-07-2010, 08:18 AM
Government recognizes heterosexual marriage because the institution of heterosexual marriage is known to have a strong positive effect on society. Homosexual marriage has not been shown to provide the same benefits. Of course government intervention in marriage, like government intervention in anything else, has proven to be more damaging than supportive.


Positive effect? Who says? Most of the marriages I've seen SUCK. Besides, the point is irrelevant to the issue. If two *****s want to get married, goody for them. I don't care if three or thirty want to marry each other. It isn't my business - it certainly isn't government's. If I don't want to recognize "marriage", gay or otherwise, that is also my prerogative.

That we have these sorts of debates serves only to lend credibility and legitimacy to the underlying notion that government has a say in any of this.

AuH2O
07-07-2010, 08:21 AM
I agree, however because it has become part the of the current gov't authority I believe that they have an obligation to provide it equally.

Why? The "gay rights" movement is the largest force for marriage reform out there. If we give them what they want, THEN it becomes a irreversible function of government, because what impetus will their be to change things?