Thread: Getting Out Of The Marriage Biz.
#1 Getting Out Of The Marriage Biz.03-11-2009, 12:53 PMAM Alert: Quitting the marriage biz -- gay, straight or otherwise
One of the topics of discussion at last week's Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8 was whether the government should be in the marriage business.
Well, on Tuesday two people filed an initiative to get the state of California out of the business altogether.
The initiative, filed by Kaelan Housewright and Ali Shams, replaces the term "marriage" with "domestic partnership" throughout California statutes, while preserving the rights of marriage.
Shams and Housewright are students, 22 and 21 respectively, the AP reported.
The next step would be to gather roughly 700,000 valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot -- a tall task.
But hey, they have a Facebook group...
I was inclined toward this for a few reasons even though I am a social conservative on a lot of issues. Marriage to me really is a religious state-of-life. The issues I associate with traditional marriage can only be enforced by conscience, not by law. Other living arrangements may have an impact on the State and so the State may have a say in their conduct. Extending this benefit to non-sexual partners sucks all the oxygen out of the homosexual argument at the same time it relieves the State from micromanaging the daily conduct of adults.
Atheists, gays, roommates, shack-ups, and caretakers would all be on a level playing field. I would hope that religious institutions would then withdraw their services and facilities from non-members when it came to any kind of ceremonial recognition of various life stages. This would save a lot of litigation and it would get non-members out of religious business.
03-11-2009, 01:18 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
This is absolutely the most sensible solution.
The government shouldn't be recognizing partnerships based on the type of sex that may or may not be going on... but on the partnership itself.
03-11-2009, 02:09 PM
As I have said from the being, as long as the religions were not being forced to do something against their beliefs I would be all for it.Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
03-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Wishy-washy mainline groups would probably dither over it but they are on their out anyway.
03-11-2009, 02:47 PMNever argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
03-11-2009, 03:15 PM
Correct. The government should not be in the business of validating or the intimate love between two consenting, non-related, adults.
Why homosexuals are so adamant about getting that validation is beyond me. There's nothing romantic about a marriage certificate. If it was purely about the tax incentives and legal rights & civil privileges extended to married heterosexuals, homosexuals couples can easily guarentee those rights for themselves and their partners through existing channels.
I would support a "domestic partnership" law for couples that cohabitate."Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
03-11-2009, 03:24 PM
03-11-2009, 03:26 PM
domestic partnerships are the way to go. Any group of people who live together in a common household should be allowed to form a limited or extensive domestic partnership.Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
03-11-2009, 05:42 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
The legal recognition of marriage has been to protect the children and the dependent spouse. While the status of dependent spouse has been mitigated tremendously in the past 50 years, it is still there and still worthy of protection. The fact that a minority of homosexual partnerships have similar issues should not automatically open the door to similar legal protections.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|