Solving the "Gay Marriage" issue.

[Ishmael]

Just throwing another idea out for discussion.

The whole issue with the "Gay Marriage" problem is the fact that government got into the marriage business to begin with. What they call a marriage liscense is nothing more than a tax in disguise and was primarily aimed at getting those pesky Mormons with their insane idea of polygamy under control. Later the excuse for the marriage liscense was to build a body of law to divy up the spoils when the marriage ended. And now it has become a bone of contention with the gay community. (Of course the gays claim that there are all sorts of 'benefits' that accrue to married folk, albeit I've never seen where the benefits offset the deficits. <shrug>)

So here's my proposal. Change the name of the license. Yup, just that simple. We'll call it the "Child Legitimization Certificate" and then change the name in all the underpinning law. Divorce will now become "Cancellation of Legitimization." All other laws currently in force will remain the same, as will any court decisions regarding the subjects.

Now anyone can go to the court house and pay their CLC tax and get registered. I'm sure the religious fanatics will still find something to bitch about, but they are now in the position of having to campaign against child legitiimization. That'll play havoc with their moral compass.

As far as marriage goes, well anyone can do that too. Just find a preacher, shaman, or a sympathetic rock. Say some words and draw up a certificate that you can print out on the latest incarnation of an ink jet printer. Sign on the dotted line and wallah, you're married and government is out of the marriage business forever.

I think it will work famously.

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

Why not just mind our own business, let everybody else do the same, and let the churches get the fuck over it?

 

[fair_warning]

Where's the fucking fun in that?

 

[Saint Peter]

There is no fun in marriage.

Let the homos suffer like the rest of us.

 

[Ishmael]

Why not just mind our own business, let everybody else do the same, and let the churches get the fuck over it?

Won't happen Petey. Not as long as everyone wants to use government to meddle in the lives of everyone they disagree with.

It's called "social engineering" and everyone wants to play.

Ishmael

 

[Sharon_]

Why not just mind our own business, let everybody else do the same, and let the churches get the fuck over it?

Don't you have that backwards?

Aren't marriage licenses a case of the government sticking their nose in church business?

 

[fair_warning]

Why not just add the option of a 'Civil Union' to legislation. The churches can continue to do their thing and marry 'regular' couples and the government can marry the 'non conforming' couples.

Seriously, I do agree with you in principle Ishamel - who and what you marry is really no one's business but yours.

 

[fair_warning]

Aren't marriage licenses a case of the government sticking their nose in church business?

*choke*
splutter....

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Why not just add the option of a 'Civil Union' to legislation. The churches can continue to do their thing and marry 'regular' couples and the government can marry the 'non conforming' couples.

Seriously, I do agree with you in principle Ishamel - who and what you marry is really no one's business but yours.

Quite simply because the thought of a gay couple applying for a CLC tickles my irony bone as much as the thought of a born again Christian arguing against legitimization. That's why.

Ishmael

 

[Phelia]

I imagine that the people who don't want to let same-sex couples get married certainly don't want to let them have children, let alone help make them legitimate. Then they'd be able to create an entire army of militant, elementary-school-aged gays poised to systematically destroy morality.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I see it differently and the Miss California instance is a perfect example. The New Left, that 70's Berkeley Show for want of a better name is at war with traditional values and society, wanting to remake the world in their own ivory tower utopian image.

For years, they've been telling us these pageants demean women and treat them as mere objects, similarly, they have show the institution of marriage a lot of distain and hatred. So what do they do? They infiltrate the pageant and destroy it from within as well as externally, demanding rules changes, format changes, etc., etc., etc...,

Perez Hilton had no more desire to make the pageant more strong and inclusive than does the gay community wish to do with marriage.

The goal is to turn it into a travesty and thus end it.

The idea is to eliminate diversity, the goal is to promote eqalitarianism, the desire is that no one other person(s) have a way by which to elevate their status or stature in society...

 

[Ishmael]

Exactly! Into church doctrine as well, especially when that doctrine doesn't recognize homosexual marriage or other affronts to the liberal mind. In the old days it was to prevent the spread of syphilis, prevent birth defects, and for tax purposes.

All those were excuses made after the fact. Marriage licenses were specifically initiated to curb those pesky Mormons.

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

All those were excuses made after the fact. Marriage licenses were specifically initiated to curb those pesky Mormons.

Ishmael

They were hoarding all the wimminz and had to be stopped!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I imagine that the people who don't want to let same-sex couples get married certainly don't want to let them have children, let alone help make them legitimate. Then they'd be able to create an entire army of militant, elementary-school-aged gays poised to systematically destroy morality.

ad Hominem by class...

The question is, why does less than 10% of the population think they have the right to impose their values on the other 90%?

They're the first ones to bag on the "Christians" for doing the same thing...

I do love the fact that the open border, inclusiveness, and diverstity crowd got bit on the but on the issue in California by welcoming all those Catholics (redneck translation: Democrat Voters) into their midst from way down South.

That's probably why they went after Miss California with such a vengeance...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

All those were excuses made after the fact. Marriage licenses were specifically initiated to curb those pesky Mormons.

Ishmael

And now we see the unintended consequence to that action...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

And now we see the unintended consequence to that action...

Was there ever any doubt? von Humboldt 101.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

As pointed out by noted philosopher Michael Hutchence

... and we slink like alley cats,
Tearing down what we attack,
To prove that we are one...

INXS




What we need is something like the fair tax that addresses the tax and benefit issues more directly rather than a Congress that picks winners and then tries to fix the race so the long-shot can stand in the winner's circle too...

FAIRTAX.ORG

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Trouble with liberals is they cannot except the democratic process when it doesn't go their way, they have to go crying to an activist judge.

That is our President's stated philosophy, a judiciary that Wrights social wrongs instead of interpreting law.


Let's hope they continue look "abroad" for judicial example, like Sharia Law...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Camille Savage]

Legally, marriage is a contract, hence the need for a license. It used to be a way to protect women, among other things, when a married woman was unable to own property. It's also one of the reasons a person can sue for loss of consortium.

Most folks think I am crazy when I say marriage is a contract. The concept of marriage has become homogenized, and we can't seem to separate the legal from the religious. Maybe changing the legal term would work.

 

[Phelia]

ad Hominem by class...

The question is, why does less than 10% of the population think they have the right to impose their values on the other 90%?

They're the first ones to bag on the "Christians" for doing the same thing...

I do love the fact that the open border, inclusiveness, and diverstity crowd got bit on the but on the issue in California by welcoming all those Catholics (redneck translation: Democrat Voters) into their midst from way down South.

That's probably why they went after Miss California with such a vengeance...

By class? It's a nonissue; I was joking.

Are you saying it's actually ten percent for gay marriage and ninety percent opposed, or being deliberately incorrect via hyperbole? I thought about it, and I suppose that the ten percent might be the homosexual population, which is pretty irrelevant. You don't have to be gay to support gay marriage.

I think the term imposing is more fitting when applied to those who vehemently oppose same-sex marriage. Opening up the institution of marriage to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation will have no direct effect on any individual except the homosexual couples who will be allowed legal equality in their partnerships. It does not have any bearing whatsoever on heterosexual marriage. The contention is broader in that those opposed will then be living in a society that supports something that they think is morally detrimental, an opinion which I believe is based on specious suppositions in the first place.

The alternative of constitutionally banning gay marriage will directly deprive a number of U.S. citizens of having equal rights, and I'd say that's more of an imposition.

I'm not trying to bag on anyone, but yes, I disagree with the Christianity-based argument against gay marriage. I think it's weakly veiled prejudice that's hiding behind cherry-picked bible verses.

 

[unregistered]