Thread: Getting Out Of The Marriage Biz.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1 Getting Out Of The Marriage Biz. 
    AM 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...
    This is interesting. I voted for a Domestic Partnership bill here in Colorado a few years ago. I liked the bill not because it provided any status to gays but because it covered non-sexual arrangements. Under the bill, two siblings or a parent and a child or two elderly (or not elderly) friends who lived together and had a common financial interest could receive the legal benefits of marriage. The initiative failed.

    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.

    Sacbee
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,172
    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.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    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.
    I think that churches might go along with this if the "partnerships" weren't limited to sexual relationships. This would appeal to the social justice crowd. The traditional denominations would also probably be fine with it since they typically view marriage and its obligations in a radically different way than secularists do.

    Wishy-washy mainline groups would probably dither over it but they are on their out anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    I think that churches might go along with this if the "partnerships" weren't limited to sexual relationships. This would appeal to the social justice crowd. The traditional denominations would also probably be fine with it since they typically view marriage and its obligations in a radically different way than secularists do.

    Wishy-washy mainline groups would probably dither over it but they are on their out anyway.
    My main disagreement concerned churches being sued for not performing same-sex marriages and being force to do so under anti-discrimination laws or stop performing all marriages. This seems to get around that.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member aerojarod's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Blue State
    Posts
    279
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by aerojarod View Post
    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.
    Why limit it to sexual relationships? I can see a great benefit (especially these days) to extending the legal advantages to caretakers and dependents as well as for friends who have opted out of the romance game but who still maintain a household together for companionship.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    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.
    they would qualify for a LIMITED domestic partnership - as would say you and your grandmother if you formed a household together.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •