Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If DOMA is struck down...
If the court rules the fed has no business denying benefits to people in states that recognize gay marriage or unions...
If gay marriage is legalized...
If marital benefits are extended equally to all...
If marital benefits are removed...
What will you do? My life won't actually change, but there seems to be so much "crazy" opposition that I'm wondering what will you do.
Will you move to a different state? Different country? Campaign against gay marriage even more? Home-school your kids? Become Amish?
Do tell...
Go as crazy as the ******* gun grabbers if 30 round magazines continue to be manufactured you mean?
No, not really.
What I'll do is hope they finally shut the hell up, but that's not likely is it?
Go as crazy as the ******* gun grabbers if 30 round magazines continue to be manufactured you mean?
No, not really.
What I'll do is hope they finally shut the hell up, but that's not likely is it?
About the gun laws? Probably not. Some people hate the 2A.
About gay marriage? Who knows, probably since it won't be an issue and the only thing that would actually change is federal recognition.
I'm not talking about housing for soldiers - I'm talking about housing for soldier's husbands and wives. I'm not talking about military members being able to shop at the PX and commissary - I'm talking about the ability of their husbands and wives to shop at the PX and commissary.
In both cases, the ability for the military member's non-military spouse to live on base or shop at the commissary is determined by the spouse being in a legal civil marriage with the military member. If you do away with civil marriage, then you do away with the means by which the spouses military members gain those privileges.
The same rules can apply if the government isn't the one issueing the marriage license. Nothing would change.
I'm talking about immigration law in relation to civil marriage law. Americans can sponsor their legally married foreign spouse for a spousal immigration visa. That is a right granted by civil marriage law. You get that right by obtaining a civil marriage license. If you do away with civil marriage, then you do away with that right.
And do you know how hard it is for single people to come here who can't access that right? My best friend Ben is gay married to a man from the Czech Republic. If they were straight, Lucas would have had a spousal immigration visa for the last 5 years, and he and Ben would have been living in Seattle for the last 5 years. Since they are gay, Ben is not legally allowed to get Lucas a spousal immigration visa. Lucas has applied for an immigration visa for the last 5 years (via the immigration lottery - his only option), and his number hasn't been picked yet. It probably never will. If you do away with civil marriage, you do away with spousal immigration visas for all Americans (not just the gay ones like the system does now).
Yep. It should be difficult to come here. Keeps the riff-raff out. And it's pretty hard for hetereosexual couples to get here too. Takes a long time.
That's a really simple answer. Because the only way a non-blood family member obtains the ability to sue for wrongful death is to obtain a civil marriage license. If you do away with civil marriage, then you completely get rid of the mechanism for anybody other than a blood relative to sue.
You can't come up with a new mechanism?
Because then anybody and claim they were married. If I want free housing, I just have my buddy who joined the military claim that we're privately married. If I want to make some money, I just follow the obituaries and file a wrongful death lawsuit every time somebody dies claiming we were married in our private life. Lets say I want to get 10 terrorists into the country. I just tell the US government I'm married to all 10 and to let them into the country (if there is no Government involvement in marriage at all and they just recognize private marriages, there's nothing stopping me from having an unlimited number of private marriages, right?)
You are wrong on all counts.
You are not listening to a word I say and you are using circular logic.
Just because government does not grant the marriage license does not mean a married couple can't live together in govt quarters. Or that a terrorist would be allowed in the country. Or any of the other nonsense you're bringing up.
It's a shame. People actually look to government to approve their relationships. So brainwashed that government is the only solution they can't even picture what life would be like without them telling us every little thing we can and cannot do. Sad really. And it's the same people yelling "get the govt out of my bedroom." lols.
Yep, you have no idea what you are talking about. A single military person can live in military housing, their gf or bf cannot.
gf and/or bf is not family. Why should they be allowed to live in military housing? I think the military is pretty clear about providing quarters for family members like spouses and kids. I see no reason why that would change.
A foreigner cannot be a legalized American just by dating an American, but if they are legally bound to them through a marriage, then they can.
Again, I know nothing that would change.
As for the first government issued marriage license, do you know what this country was like in 1856? Care to tell us the differences between 1856 and 2012? Maybe while you were Googling the first marriage license, you could of read up on the reason for creating a government issued marriage license.
Government issued marriage licenses are for control and power. Government should punish theft and violence. Anything else it gets involved in is for power.
You are not listening to a word I say and you are using circular logic.
Just because government does not grant the marriage license does not mean a married couple can't live together in govt quarters. Or that a terrorist would be allowed in the country. Or any of the other nonsense you're bringing up.
It's a shame. People actually look to government to approve their relationships. So brainwashed that government is the only solution they can't even picture what life would be like without them telling us every little thing we can and cannot do. Sad really. And it's the same people yelling "get the govt out of my bedroom." lols.
No, you are dead wrong. You clearly don't even have the most basic understanding of how our laws work. (And I haven't even come close to employing anything remotely like circular logic)
If there is not government recognized marriage, then what does the government use to determine who is a married couple eligible to live together in govt quarters? If there is not government recognized marriage, then what does the government use to determine who is a spouse eligible for a spousal immigration visa? If the right to sue for wrongful death is a special thing only spouses get (besides blood family) and there is not government recognized marriage, then what does the government use to determine who is a spouse entitled to sue as a spouse for wrongful death???????????????????
Last edited by hammertime33; 03-28-2013 at 12:42 AM..
No, you are dead wrong. You clearly don't even have the most basic understanding of how our laws work. (And I haven't even come close to employing anything remotely like circular logic)
If there is not government recognized marriage, then what does the government use to determine who is a married couple eligible to live together in govt quarters? If there is not government recognized marriage, then what does the government use to determine who is a spouse eligible for a spousal immigration visa? If the right to sue for wrongful death is a special thing only spouses get (besides blood family) and there is not government recognized marriage, then what does the government use to determine who is a spouse entitled to sue as a spouse for wrongful death???????????????????
I answered your questions already.
I don't know what else to tell you.
The government is perfectly capable of handling all of that if marriage licenses were issued by the private sector or churches. All they have to do is look at the private marriage contract. It's no different than any other private contract they might look at. It's done all the time.
The government is perfectly capable of handling all of that if marriage licenses were issued by the private sector or churches. All they have to do is look at the private marriage contract. It's no different than any other private contract they might look at. It's done all the time.
So basically the government just believes what anybody tells them about any private marriage or marriages they are in.
That's just about the most stupid thing I've ever heard. That's a million times worse than the state of civil marriage today.
For those of you who have been brainwashed by the state and can't comprehend allowing marriage to be handled in the proper place (religious bodies and the private sector) instead of government here is a post I wrote on another thread:
So, as to the exclusionary privileges which the state institution of marriage will continue to foster *even if* it becomes just as open to same-sex couples, I will repost some of these ideas by Betsy Brown in A Radical Dyke Experiment for the Next Century: 5 Things to work for Instead of Same-Sex Marriage:
(1) Everyone should have a guaranteed right to medical care. Universal health insurance would make the debate over partner benefits entirely unnecessary. [Note: Brown notes that this is problematic because it entails the application of state power. While some no doubt would disagree with the "right" language too, I think that stateless options for health care and insurance which is far more affordable and accessible is certainly doable.]
(2) Immigration laws should be abolished. Same-sex partners of U.S. citizens could then enter the country with no difficulty. The persecution of undocumented workers would also end.
(3) Laws that limit the number of 'unrelated' people who live in one household should also be abolished.
(4) We should develop the concept of designated next-of-kin (DNOK). This would be like domestic partnership, except more inclusive. You could name any number of people as DNOKs--friends as well as lovers. You would have the right to include--or exclude--any of your biological relatives. Your DNOKs would have automatic rights to visit you in the hospital, make medical decisions for you if you were incapacitated, assume custody of your children when you die, and inherit from you in equal shares. (If you're really rich, some of your estate should be appropriated to finance item number one.) [Yes, I expect people to disagree with the last sentence, but in the spirit of not misquoting or misrepresenting a person's views, I am leaving it as is.]
(5) Finally, marriage is best understood as a religious sacrament. The government has no more business determining who may marry than it has deciding who is a member in good standing of the Baptist church. Under the principle of separation of church and state, the government should not recognize marriage for anyone of any sexual orientation.'"
There are other privileges that the legal institution of marriage holds in structural exclusion, such as the privilege to not be forced to testify against one's partner or tax benefits, which legally and economically puts those who don't desire or cannot be eligible for the state institution of marriage are at a disadvantage due to, in my opinion, no fault of their own. One article I read revealed that an unmarried women may pay up to a million dollars more than their married counterparts for healthcare, taxes, etc over a lifetime.
I'd also add that the legal institution of marriage is yet another example of the state's attempt in attempting to artificially impose a sense of legibility upon reality -- which consequently divorces itself from being able to handle the complex and complicated facets of reality. The state as such presumes and dictates that long-term, monogamous relationships are an ideal and/or feasible for people to enter into. Reality, as always, is more complicated and complex than such a presumption which the state is prone to make.
Marriage, as long as the state is involved in it, is and always will be an exclusionary institution that benefits some and puts others at a disadvantage. Such is the nature of the state.
And I repeat:
(5) Finally, marriage is best understood as a religious sacrament. The government has no more business determining who may marry than it has deciding who is a member in good standing of the Baptist church. Under the principle of separation of church and state, the government should not recognize marriage for anyone of any sexual orientation.'"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My life won't actually change, but there seems to be so much "crazy" opposition that I'm wondering what will you do.
