Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: A government marriage is a civil union that guarantees civil rights’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 5 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

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". Incremental steps!

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

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?

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Nuts and bolts, To be sacred, it has to have a purpose.

KDave
Moab, UT

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.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@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.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

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.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@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.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Ranch
Here, UT

"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.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

@ 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 support.

airnaut
Everett, 00

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?

airnaut
Everett, 00

@Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

An 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 get married.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

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?"

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

All marriages are 'government' marriages. Marriage is a contract between two people. And all contracts are regulated by a government entity.

Mr. Bean
Pheonix, AZ

@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.'

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@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 their marriages.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

pragmatistferlife

salt lake city, utah

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?"
_________________

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 payments.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments