Gay Marriage? How about...

[channonc 466]

But this is the same argument that was given about interracial relationships-- they were wrong, what about their children, etc

[Grumps 3,706]

This may be a feeble attempt to get back to the original thread, but if the government no longer recognized marriage then there would be no argument about how to treat heterosexuals/homosexuals/sisters/brothers/dogs who wanted to be together. None would be recognized as a legal entity. People could leave their possessions to whomever they designated. They could appoint anyone they choose to make legal/medical decisions for them.

Society is becoming more and more complicated. To go to a further extreme, should it be ILLEGAL for any two consenting adults to "join". Should I have the right to marry a stranger but not my sister or my mother or my father? I realize that this is pretty sick to consider, but is the government infringing on my freedom by saying I can't?

Maybe it would be simpler to just abolish all legal unions between individuals. We will get there eventually. This way at least everyone will be treated equally.

[rexbo 104]

The right to pursue happiness, the right for equal protection under the law.

Uh, if you are going to interpret these statements as absolutely literal as written, then there are no bounds to our laws; as long as no other person or thing was harmed in any way, then this interpretation would legalize just about everything you can imagine. I would be much happier driving 100 mph down the highway, or even through my neighborhood, and until I ran over someone, it should be legal. (BTW, the 'right' to pursue happiness is not in the Bill of Rights.)

There are already laws in place prohibiting sex with children.  We are talking about 2 consenting ADULTS

And why just 2? If you are going to say that consenting adults can do WHATEVER they chose, and it be sanctioned by the Government, then there is no justification for outlawing polygamy. In fact, ploygamy has much more basis and history in open societies than homosexual marriage.

[CCTAU 3,536]

But this is the same argument that was given about interracial relationships-- they were wrong, what about their children, etc

But they weren't ILLEGAL, just socially unacceptable. Because it was a marraiage between a MAN and a WOMAN. Skin color did not have anything to do with gender and marriage.

[Tiger Al 0]

But this is the same argument that was given about interracial relationships-- they were wrong, what about their children, etc

But they weren't ILLEGAL, just socially unacceptable. Because it was a marraiage between a MAN and a WOMAN. Skin color did not have anything to do with gender and marriage.

Yes, CCT, they were illegal. In 2000 we voted here in Alabama to get rid of a law that made interracial marriage illegal.

[CCTAU 3,536]

But this is the same argument that was given about interracial relationships-- they were wrong, what about their children, etc

But they weren't ILLEGAL, just socially unacceptable. Because it was a marraiage between a MAN and a WOMAN. Skin color did not have anything to do with gender and marriage.

Yes, CCT, they were illegal. In 2000 we voted here in Alabama to get rid of a law that made interracial marriage illegal.

Yeah in 98 we here in GA got rid of a law that said it was illegal for your wife and you to engage in sodomy. But I didn't see anybody going to jail for it. How many of your black buddies have you ever had to bail out of jail for trying to marry a white girl. Yeah, that's what I thought. Some things aren't illegal even though they are on the books. So once again you keep the argument going by a technicality, but not reallity. After the next election, if you will poke your head up out of that 55 gallon drum, you may see a decent world out here that doesn't need to be micromanaged by liberal demoncrats. And if you and your liberal buddies keep pissing all over what few morals you've left us with, you might not want to poke it out at all.

[Donutboy 0]

Ok, I know this topic has been beaten to death, but I have been thinking a lot about this subject and just thought I would throw out some of my thoughts.

I don't understand how "marriage" is a legal term. I think that term refers to a union formed in a religious sense, such as something that you feel has been done with God, in front of God, etc. Not necessarily a Christian term, but a religious one.

So, I guess my thoughts are this... how come all "marriages" aren't considered unions to begin with and not legally referred to as marriage. I mean a straight couple can go down to city hall and sign papers, but I would consider that more of a legal union, than a marriage in the traditional sense.

I am all for gay/lesbian couples having the same legal rights as straight couples as far as benefits, wills, taxes, etc. But all of that is legal stuff, it has nothing to do with religion. So I would consider a gay/lesbian marriage something that was performed in some sort of religious setting, not just a legal one.

So I guess using this logic that has been placed into civil unions vs. gay marriage thing, why doesn't the law address it that way. That legally every couple that is "married" whether straight or gay has a legal civil union which is seperate from an actual marriage meaning, everyone has a civil union, but those who have a religious ceremony also fall into the category of marriage which isn't recognized any differently than civil unions. Why isn't the legal language all the same???

Thoughts??

Here's a unique idea. If the government truly wants to get involved and maintain separation of church and state, make "civil unions" legally binding for ALL people but allow the churches to keep marriage as a holy ceremony determined by the individual churches. A marriage could be automatically considered a civil union in the eyes of the law once the marriage certificate is filed. Anyone who couldn't find a church to marry them could go to the courthouse and form a civil union. To maintain the legality of it, the courthouses could no longer perform marriages; only civil unions between any two consenting adults. This would keep it from being challenged in the courts as discriminatory.

Here's another unique idea. If the government truly wanted to pass a defense of marriage act, instead of keeping people who intend to be a family from marrying, they should pass a constitutional amendment making cohabitation, adultery and divorce illegal!! All of those things are a sin according to the Bible and are detrimental to a marriage. If we want to form marriage strictly according to the Bible, we need to outlaw those things along with the one man-one woman provision. I wonder how far that "true" defense of marriage act would fly? Me thinks it's kinda like the abortion issue, see which way the wind is blowing and allow or disallow according to the portions that are politically favorable or disfavorable.

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Gay marriage with a little different spin. What are we going to do when gay couples want to split? Is the gay community willing to submit to the divorce proceedings that are so prevelant in our society. If they are wanting the ability to marry, they will have to live with the consequences of divorce. This would completely choke the justice system, as there is plenty of evidence to support the lack of faithfulness among the gay community. (no this statement is not homophobic but factual, see bathouses in San Francisco). While many gays in San Francisco feel the need to take advantage of the short lived ability to marry, are they also willing to give spousal support and alimony to their partners when their relationships go sour? I for one don't feel that gay marriage should be legal, but if it is, I hate to see the fiasco that incurs in our judicial system when we have to give court time to settle the breakups.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Gays, as citizens of this country do have civil rights. It is now a matter of recognizing, legally, those rights and not creating legislation that suppresses them.

what legislation is going to surpress which rights?

DOMA, for one.

sorry it took me so long to respond...

but the point i was gonna make before we went elsewhere on the thread was that marriage isn't a civil right.

it isn't even a right period.

again, if there are legal advantages married men/women enjoy then maybe pursue 'equality under the law' in that vein...(yet i'm not even convinced this is needed...),

but nobody has the 'right' to be married.