government-free marriage

[AxisMundi]

Outside of GOVT and Churches...who marries the gays? Say, Govt is not involved (and it should not be)...that leaves the churches...To me, I see this as scaring the BEJEZUZ out of gays and anyone who supports gay rights. Kind of like fisharmour, I'm just playing DA...

Who marries the gays? I really don't see religious/church support for that.

1. The Church, nor religion, owns marriage. It is a secular institution that some people prefer to enact under a religious wedding ceremony.

2. There are plenty of Churches/Religions/Sects that endorse the recognized, monogamous commitment between gay couples, and provide religious wedding cerimonies.There are even sects that have openly gay ordained clergy.

[AxisMundi]

I think you're probably right about how it works in practice. There are plenty of married couples who never get marriage licenses. But the letter of the law is not on their side. If they file joint tax returns, the IRS could go after them, since they require that people who do that be legally married according to the laws of some state, and most state laws say you're not legally married if you don't have a marriage license. I expect that laws regarding other things that come up in this issue are similarly specific.

Your final point is also right. The main reason this has become such an issue recently is because the role it plays in the gay agenda has made these phony gay marriage bans into a great non-issue for the two parties to fight about and motivate their constituencies to go to the polls.

The main reason this has become an issue is that an American minority is being denied a basic Civil Right.

There is no valid, secular reason to deny gays the same rights and privileges that my wife and I enjoy.

[erowe1]

Hospitals that accept g'ment subsidies and programs, such as Medicaid/Care, are bound by law to adhere to federal guidelines.

Get rid of the subsidies.

Also, say a gay couple with a committed relationship of 15 years is traveling and get smacked by a drunk driver, resulting in a horrible car crash. One comes out unscathed, the other sits at death's door. Do you REALLY think it would be proper for a hospital to be permitted to refuse visitation rights?

Yes. But what I think shouldn't matter. I have no right to tell that hospital how to do its business. Nor does the state.

Vows taken in front of witnesses that no one can prove accept to those that were there.

Right, hence the importance of the witnesses in this imaginary world of yours where nobody has any record of their weddings aside from that piece of paper stamped with a state seal.

a hospital could refuse a man to see his wife.

I don't see the problem there.

One of the thousand-plus rights and privileges my wife and I enjoy is joint ownership of property.

And you still would without state-based marriage.

Would you support employers/health insurance providers discriminating against a black hetero couple? Asian? Irish? Catholic? Latino?

I would definitely support their right to do that. It's their business.

Thanks for providing us with a good illustration of how it's the pro-gay marriage side not the anti-gay marriage side that has a love affair with big government.

[Traditional Conservative]

The main reason this has become an issue is that an American minority is being denied a basic Civil Right.

There is no valid, secular reason to deny gays the same rights and privileges that my wife and I enjoy.

We don't grant "civil rights" to people because they behave in a certain way. Your "civil rights" argument might have some merit if you could provide scientific evidence that people are actually born gay.

[Icymudpuppy]

It doesn't cost thousands to make a documentation of next of kin. What fantasy world do you live in?

Who needs any officiant at all. Your vows are to each other, not the state, not the church, not the judge, not your dog. Just declare each other Next of Kin for the legal benefits, and the spiritual or non-spiritual benefits are up for grabs depending on your beliefs.

There should be no limitations on declarations of Next of Kin. I should be able to designate my wife, brother, son, father, homosexual lover, or whatever, or shared equally between all of the above. You could also have a legal declaration of dependency.

Legal Marriage today implies dependency AND next of kin. I can designate my brother also as a next of kin, but not a dependent if I want, or I can designate my invalid grandmother a dependent but not my next of kin. I could set up my son as both a dependent and a next of kin and he would have equal legal standing with my legal wife. A declaration of next of kin doesn't cost a dime if you know the legal language necessary. It's like a Will, or Power of Attorney. You can hire a lawyer to set it up if you want, or you can do it yourself. A Notary fee of $10.00 should cover it.

[Heimdallr]

We don't grant "civil rights" to people because they behave in a certain way. Your "civil rights" argument might have some merit if you could provide scientific evidence that people are actually born gay.

What? That makes no sense. He's arguing that all citizens should have the same "civil rights". That is the exact opposite of granting "civil rights" to people because they behave a certain way. He's saying that your "rights" (read: government priviledges) should apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of what demographic they belong to.

I don't even know why RPFers are even discussing "civil rights". We're the Natural Rights crowd.

[AxisMundi]

Get rid of the subsidies.

Yes. But what I think shouldn't matter. I have no right to tell that hospital how to do its business. Nor does the state.

Right, hence the importance of the witnesses in this imaginary world of yours where nobody has any record of their weddings aside from that piece of paper stamped with a state seal.

I don't see the problem there.

And you still would without state-based marriage.

I would definitely support their right to do that. It's their business.

Thanks for providing us with a good illustration of how it's the pro-gay marriage side not the anti-gay marriage side that has a love affair with big government.

Get rid of the subsidies, many hospitals would crash and burn, especially those inundated with Illegal Aliens. Hospitals would also have to refuse medicaid patients, thus leaving almost our entire senior community SOL.

And unlike you, most Americans do not support unjustified discrimination based on race, religion, etc. Sorry.

[AxisMundi]

We don't grant "civil rights" to people because they behave in a certain way. Your "civil rights" argument might have some merit if you could provide scientific evidence that people are actually born gay.

Your argument is flawed.

Homosexuality isn't a "behavior".

[AxisMundi]

It doesn't cost thousands to make a documentation of next of kin. What fantasy world do you live in?

Who needs any officiant at all. Your vows are to each other, not the state, not the church, not the judge, not your dog. Just declare each other Next of Kin for the legal benefits, and the spiritual or non-spiritual benefits are up for grabs depending on your beliefs.

There should be no limitations on declarations of Next of Kin. I should be able to designate my wife, brother, son, father, homosexual lover, or whatever, or shared equally between all of the above. You could also have a legal declaration of dependency.

Legal Marriage today implies dependency AND next of kin. I can designate my brother also as a next of kin, but not a dependent if I want, or I can designate my invalid grandmother a dependent but not my next of kin. I could set up my son as both a dependent and a next of kin and he would have equal legal standing with my legal wife. A declaration of next of kin doesn't cost a dime if you know the legal language necessary. It's like a Will, or Power of Attorney. You can hire a lawyer to set it up if you want, or you can do it yourself. A Notary fee of $10.00 should cover it.

Next of Kin, joint property, joint custody, power-of-attorney...

The cost of even attempting to approach the thousand plus rights and privileges bestowed upon my wife and I for free the moment we said I Do in front of the Justice does indeed run well into the thousands.

[erowe1]

What? That makes no sense. He's arguing that all citizens should have the same "civil rights". That is the exact opposite of granting "civil rights" to people because they behave a certain way. He's saying that your "rights" (read: government priviledges) should apply to all citizens of the United States, regardless of what demographic they belong to.

I don't even know why RPFers are even discussing "civil rights". We're the Natural Rights crowd.

Good point. But the term "civil rights" doesn't only mean government privileges. It sometimes refers to government privileges and sometimes to natural rights, which makes it a very convenient term for AxisMundi to keep using here, since in the context of the gay marriage debate it's only government privileges and not natural rights that are being extended or denied to people.

You're right to turn the debate back to natural rights, rather than civil rights. When you put it in terms of natural rights, it becomes a lot more clear:

Do you have a natural right to a state marriage? No.

Do I have a natural right not to pay taxes to support a system of state marriage? Yes.