Who should be allowed to marry?

[cybrsage]

Here's one reason why:

A man of US citizenship marries another man of non-US citizenship while he is in the US legally in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. If the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, do they deport the man with non-US citizenship once his visa expires because he's in the US illegally at that point.

Marriage is not an enumerated right, so it falls to the states or the people, respectively. The Fed Gov cannot legally force the states to create marriages in the way the fed gov wants them to make them.

 

[PrinceofWands]

'Marriage' is a religious entity and as such it should be up to individual churches to choose who can marry there.

If we're going to continue to insist on a civil equivalent then domestic partnerships should be a contractual entity which must be applied absolutely equally to everyone, but should be kept utterly separate from the idea of 'marriage'.

 

[cybrsage]

Marriage, being a legal contract, requires informed consent from all involved parties. A non-intelligent being or object cannot provide this required consent and therefor cannot enter into a legal contract.

 

[cybrsage]

'Marriage' is a religious entity and as such it should be up to individual churches to choose who can marry there.

If we're going to continue to insist on a civil equivalent then domestic partnerships should be a contractual entity which must be applied absolutely equally to everyone, but should be kept utterly separate from the idea of 'marriage'.

Agreed, do a simple find/replace on legal forms and change marriage to civil union. New civil unions can be created (such as homosexual, polygamist, incestuous) to give rights to these groups easily. Churches can still perform civil unions and then also give out a church approved marriage certificate. Each church can have their own marriage rules and if you do not agree they will not marry (or civil unionize) you.

Everyone wins except the loonie fringe members on both stupid ends of the issue.

 

[nehalem256]

Oh really? So a girl's parent can order a doctor to perform an abortion against her consent?

Abortion is the one special case that children are allowed to do things without their parents consent. Apparently we are suppose to worship the choices of pregnant 14 year old girls.

In many states a girl can get abortion without her parents consent, but not an ear piercing.

I have previously pointed out the obvious hypocrisy of this.

 

[nehalem256]

'Marriage' is a religious entity and as such it should be up to individual churches to choose who can marry there.

If we're going to continue to insist on a civil equivalent then domestic partnerships should be a contractual entity which must be applied absolutely equally to everyone, but should be kept utterly separate from the idea of 'marriage'.

So is this why you are going to carry over the rights and most of the rules associated with marriage currently, except for the fact you will now allow same-sex couples to get civil unioned.

 

[nageov3t]

So is this why you are going to carry over the rights and most of the rules associated with marriage currently, except for the fact you will now allow same-sex couples to get civil unioned.

in practice, the problem is that many companies will grasp on anything to deny benefits if a couple isn't technically "married"

The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered "overwhelming evidence" the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/goldstein.html

in a perfect world, I'd say no government marriages at all and civil unions for everyone. a marriage certificate is not much more than a civil contract; it would probably be the cleanest solution, and leave marriages as religious ceremonies that aren't recognized by the government any moreso than a baptism.

but we don't live in a perfect world, and legalizing gay marriage is probably the easiest and most practical solution than the current separate-and-unequal marriage/civil union business.

 

[nehalem256]

in practice, the problem is that many companies will grasp on anything to deny benefits if a couple isn't technically "married"

So the purpose of same-sex marriage is to get 3rd parties to give you benefits?

So much for the idea that same-sex marriage won't affect anyone else huh?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/goldstein.html

in a perfect world, I'd say no government marriages at all and civil unions for everyone. a marriage certificate is not much more than a civil contract; it would probably be the cleanest solution, and leave marriages as religious ceremonies that aren't recognized by the government any moreso than a baptism.

but we don't live in a perfect world, and legalizing gay marriage is probably the easiest and most practical solution than the current separate-and-unequal marriage/civil union business.

Calling marriage a civil union doesn't change anything.

You do realize that even in non-Christian countries such as Japan, China, India, etc same-sex marriage isn't legal?

 

[nageov3t]

So the purpose of same-sex marriage is to get 3rd parties to give you benefits?

isn't that the purposes of all government-sanctioned marriage?

what non-religious reason would a straight couple have to get married other than spousal benefits from insurance/pension, joint filing of taxes, being able to visit each other in the hospital, etc?

edit: India might not be a great example, homosexual sex was illegal there until 2009 and the culture itself tends to be extremely anti-gay (probably, more than Western nations but less than Muslim countries)... gay marriage isn't legal in Japan, but at least gay marriages in other countries are recognized (eg: a gay couple can fly to Canada, get married, fly back to Japan, and have their marriage recognized), though in my own experience, Japanese/Korean/Chinese/Indian cultures all tend to be pretty intolerant (or at least disapproving) when it comes to the gays.

 

[nehalem256]

isn't that the purposes of all government-sanctioned marriage?

Marriage is a method for society to control procreation. Government is an agent of society. In previous eras religion was also an important agent of society and so marriage gained religious connotations as well.

what non-religious reason would a straight couple have to get married other than spousal benefits from insurance/pension, joint filing of taxes, being able to visit each other in the hospital, etc?

The reason that individuals choose to get married is largely irrelevant. If you want another reason: societal pressure to get married.

And that idea that marriage exists so that your spouse can visit you in the hospital has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. How about we just let people choose who they want to have visit them? Doesnt that seem like a better and simpler solution.

And are you suggesting that most people get married so they can joint file their taxes?

 

[nageov3t]

I'd argue that without the government benefits and societal pressure (which, hint, gays face too), most non-religious people would just shack up into common-law marriages.

 

[nehalem256]

I'd argue that without the government benefits and societal pressure (which, hint, gays face too), most non-religious people would just shack up into common-law marriages.

So if there was no reason to get married no one would get married.

Captain obvious gives you a gold star. :thumbsup:

 

[her209]

Marriage is not an enumerated right, so it falls to the states or the people, respectively. The Fed Gov cannot legally force the states to create marriages in the way the fed gov wants them to make them.

Fed government can force states to create marriages in a way that is does not create second class citizens.

 

[nehalem256]

Fed government can force states to create marriages in a way that is does not create second class citizens.

The federal government cannot make up powers for itself.

And "second class citizens" is just an emotionally loaded term to try to get sympathy for your position.

Besides, marriages creates "second class couples". Marriage is about couples not individuals. If a coupling is less valuable there is nothing discriminatory to treat as second class.

 

[her209]

The federal government cannot make up powers for itself.

And "second class citizens" is just an emotionally loaded term to try to get sympathy for your position.

Besides, marriages creates "second class couples". Marriage is about couples not individuals. If a coupling is less valuable there is nothing discriminatory to treat as second class.

Making up powers? What are you smoking?

"Second class citizens" is a emotionally loaded term? Now I've heard it all.

 

[Smoblikat]

The federal government cannot make up powers for itself.

And "second class citizens" is just an emotionally loaded term to try to get sympathy for your position.

Besides, marriages creates "second class couples". Marriage is about couples not individuals. If a coupling is less valuable there is nothing discriminatory to treat as second class.

HAH!

I actually chuckled in real life.
Patriot acts
NDAA
Obama care
Legalized drone strikes for American citizens.

 

[nehalem256]

HAH!

I actually chuckled in real life.
Patriot acts
NDAA
Obama care
Legalized drone strikes for American citizens.

Well perhaps shouldn't is a better choice of words than can't unfortunately.

 

[alzan]

Child-bearing ability was never a prerequisite, and I never said it was limited to those who could have children.

Marriage can serve any purpose you want it to, something I never disputed.

What I do dispute is those who wish to change the purpose of marriage being in existence to begin with in order to cater to gay marriages.

Just because I may wish to change my car into a tank on 4-wheels, that doesn't impact or change the purpose of cars coming into existence, nor does it change why the manufacture(s) built it.

How are gays and lesbians being catered to as far as marriage when there are currently (and have been for all of human history) opposite sex couples who cannot procreate or choose not to. If the "idea" of marriage already incorporates into itself heterosexual couples who are either incapable of/ choose not to producing/produce offspring; then gays/lesbians are not being catered to because they too enter into marriage with no natural way/or choice to procreate.

The purpose of marriage is to create stable welationships with or without children which benefit society as a whole.

 

[blankslate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6jrngYNGNeE

"Why do these gays want to destroy our civilization!?"

 

[cybrsage]

Fed government can force states to create marriages in a way that is does not create second class citizens.

Nope, for two reasons. Firstly, there are no second class citizens. Secondly, marriage is not an enumerated right...therefor the US Constitution gives the power to control it to the States or the People, respectively.

 

[cybrsage]

Making up powers? What are you smoking?

Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10/amendment.html

The power of marriage which you are trying to give to the fed gov - the one NOT listed in the Constitution but you are pretending is.

 

[First]

Simple answer is they already have the right to marry in states that matter (e.g. NY & CA when SCOTUS rules in their favor this summer).

Thankfully the federal gov't has the power to enforce this, and will do so given the headwinds against anti-gay venom. Another bigoted conservative position will fall by the wayside, to go along with immigration this year and institutionalized racism against blacks long before it.

 

[cybrsage]

Sigh...First, First, First. Will you PLEASE stop ignoring the Constitutional Amendments that you do not agree with...please?

 

[nageov3t]

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10/amendment.html

The power of marriage which you are trying to give to the fed gov - the one NOT listed in the Constitution but you are pretending is.

if a state wants to ban gay marriage, I'd say that's their choice.

but I don't see how DOMA -- and forbidding gay couples who are married in states where it's legal from getting the same federal marriage recognition that any straight couple would get -- isn't a violation of the equal rights amendment.

 

[nehalem256]

if a state wants to ban gay marriage, I'd say that's their choice.

but I don't see how DOMA -- and forbidding gay couples who are married in states where it's legal from getting the same federal marriage recognition that any straight couple would get -- isn't a violation of the equal rights amendment.

Gay couples and straight couples are inherently not equal in value to society. It is not unequal to treat things of unequal value unequally.

In order for the federal government to recognize marriage it must first define what marriage is.