Do you favor getting rid of marriage legally? [Archive]

benrod1

03-12-2009, 09:23 PM

Casspian

03-12-2009, 11:24 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_re_us/no_more_marriage_1

California may vote on it and replace it with domestic partnership.

I think we should get away from letting the Gov grant marriages, esp if they are going to say only heterosexuals should get married. No institutionalized bias should be allowed. Besides, maybe we should get back to letting only the legal agreement be something the Gov and State are a part of and let the spiritual or religious side reside with the individuals and be a personal issue. I see no reason the Gov should sanctify the legalities of the agreement and call it marriage for some and domestic partnerships or whatever for others. This would end the arguing over it also and all the terrible waste of money on this issue. Donate those millions to starving children.

MercedesV

03-12-2009, 11:44 PM

I caught part of an interview this morning on CNN talking about a church and their website. GreatsexGodsway.com. And they have put up billboards saying Great Sex God's Way. Of course that means only within a marriage and only between a man and a woman.

I think any two consenting and loving adults who want to marry should be able to marry. And it's no one else's business or place to tell anyone who they can or can't marry as long as they are adults, consenting adults.

LisaM22

03-12-2009, 11:52 PM

yes, marriage should be up to a persons church, a civil unions be the legal contract - it's the same thing, but it would make some feel better I guess

it's either everyone moves to civil unions or everyone is allowed to marry the adult consenting person they love

LisaM22

03-12-2009, 11:55 PM

The irony of this is that for many hundreds of years the church really had nothing to do with most marriages. In fact the church wouldn't even perform marriages. Marriage was purely a civil contract. So I would choose to let marriage be the civil contract it has always been and allow churches to perform only those ceremonies that they agree with.

the church is currently restricted by the government on who they can marry, I agree, they government needs to get out of the church and visa versa - currently marriages are first and foremost a civil contract between two people, so maybe that is what we should call them as really the church can not marry someone or divorce them, only the courts can - the church is just were many choose to have the religious ceremony of marriage, but by no means is it required

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 12:15 AM

This is being actively discussed in California and most are opposed but it is a new idea. Many countries do this and it is nothing new to them.

It could be the best of all worlds, especially if President Obama gets federal recognition of civil contracts.

It would give people several more choices when it comes to romantic unions.

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 12:20 AM

As a Californian, let me say that this proposal has no chance whatsoever. And let us not lose total sight of that fact that the issue presented by Prop 8 is not whether same gender marriage is made illegal (it is not) but whether the State has to recognize it (which if Prop 8 is upheld, they do not). Likewise, the Federal government does not now nor will it, unless DOMA is overturned, recognize same gender marriage. Clinton signed that law and Obama supports it.

Any person so recognized by the state as being able to perform marital ceremonies may do so to anyone before them, the ONLY issue is whether the state recognizes it.

I believe President Obama has indicated he favors same gender unions and recognition by the federal government. That would solve the problem you mention.

snookums1

03-13-2009, 12:25 AM

If two people love each other they should be recognized as a couple. In a country that is supposed to be a democracy, everyone should be treated equally and their significant other should be recognized and gender should have no part in it. We have made great strides in the last 100 years but we have a long way to go yet.

watcher2005

03-13-2009, 12:40 AM

I definitely think the federal government should stay out of it.

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 12:53 AM

But it does nothing with respect to the issue your poll raises, which is marriage. Domestic Unions (In Ca, they are known as Domestic Partnerships) are creations of statute which are entitled to full faith and credit from other states since they are merely lawful contracts where entered into. Same gender marriages in MA or CT (I *think* those are the only jurisdictions) are NOT entitled to full faith and credit since the recognition of marriage is exclusively a matter of state's rights under DOMA.

So either discuss marriage or domestic partnerships, but don't use them interchangeably, because they have virtually nothing to do with one another.

And, FWIW, Obama opposes same gender marriage.

If California were to change to civil unions, civil contracts, domestic partnerships or whatever they would be called, then I think the federal government and most states would be forced to recognise them.

But most states recognise civil unions formed by a man and a woman anywhere else in the world.

Actually, in California, a man and a woman can form a domestic partnership in some cases. I think they can be discussed together even though they could be separate. The domestic partnership would be the civil/legal connection and marriage would be the religious/spiritual relationship.

For those who value marriage, they can have it. For those who just want a legal union, they can have it.

JMO

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 12:59 AM

The Federal government isn't in it, beyond the blanket non-recognition of same gender marriage by the federal government under DOMA. DOMA makes recognition of same sex marriage as it pertains to all other issues exclusively a matter of states' rights beyond that.IIRC there are about 1,400 laws by the federal government concerning marriage. These have mainly to do with Social Security, IRS and the military. Domestic partnerships, by a man and a woman, in California would certainly get the attention of Social Security administrators.

LisaM22

03-13-2009, 01:59 AM

As a Californian, let me say that this proposal has no chance whatsoever. And let us not lose total sight of that fact that the issue presented by Prop 8 is not whether same gender marriage is made illegal (it is not) but whether the State has to recognize it (which if Prop 8 is upheld, they do not). Likewise, the Federal government does not now nor will it, unless DOMA is overturned, recognize same gender marriage. Clinton signed that law and Obama supports it.

Any person so recognized by the state as being able to perform marital ceremonies may do so to anyone before them, the ONLY issue is whether the state recognizes it.

let's be honest now... Obama doesn't support that bill

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

"Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

LisaM22

03-13-2009, 02:01 AM

If California were to change to civil unions, civil contracts, domestic partnerships or whatever they would be called, then I think the federal government and most states would be forced to recognise them.

But most states recognise civil unions formed by a man and a woman anywhere else in the world.

Actually, in California, a man and a woman can form a domestic partnership in some cases. I think they can be discussed together even though they could be separate. The domestic partnership would be the civil/legal connection and marriage would be the religious/spiritual relationship.

For those who value marriage, they can have it. For those who just want a legal union, they can have it.

JMO

exactly and many same sex couple value marriage as much as opposite sex couples do imo - this would be between them and their church, many churches have no problem with two consenting adult people that love one another getting married, same sex or not

Vortex

03-13-2009, 03:50 PM

Close relatives cannot marry now. Children cannot enter into any type contract now, let alone a marriage. A man cannot legally marry a sheep. There are certain laws in place to prevent these type things, and allowing gays and lesbians to marry till not erase these laws. Nor will it prevent new ones from being written if needed. Does anyone really think that, if presented to the voting public, we as a nation would approve of men marrying children? Or men marrying animals? Its a subjective moral question but IMO it will never happen.

So the issue remains how to get some people from point A to point B. How do we respectfully get through to folks who think gays/lesbians marrying is just one step away from the total moral decline of our nation?

Vortex

03-13-2009, 04:23 PM

I'd like to have a rational discussion about that question. But it's not always easy to remain respectful in the heat of battle. lol.

Seriously, I'm not sure there is an answer. For those whose beliefs are rooted in religion, its difficult to debate the point. I believe fellowship is important. Sometimes getting to know someone well helps you see their side of things and makes you think differently.

I have made some wonderful friends here. And once we got to know each other quite well, some have told me that before we "met," they were not in favor of gay marriage. But now they want for me the same opportunities they have. And by that I mean being able to marry the person of my choice, not an opposite-sex person I have no interest in. Those were sweet words to hear.

Vortex

03-13-2009, 04:55 PM

Close blood relatives cannot marry now (but in some states first cousins can). A parent and child cannot marry now so why do you think that would change?

crocdog1

03-13-2009, 05:27 PM

Based on experience, I think all marriages should be illegal; just live together!! :thumbsup:

RE: [ just live together!!]

Why not? That is what is happening in our society, as I speak.

Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the sanctity of marriage?

More and more they are not taking advantage of the legal meaning of the word "marriage."

You need look no further than the Hollywood celebs to see what I mean. Intimacy w/o being married; children born w/o benefit of marriage, etc; many of those that are married getting serial divorces and again, marrying another partner. And, even many of those who stay married are cheating on their spouses.

Why not "just live together?"

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 05:40 PM

Playing devil's advocate here - if you define a Civil Union as a legal contract between any two consenting adults, you are crossing that fine line of relatives marrying, i.e., dad and daughter (ick!!), etc. The problem is it leaves the floodgates open.

I personally don't think the fed govt should be in the business of dictating what constitutes a marriage. I do think that if a state allows Civil Unions or whatever they want to call it, that union should be required to be recognized in all states. Kind of like, if the age of consent for marriage in one state is different than the age of consent in another, the marriage is recognized in both states.

This brings up what could be an interesting moral situation. Assuming that any two people can form a union. Let's say there are two women, about age 60, who can not afford health care. And let's say there is a single man, about age 85, who has heath care and his spouse would be covered free.

He might marry one of the women for companionship and provide health care for her. But if one is his daughter why couldn't he form a union with her?

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 06:07 PM

A question more appropriate for National Health Care; or conversely, why should people form bogus unions simply to have health care.

As I understand it, the reasons for same-sex unions are many fold. Not just health care, but all the "perks" that married couples have such as rights to visit in intensive care, tax advantages, etc.

It is nice to think all marriages are about romance.

But I have always wondered about married benefits and penalties.

It always seemed odd to me that people working side by side doing the same thing take home varying amounts because of their marital status and the status of their spouse.

benrod1

03-13-2009, 06:15 PM

In most states, first cousins cannot marry. In no state can a father marry his child; nor should that change.

At various times throughout human history not only could first cousins marry but fathers and daughters, mothers and sons and even brothers and sisters, and there were even societies where homosexual unions were valid. And all with the blessings of both the religious institutions of the time as well as the government. This whole argument against "redefining" marriage overlooks . It has always been "redefined" based on the society and culture of the times. Marriage today is not what is was fifty years ago, and the mythical "Ozzie and Harriet" marriages were much different than the ones thirty, fifty and one hundred years before. Marriage for most of our early history wasn't even exclusively one man and one woman. Even the Bible supports polygamous marriages as valid. And all the arguments against "redefining" marriage we hear now were echoed throughout history as societies changed to meet the challenges of the time. Gay marriage will come, and it will not lead to the downfall of anything. So we really shouldnt try to cling to a definition of marriage which never really existed.

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 06:22 PM

At various times throughout human history not only could first cousins marry but fathers and daughters, mothers and sons and even brothers and sisters, and there were even societies where homosexual unions were valid. And all with the blessings of both the religious institutions of the time as well as the government. This whole argument against "redefining" marriage overlooks . It has always been "redefined" based on the society and culture of the times. Marriage today is not what is was fifty years ago, and the mythical "Ozzie and Harriet" marriages were much different than the ones thirty, fifty and one hundred years before. Marriage for most of our early history wasn't even exclusively one man and one woman. Even the Bible supports polygamous marriages as valid. And all the arguments against "redefining" marriage we hear now were echoed throughout history as societies changed to meet the challenges of the time. Gay marriage will come, and it will not lead to the downfall of anything. So we really shouldnt try to cling to a definition of marriage which never really existed.

Gay marriage is already here, forcing the government to recognize it isn't.

Vortex

03-13-2009, 06:59 PM

Forget the churches, why define a civil union to include only 2 consenting adults, I thought this was a "rights" issue. I say if you cave in to homosexuals then you cave into all non traditional unions.

Who will we be caving in to? All the people rioting because a marriage between a father and daughter is not recognized as legal?

A civil union has to be defined with boundaries, just like everything else. Just like marriage is now. Let that group who wants to marry cousins or sheep petition the court and start fighting. But how far to you really think that would go? Gay marriage is legal in a few states. Can anyone forsee father/daughter marriages legal in a few states? I dont see it happening - this "right" you speak of. Like there are thousands of people just waiting to have a legal union with their offspring or relative. JMO

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 07:08 PM

:confused: Not sure what all of this has to do with same-sex unions.

Anyway, from what I have observed of the "debate" is that the "anti" position resembles the same stale arguments that were presented to maintain the status quo regarding inter-racial marriage.Perhaps I did go off topic a bit. The point being the civil contract would be the legal form and the marriage more the romance and religious aspect if desired.

This isn't exclusively about same sex unions but all unions is the proposal.

Vortex

03-13-2009, 07:17 PM

Perhaps I did go off topic a bit. The point being the civil contract would be the legal form and the marriage more the romance and religious aspect if desired.

This isn't exclusively about same sex unions but all unions is the proposal.

I am desperately trying to give up "marriage" for myself. I love the connotation marriage has. The joining, the bonding, the romance as you say. And I find myself saying, dammit I want that too. Just like everyone else.

To me, it would be so much easier to let us have marriage too than to completely change everything to civil unions. But I do like the idea of one for all, then letting each couple decide past the legalities about the interjection of religion. That's always confused me because religion doesnt make straight marriages legal now. The license does. So why is religion being used to tell me I cant marry who I chose?

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 08:26 PM

All unions as in equality. Ask yourself this - is it fair to discriminate against same-sex couples.

I believe the proposal would not descriminate.

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 08:29 PM

I think I understand what you are saying. I don't understand why a couple (hetero or gay) cannot form a 'union' whether in marriage form or not, that would allow the partner to have the same control as a married couple would. IOW, I could get legal documentation to allow my significant other to take full charge of all my medical, funeral, life and so on decisions which is allowed with any individual. The only issue I see that is not covered under a nonreligious or nonceremonial union is that my SO could not qualify for my benefits (ss, medical, etc.)

Very true but I think many don't want that. They want it the same.

JMO

Carol25

03-13-2009, 08:55 PM

If we don't have government regulation of marriage what stops organizations like FLDS? There could be incest, polygamy, statutory rape, no one knows where it would end. It's not just gays.

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 09:04 PM

Vortex

03-13-2009, 09:38 PM

Those things happen with or without marriage.

Yes. They always have and always will.

Carol25

03-13-2009, 09:45 PM

Those things happen with or without marriage.
Now don't you go bursting my naive little bubble. :mellow:

Lady_Jean_La

03-13-2009, 10:49 PM

Yes. They always have and always will.
There was a time when it was more difficult. A young couple seeking a hotel room, might be asked to show a marriage certificate. A 14 year old girl dating was not acceptable in the community. But those days are gone.

I dare say a man and three women could rent a room in the best hotel and no one would care. Young girls can dance with men and who will stop them? A person can watch beastiality on a computer and pornography is everywhere.

JMO

Lady_Jean_La

06-03-2009, 10:31 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5526NV20090603

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - New Hampshire on Wednesday became the sixth U.S. state to authorize gay marriage, deepening a New England niche for same-sex weddings and the spending that comes with them.

Details

06-04-2009, 12:23 AM

Hooray for NH!

I wouldn't change the term - there are a ton of laws, regulations, corporate policies that all deal with "married" people. To change the term, all of these things must be changed.

The government should recognize marriages, as appropriate, legally - to say who is your closest relative for purposes of inheritance, hospital visits, etc., to say who can and cannot file taxes, to say who is so committed to each other that when they split up, their assets must be split between them. And of course, to say who may and may not marry for cases of incest, pedophilia, etc. Two consensual adults seems the right line to me.

Once, marriage between different races wasn't right. People got used to that change (most of them at least). The states where this has changed don't seem to be having problems with it, other than dealing with a crowd of ecstatically happy gay couples finally able to marry.

FurthurBB

06-04-2009, 08:56 AM

FurthurBB

06-04-2009, 09:02 AM

At various times throughout human history not only could first cousins marry but fathers and daughters, mothers and sons and even brothers and sisters, and there were even societies where homosexual unions were valid. And all with the blessings of both the religious institutions of the time as well as the government. This whole argument against "redefining" marriage overlooks . It has always been "redefined" based on the society and culture of the times. Marriage today is not what is was fifty years ago, and the mythical "Ozzie and Harriet" marriages were much different than the ones thirty, fifty and one hundred years before. Marriage for most of our early history wasn't even exclusively one man and one woman. Even the Bible supports polygamous marriages as valid. And all the arguments against "redefining" marriage we hear now were echoed throughout history as societies changed to meet the challenges of the time. Gay marriage will come, and it will not lead to the downfall of anything. So we really shouldnt try to cling to a definition of marriage which never really existed.

The aversion to mating with one's father/mother or son/daughter is almost universal and that is rare. Now I will agree that brother/sister could marry and first cousins were actually desirable in most cultures. IMO

FurthurBB

06-04-2009, 09:05 AM

If we don't have government regulation of marriage what stops organizations like FLDS? There could be incest, polygamy, statutory rape, no one knows where it would end. It's not just gays.

I have no problem with polygamy and it is all throughout history the most common form of marriage. I do not think we will be any less able to regulate the FLDS than we are now because many laws govern the issues you are concerned with. IMO

Narcissist71

06-09-2009, 03:44 PM

I have no problem with polygamy and it is all throughout history the most common form of marriage. I do not think we will be any less able to regulate the FLDS than we are now because many laws govern the issues you are concerned with. IMO

I have no problem with polygamy because I don't feel it's really the governments business......

but I do want less government, which includes programs like welfare.....

I may be wrong, but many issues come down to the government moving into areas that it shouldn't.

I have read where polygamist families were being support by wives and children collecting welfare. That I have a problem with.

Again I'm not saying I'm right, but I think issues like these need to be debated in an "open and honest" forum. For me the answer is less government in all areas of people's lives, but I'm always willing to listen to other people's ideas.

Narcissist71

06-10-2009, 07:11 AM

MOre of "I want less government........" by the right wing.

You see what less government aka: de-regulation of the Banking and Finance Industry did for the country, don't you?

If anything, we need more government regulations in this country. I have no need for fewer regulations. I don't want to conduct business in an unethical, dishonest manner. Regulations are great. I don't mind them in the least.

There are other countries that some might enjoy more if the regulations in this country are an issue.

mo

I agree that some regulations are needed. I'm not against all regulations.

As I posted above, there are some areas that the Federal government really has no business being in and some areas that State government really has no business being in.

I think that before giving up any kind of freedom for security we the people need to give serious thought to the issue before transferring power over to the government. Part of the problem is that we have is so little accountability as to what our Federal Government is doing regardless of which Party (though I consider them one in the same) is in power.

One example is that the Congress as a whole usually get low approval ratings, yet those living in the districts of most Congressmen give their own Congressmen much higher approval ratings.

But yes I think the Government should get out of the marriage business.

benrod1

06-10-2009, 11:47 AM

Marriage is a Religious matter. The Government came later because they wanted to collect money for the marraige license.

Actually you are incorrect. Marriage was originally a CIVIL matter. It evolved as a way to define property rights and resolve inheritance issues within a community. For many centuries many religions would not even conduct a marriage ceremony. In fact the early Christian church wouldnt even marry individuals. That came later and only for the aristocracy most often to give legitimacy for an arranged political union. Often a "donation" to the church would be involved. But the church would still refuse to marry common folk. The history of marriage is not as simple as we think it is.

:patriot: