Published: Sunday, May 5 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Interesting! As usual, most gay supporters only see half of the issue. In this
scenario, why is the government marriage necessary at all? To collect more
taxes? Further controlled or enforced social engineering? Decide who gets
"couple contracts" and who doesn't? (Oh my goodness, that
doesn't sound like equal treatment under the law) Why limit it to couples?
Why not "government marry" in multiples.... of as many as you want?
Marry your niece, daughter, doggy? Maybe marry in as many multiple "couple
contracts as you want? Why does the government need to be involved at all? This
is really just about the next step. 10 or 15 years ago we weren't even
talking about this issue. 5 to 10 years from now, the pro gay crowd will be
taking the next step, and try to impose on "religious marriage".
HaHa..how in the world did you come up with that train of thought. Simple
question. If you are a woman and have three children and your husband one day
just declares that he has fallen in love with someone else and he is leaving,
and oh by the way he'll need all the money he has and will have so good
luck you're on your own. Who do you call to force him pay child support
and alimony..the bishop?
Nuts and bolts, To be sacred, it has to have a purpose.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Gays, then it will be anything goes as
Haha indicates. Government will be forced to get out of the marriage business
and any marriages will be strictly a religious ordinance.
@Hahahaha --"why is the government marriage necessary at all?
"If you are willing to give up all the legal benefits of
marriage -- for instance, tax breaks, shared insurance, inheritance benefits,
family visitation rights, joint parenting rights, supplemental Social Security
income, Medicaid, and so on -- then, by all means, skip that pesky government
marriage. But you shouldn't expect to get any kind of
government benefits unless you sign that marriage contract."Why
not "government marry" in multiples.... of as many as you want? Marry
your niece, daughter, doggy?"1. polygamy -- polygamy has very
concrete, recognized dangers in our society. It greatly increases the risk of
abuse and/or mistreatment of women and children. The courts recognize this
distinction, and courts such as the Supreme Court of BC in Canada have recently
reaffirmed the constitutionality of polygamy bans based on these dangers.In contrast, there are NO concrete, recognized dangers from gay
marriage.2. incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are
incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage
contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It
can't be removed.
Society should support marriage because it sends the message that fathers should
be responsible for their children. An arrangement that would never, ever
produce children has no standing in the marriage debate. We might as well talk
about two corporations getting married.
YFirst, There is no such thing as marriage in the natural world. There is no
natural law that mandates marriage, of any sort. Second, the
history of the world has seen many different combinations of the thing called
marriage. Third, the word marriage is a part of the public world.
No one can claim ownership of it’s meaning. No one can force their will
on others. Forth, If the government has special rules for marriage
as defined by churches and religions, those rules should be considered
unconstitutional. Fifth, According to the 10th Amendment, the
people have just as much power as the state governments to effect our
government. The reason this is important is because the state government does
not represent the people in general of that state. Our state governments are
republics, not democracies. As much as I personally dislike the
Gay lifestyle, I yield to the notion that adult Americans have the right and
freedom to do and be whatever they wish so long as they do not interfere with
the rights and freedoms of others.
@Tekaka --"An arrangement that would never, ever produce
children has no standing in the marriage debate. "Gay marriages
produce children in the very same ways that any other infertile marriages do.In fact, over 100,000 gay couples in this country are *already* raising
children.In fact, an estimated 6 MILLION children in this country
are *already* living with at least one gay parent.Children are being
raised by gay people. Children will *continue* to be raised by gay people. Those
are simple facts of life.Marriage increases family stability. Family
stability helps children. Therefore, gay marriage helps the children being
raised by gay couples.Anybody who is concerned about children should
be SUPPORTING gay marriage.
I tend to look at marriage as a person contract between people. I would like to
see that contract open to the needs and desires of the participants and not
forced upon them by outsiders. However I feel that children have
the right of protection from our government and our government can and should be
involved the procreation and rearing of children.
In response to Tenaka..., Contrarious only referred to adoption (which gay
couples cannot do in Utah). But, lesbians in a relationship with another can use
a donor or already have children. Many gay men have custody of their children
from a previous marriage or relationship. Yes, many gay men and lesbians,
fighting their same-sex attraction, did try the straight lifestyle when younger.
Gay men can also use a surrogate mother. So gay men and lesbians DO have
children through the biological reproductive process. Justice Kennedy pointed
out that 40,000 children in California are not in legally recognized families.
"The debate can be ended if all heterosexual and gay couples obtained civil
unions whether or not accompanied by marriages in the churches of our choice.
"Sorry, but that wouldn't end the debate. There are
churches that willingly perform marriages for same-sex couples. Those couples
would still be inclined to use the word 'marriage'. Those religions
against same-sex couples using the word 'marriage' would still scream
and holler that it was *their* word and those gay couples married in their
churches still couldn't use it.
@ pragmatist I think they call that child support, and it gets
handled all the time in this day and age, through all kinds of broken
relationships, married or unmarried. Unless you completely exist in the black
market, you cant hold a job, in most places of the country, where the social
service agencies won't catch up to you and seize your paycheck for child
As a Latter-Day Saint -- I can't see different between getting
married at the court house, and being "Sealed" later in a
Temple.Isn't this the very same thing?
@TekakaromatagiDammam, Saudi ArabiaAn arrangement that would
never, ever produce children has no standing in the marriage debate. ========== You see - this has got to be the #1 lamest pro-marriage
argument there could be...You are saying my GrandParents should not
be married,My parnets should not be married, I'm 53, my wife
and I are beyond years - maybe WE should no longer be married. My
"child barren" neighbors should be allowed the right to be married or
even adopt.Marriage is aobut L-O-V-E and commitment.Not abous
sex, or having children.Having children is NOT the only reason to
airnat,marriage is "not about sex"Your right.So you'd support a brother and brother being able to marry, or a
brother and sister right?Remember, its not about sex.Its
about L-O-V-E and commitment.
Hahaha.." where the social service agencies won't catch up to you and
seize your paycheck for child support."..and who are the social service
agencies..the government. The government gives you permission to get married in
the first place and then places obligations on you throughout that marriage,
including at it's termination. And it's the government and only the
government that has such authority. So that's the answer to your question
"why is the government marriage necessary at all?"
All marriages are 'government' marriages. Marriage is a contract
between two people. And all contracts are regulated by a government entity.
@Contrarius:"polygamy has very concrete, recognized dangers in our
society. It greatly increases the risk of abuse and/or mistreatment of women and
children."The abuse and mistreatment you mention comes mostly
from religious teachings and customs."The courts recognize this
distinction, and courts such as the Supreme Court of BC in Canada have recently
reaffirmed the constitutionality of polygamy bans based on these
dangers."This is America, not Canada. Besides which, failure to
recognize polygamy marriages (or any of a variety of marriage combinations) is a
violation of individual civil rights... including that of children."...children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent.Children are capable of saying yes or no just as effectively and
sincerely as adults. As for animals... my dog understands certain comments and
can indicate very plainly, 'yes' and 'no.'
@Mr. Bean --"This is America, not Canada."So
organize a polygamy lawsuit to take to American courts. The result will be the
same."failure to recognize polygamy marriages (or any of a
variety of marriage combinations) is a violation of individual civil
rights"Public safety is always a valid reason for limiting
individual rights. That's why it's illegal to drive drunk, for
instance."Children are capable of saying yes or no"Informed consent is about **understanding** contracts, not just agreeing to
them. @Chris B"brother and brother being able to
marry, or a brother and sister "First find us an adult, mentally
competent brother/brother couple or brother/sister couple that want to marry.
I'm betting there's not many out there.Then wipe all the
anti-incest laws that already exist off the books.Then be sure that
the brother/sister couple is actually infertile -- because reproductive
consequences were a big factor in passing those anti-incest laws in the first
place.Then figure out what concrete dangers their marriages might
present to society.THEN we can worry about whether or not to support
pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utahHahaha.." where
the social service agencies won't catch up to you and seize your paycheck
for child support."..and who are the social service agencies..the
government. The government gives you permission to get married in the first
place and then places obligations on you throughout that marriage, including at
it's termination. And it's the government and only the government that
has such authority. So that's the answer to your question "why is the
government marriage necessary at all?"_________________You
missed the thrust of the answer. You do NOT have to have been married to have
social services go after your paycheck if you are not paying child support! If
you are the parent that is not the custodial guardian, you will be paying for
the support of your child. You do not have to have been married the to other
party to have this obligation. Marriage has NOTHING to do with child support
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments