The last virtue I will point out regarding the end of civil marriage is that it
will make marriages stronger. Government benefits weaken and cheapen
relationships, and reduce marriage to just a way of gaming the system. If people
just marry for a few government perks, they quickly learn there are other ways
to get perks. Marriage is too much work for those freebies for them.When people only marry because they really value marriage partnerships, not
for the carrots the state dangles in their face, they will have the commitment
to make the marriage work. Marriage will be stronger without the government
involved. Those who marry, be they heterosexual or homosexual, will do it
because they really want to commit to each other and to the family unit.
Intervention:Cherry picked the previous posts is more like it.From my previous posts:"Those seeking SSM will have
plenty of churches to choose from, or if they are not religious, they can make
their own commitment ceremony."Please read the WHOLE sentence.
No church required. No church in charge.From my previous posts:"I will say that people can make contracts, with any number of
people, to commit to look out for each other and/or share monetary interests,
like a domestic business partnership."There is your civil
contract, for everyone, not just the exclusive half. I have been
100% inclusive, even though I would lose the marriage protections I now have.
Don't care. I prefer equality for everyone to those protections for myself.
Under your plan 50% get government marriage perks, 50%
don't.You clearly don't care about 50%, their equality and
freedoms. You just want the perks for you, not them.Yes, I think
that is selfish.
@forwardthinker “I value freedom and equality for
everyone.” As long as religions have sole control over marriage.
"Marriage is what it is, a religious union between a man and a woman."
Yet you call other selfish. Please keep in mind we can all see your previous
I was asked, "what would be the purpose of eliminating civil
marriages?"Answer: End discrimination against 52% of the
population and promote the cause freedom and equality for everyone. I asked,"So if we change all the laws which discriminate based
on marital status so there are no privileges or penalties for being married,
rather than redefining marriage thus stepping on religious rites, would you
pro-SSM people be satisfied?"Consistently the answer, "Give
us the benefits, but don't give them to the other 50% of society that
isn't married." What a selfish stance!What's in it for me, you have asked? I don't measure all
I do by what I get out of it. This concept is clearly hard to understand for
those who measure all of life by, "What's in it for me".Adding 2% of the population to the "star belly" club does not end the
discrimination. It is still inequality for the other 50%. SSM advocates are okay
with that. I am not. I value freedom and equality for everyone. I don't
value government bestowed perks/handouts.
@ forward thinker: You didn't answer Kally's question. If anything,
you kind of made her point. Since everything you mention exists with our current
civil marriage system, plus all the additional social benefits of civil
marriage, what would be the purpose of eliminating civil marriages? It really sounds like a case of unwillingness to share, if heterosexual
couples can't have it exclusively to themselves they would rather destroy
it entirely than allow same-sex couples access. Removing the civil
element effects no change in your favor and therefore serves no purpose, so what
would be the point? (Hint: Removing the civil aspect of marriage won't
automatically eliminate anti-discrimination laws affecting photographers and
bakers - as it matter of fact, it would make the situation worse for them
because then it would be religious discrimination.)
Kally"What will be achieved by removing the civil element from
marriage? How will this change anything in your favor?"This will
change nothing in my favor. I seek equality for everyone under the law, and
religious freedom for everyone. I am fully aware that many churches will perform
SSM and will honor those marriages. Other churches, which have beliefs which
prohibit SSM will not perform or honor SSM. Those seeking SSM will have plenty
of churches to choose from, or if they are not religious, they can make their
own commitment ceremony. They will also have plenty of photographers, bakers,
and florists to choose from. Religious freedom, including lack of religion, will
abound for everyone. Unlike many others, it is not all about me and
what I get out of it. I seek a solution that will allow maximum freedom and
equality for everyone, at some expense to myself. Is that so hard to
@4wordthinker"Marriage is what it is, a religious union between
a man and a woman." Your attempt to make it about eliminating
civil marriages does not change the fact you are excluding yourself and religion
from your zero sum game.
@ 4wordthinker: Since many religious groups support and perform same-sex
marriage, how does removing civil benefits from marriage change anything? Gay
couples will still be getting marriage just the same as straight couples, they
will still be celebrating with their friends and families, they will still be
living down the street from you, their kids will still go to school with your
kids.What will be achieved by removing the civil element from
marriage? How will this change anything in your favor?Many of those
who oppose same-sex marriage like to claim that the end goal of same-sex
marriage supporters is the total destruction of marriage and thus civilization,
but it seems to be that is more something individuals like you are after - if
you can't keep it exclusively for yourself than it should be done away with
entirely and to heck with the consequences, all while being able to defend how
eliminating civil marriage will accomplish any goal of preventing same-sex
couples from getting religiously married.
Tolstoy - Nice lie. I never said I supported civil SSM. I
don't. For the last time, I support making all laws marriage
neutral, thus taking marriage out of the law altogether. No legal protections or
penalties for marriage, any kind of marriage, just total equality under the
law.I stated that in all three previous posts. I can see it is hard
for you to read and process that when you are so emotionally rapt in getting
special rights for yourself.I have been insulted, misquoted and lied
about a lot for this stance, but so far not one answer why this is not the best
way to achieve equality for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.I will say that people can make contracts, with any number of people, to
commit look out for each other and/or share monetary interests, like a domestic
business partnership. The state has interest in such contracts, since they will
have to deal with litigation of such contracts, and I have no problem with that.
But these are not marriages any more than business contracts are marriages.Individuals and churches determine their stand on SSM, a religious
@4wordthinker1. I don't personally have a strong opinion on
group marriage, other than pagan and secular people seem to make it work, while
members of monotheistic religions have a history of using "patriarchy"
as an excuse to treat women as commodities. 2. Siblings already have
a legally recognized relationship that includes a host of legal benefits and
protections. Why would they need to get married?3. Roommates can
already marry. That is, if they are opposite genders. And I don't know of
any state that requires sexual relations between married couples, so they could
marry and continue to live as roommates if they so desired. I
suspect, though, that if "marriage" was made a religious ritual without
any legal recognition, benefits, or protections that hetero couples would
strongly object. People get married today because marriage brings over 1,000
automatic legal protections. Like hetero couples, some Gay couples
want a church wedding, some don't, but across the board what they really
want is the legal recognition and protections for their relationship.
@4word thinker"single people who commit to each other as
friends, but are not sexual."If those two decide to get married,
they can, and they will have all the legal rights and benefits, the government
won’t deny them.But a same sex couple who commit to each other, even
raise children together, can not get married, you think that is fair?Also, the reason that SSM opponents keep losing in courts is just like the
headline said: they haven’t given valid reason for gay marriage ban. you can go to the court to demand polygamy, or incestuous marriage, and
if government can not give valid reason to ban those marriages, they can also be
legalized, but that is not the case, I don’t think you can win.@Flashback"I see nothing wrong with Civil Unions. Just don't
call it marriage."Then you have to strike down Amendment 3
first, because it banns civil union too.
@4wordthinkerSo then you support not only gay marriage but all these
other forms of marriage you are trying to dilute the conversation with? You want
to force those that support gay marriage to play a black and white zero sum game
of either supporting all forms of marriage or not support gay marriage yet
exclude yourself from the game. Based on your own reasoning if you support
heterosexual marriage you must also support gay marriage and all other forms of
marriage or no marriage including heterosexual marriage. You don't get to
simply excuse yourself from the game.
I see nothing wrong with Civil Unions. Just don't call it marriage.
So what you are saying is that equality for everyone under the law is not what
you seek. You want civil marriage privileges, which you would withhold from
others.You would still deny the rights of civil marriage, as you
wish to call it, to group marriage, and to siblings, and to single people who
commit to each other as friends, but are not sexual. Why? They are
people worthy of consideration too. Their commitment to each other benefits
society in all the same ways your commitment to your relationship does. But you
place them too low for civil marital privileges. Why?I see nothing
in what you have written that considers the plight of these people. Wouldn't it be better to seek equality for all, by making all laws
marriage neutral?If not, why not?
@4wordthinkerWhat makes religion the "rightful owner" of
marriage. Marriage predates church or government involvement and the eventual
involvement of both institutions happened around the same time and long before
either tried to lay claim to it as their own. You can write your own belief
system to read however you want but you cannot rewrite history.
@4wordthinkerSorry, but I cannot help you with your cognitive
dissonance. But you can.You have made up your mind and doesn't
matter what anybody tells you, you will believe whatever you want to believe.
If you are LDS I suggest to you to use the same challenge that
Mormon missionaries give to those they teach. Study, meditate and pray about
this issue. I wish you peace !!
Baccus0902"We don't need nor want to control any
organization or interfere with anybody's life."Except for
bakers, and churches, and photographers, who get sued for not bowing to your
control.I love all my brothers and sisters. If we find ourselves
single in our old age, we should be able to live together the last years of our
lives. Would you withhold marriage from us, while you demand it for yourselves?
We do love each other and we live together, same criteria you use for yourself.
Marriage is what it is, a religious union between a man and a woman.
Civil marriage is the state taking over a religious institution. The state needs
to butt out of marriage, return it to its rightful owner, the churches, and
rewrite its laws to be marriage neutral. If you are not for this,
you are for inequality. You are discriminating against churches, those in plural
marriages, and all single people.
@4WordthinkerYou wrote:" Or do you feel the need to
control churches and discriminate against those who are single or who are in
plural marriages?"We don't need nor want to control any
organization or interfere with anybody's life. We just want the privilege
of joining in marriage with the person we love according to the law of the
land.Our plight is for civil marriage not for religious approval.
I am great with equality. So if we change all the laws which
discriminate based on marital status so there are no privileges or penalties for
being married, rather than redefining marriage thus stepping on religious rites,
would you pro-SSM people be satisfied? Or do you feel the need to
control churches and discriminate against those who are single or who are in
@ StormwalkerI agree with you and I am on board. The problem we have
is that this issue is not being argued rationally. On one side we have the real
and practical lives of families and individuals and on the other side we have
fears and biases rooted on religious misconceptions.I am confident
that objectives judges will make a final determination based on the constitution
and equal treatment of all U.S. Citizens
@Baccus0902: "How long before the cruelty of discrimination against LGBT
finish?"Good question. The civil rights movement is half a
century old. When will we be done with racial prejudice?Marriage
equality. End work place discrimination. Gay, Lesbian and Transgender kids being
safe in school. That would be a start. What do you think?
The Judge got it right. Good job, U.S. District Judge Richard Young.
How long before the cruelty of discrimination against LGBT finish?
I cannot imagine the heartbreak this couple is going through knowing that one of
them is terminally ill. I am so glad that they will at least have
some comfort in knowing their relationship will be legally recognized in death
even if not in life, although I imagine it would be more comforting if the
surviving spouse and their children were treated equally under the law as all
other widows and children who have lost a parent.While many states
claim that they want to preserve marriage for fertile heterosexual couples, none
of them have laws defining marriage in that way - they only seem to target
homosexual couples. And not one single state has ever been able to explain how
prohibiting same-sex marriage encourages fertile heterosexual couples to marry.
Comments on stories such as this provide no insight either - it is
all religious or slippery-slope claims, neither of which are legal arguments.When we see the very real harm visited upon very real same-sex couples
and their families, it is hard to have much sympathy for those who claim some
phantom harm may eventually happen.
And again, legally speaking, gay marriage bans serve no legitimate purpose. They
treat some citizens different than other citizens.And again, the
Republican Attorney General will waste the citizens money fighting it, because
the rights and protections he and his wife and their children have will somehow
be all icky if Gay and Lesbian couples have them, too.