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.
but meanwhile you seem to have no problem with the GOVERNMENT DEMANDING IT PAYMENT for the PERMISSION of marriage
if it is a RIGHT, then the government should not be GIVING any BENEFITS to, or DEMANDING a PAYMENT for PERMISSION
It's a fee to cover the cost of paperwork and filing.
the GOVERNMENT in giving benefits and requiring a payment for a permissive liciense the GOVERNEMT has said its not a right. but a governmental privilege[/quote]
Oh bloody hell.
In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
The fact that the state charges a fee for a marriage license is irrelevant. They have to cover the costs of paperwork somehow. If they got rid of the fee altogether, would your analysis change?
I am not really religious....I dont care what one religion says over the other
the fact is that our species continues due to hetrosexual..not homosexual
if you want to have same sex relationship..by all mean go ahead
if you want to have bi relations go ahead
if you want to have MULTIPLE relationships go ahead
but you dont need the GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION to love someone, lust someone, or be in a relationship
my opinion is marriages are the problem, in this unequal treatment between hetro/homo/ single people...so get rid of marriage...cut the cancer of a govermnent permissionslip out
you cannot cut government out, because the people who form our society ARE the government. It's the people who realize how essential marriage is the the future of the nation, and its the people who encourage, promote and endorse marriage.
The single most important thing in our society are our children, and the future doctors, teachers, bakers and candlestick makers they become. The most important thing to the way those children turn out is how they are raised and cared for, into adulthood. So we do have a vested interest in marriage as an institution.
In a pure socialist society, you would not need marriage at all. The state is supreme, and the individual people are secondary, If you were a strict socialist, then you would be in favor of the state raising and caring for the children. Which is prob why so many libs are in favor of devolving marriage, because they don't see the same value in it as conservatives do.
That is a cop out, because this is not an argument that should be based upon religion.
Completely agreed. Anyone using their religion as basis for laws is being intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Why do they need my public endorsement and government sponsorship?
Because government sponsorship affords things like FMLA - which allow a person to care for an ailing spouse or child without fear of job loss. There is no power of attorney or paperwork capable of providing that outside of government sponsorship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
correct...but if the single person doesnt get those same BENEFITS then its also discrimination
FMLA also covers you, as a single person. If you have a child, you can take leave to care for your child without fear of job loss. If you have a living parent, the same is also true. So, FMLA is a benefit that you, as a single person enjoys.
Quote:
the simple fact is if marriage and the so-called beneftits are the problem...then get rid of the problem
Benefits aren't the problem. Discrimination is.
Quote:
I dont need a marriage license to go to a lawyer and give a POA to ANYONE for my 'quality of life' choices at a hospital or a morgue
Except that it's been proven that even having PoA doesn't matter to certain hospitals.
Quote:
I dont need a marriage liciense to have health insurance...if only give my partner a MONITARY BENEFIT as I can have that partner on MY policy for a cheaper price...and in doing so causing the prices to go up for single people
For the health insurance provided by my work, the cost of a couple is exactly double that of the single rate. No discount. There are discounts for having a spouse and more than two children.
Quote:
stop the insanity...stop the arguing..stop the discrimination...abolish all marriages
Or... not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Multiple person, or communal marriages is a whole other discussion. Start your own thread on polygamy.
People have brought up, in defense of keeping homosexuals out of marriage, that polygamy is "next". I believe Phantasy Tokoro is merely commenting that he supports any and all ways that consenting adults can "pair up" and get "married".
you cannot cut government out, because the people who form our society ARE the government. It's the people who realize how essential marriage is the the future of the nation, and its the people who encourage, promote and endorse marriage.
The single most important thing in our society are our children, and the future doctors, teachers, bakers and candlestick makers they become. The most important thing to the way those children turn out is how they are raised and cared for, into adulthood. So we do have a vested interest in marriage as an institution.
You've stated nothing that hetero couples can do that homo couples cannot.
Also, again, children are not a prerequisite of marriage, therefore, this particular argument is irrelevant.
I was saying it tongue in cheek, which is why I put "discriminating" in quotation marks. Using your point is the same point that can be used for why it is not discrimination to deny gay marriage in states where citizens voted against it. Gay people do have access to the civil marriage law in states that recognize it. In states that don't recognize it, they have access to it, just not with someone they'd choose to access it with. That's not discrimination, that's the democratic process at work.
Even though I am against government being the in the marriage business period, I acknowledge and accept their Tenth Amendment ability to regulate it, along with their unfortunate ability to play favorites with "benefits".
Firstly, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. Also, I'd like to hear you say the same thing if it was YOUR Right to marry at stake. I actually don't even think straight people really can have a valid opinon at all, because it doesn't affect them in ANY WAY. I am so SICK of people like you who don't know basic civics and even want to VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION on OTHERS and say so without thought or remorse... it's bizarre and angering
You are such a broken record. Get over it. Marriage is a right so sayeth the Supreme Court. Their decision is all that matters.
and you are blind
the fact that the scotus said marrige is a right that skin color can not discriminate, still has nothing to do with tthe fact that the GOVERNMENT does not look at it as a right, because it give beneftits and demands paymnet for that permission
you need to understand basic language
if the government can RESTRICT it and MANDATE a payment, and hand out 'benefits' then if can NOT be a right.....
the simple fact is if marriage and the so-called beneftits are the problem...then get rid of the problem
I dont need a marriage license to go to a lawyer and give a POA to ANYONE for my 'quality of life' choices at a hospital or a morgue
I dont need a marriage liciense to have health insurance...if only to give my partner a MONITARY BENEFIT as I can have that partner on MY policy for a cheaper price...and in doing so causing the prices to go up for single people.....in a sense it is stealing
stop the insanity...stop the arguing..stop the discrimination...abolish all marriages
the fact that the scotus said marrige is a right that skin color can not discriminate, still has nothing to do with tthe fact that the GOVERNMENT does not look at it as a right, because it give beneftits and demands paymnet for that permission
you need to understand basic language
if the government can RESTRICT it and MANDATE a payment, and hand out 'benefits' then if can NOT be a right.....
The government mandates payment for filing paperwork, not to get married.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Choosing to ignore this argument doesn't make the opposing argument correct.
the fact that the scotus said marrige is a right that skin color can not discriminate, still has nothing to do with tthe fact that the GOVERNMENT does not look at it as a right, because it give beneftits and demands paymnet for that permission
Actually, the government demands payment to pay for filing fees and to keep track of marriages so to keep people from marrying multiple people.
Quote:
if the government can RESTRICT it and MANDATE a payment, and hand out 'benefits' then if can NOT be a right.....
All rights have reasonable restrictions. For marriage, a legal contract, the only restriction should be that it is limited to consenting adults.
Quote:
the simple fact is if marriage and the so-called beneftits are the problem...then get rid of the problem
I dont need a marriage license to go to a lawyer and give a POA to ANYONE for my 'quality of life' choices at a hospital or a morgue
I dont need a marriage liciense to have health insurance...if only to give my partner a MONITARY BENEFIT as I can have that partner on MY policy for a cheaper price...and in doing so causing the prices to go up for single people.....in a sense it is stealing
stop the insanity...stop the arguing..stop the discrimination...abolish all marriages
Of course, because removing 1000+ benefits/protections/etc from millions of married persons is a totally sane idea. Again, that just sounds like a rabid case of sour grapes.
Amen. And for what it's worth, I'm gay. I think we should just get rid of marriage benefits altogether. Leave marriage up to religious institutions.
I understand where you are coming from. Religions get involved because the parishioners and their children are a part of their religious community. Government is involved because it has a vested interest in doing all it can to ensure the best outcome for future generations. which is why government allows that judges and nonsecular persons can perform marriage ceremonies.
I understand where you are coming from. Religions get involved because the parishioners and their children are a part of their religious community. Government is involved because it has a vested interest in doing all it can to ensure the best outcome for future generations. which is why government allows that judges and nonsecular persons can perform marriage ceremonies.
You keep on saying this.
However, it doesn't make it true.
Children.
Are not a prerequisite.
Of marriage.
Therefore, the line of argument REGARDING children is irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage.
Until the government MANDATES that one must PROCREATE in order to get married, that line of argument does NOT have a standing.
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.
