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.
The law doesn't inquire into the question of fertility; it is one of our legal fictions: two people of opposite sex are held to be eligible to procreate, and therefore eligible to marry. Consanguinity is an exception which does not disprove the rule.
So the ability to procreate is criteria for marriage, except when it's not. Yeah, that makes sense.
Hmmm...presumption of paternity? Suppose civil marriage is extended to all adults of sound mind capable of entering any other kind of contract.
Under many states' laws, the legal presumption is that a child born to a married woman is her husband's child, with the consequence that the husband enjoys all rights and obligations of paternity.
Does this then extend to a female spouse as well - a "presumption of maternity" in the case of the woman who does not bear the child? Even if the two women are not romantically or physically involved, but have chosen to be married for mutual aid and companionship? In which case, a woman might well find herself a child's legal parent for life even if she's never so much as seen her spouse undressed?
Or are we forced to go the other way and abandon presumption of paternity doctrine in all cases, husband or wife (which is more or less the legal trend anyway, thanks to DNA testing).
Once gay marriage is legalized everywhere in the US (possibly as soon as June of this year), it's going to be so much fun to watch all the extreme RWNJ's heads explode simultaneously.
They're on the wrong side of history and the USA has moved on from their bigoted and hateful stances. Just get over it guys. It's really NOT an issue.
One of the biggest problems in this country is that far too many people mix their religious and political views. Leave your religion at the door when it comes to matters of the state. I don't give a cr*p what you believe in, but don't preach to me about it and don't force your views on me. Just keep it to yourself because no one cares.
Marriage is between and man and women..period. a marriage of any other combination is not right and actually pretty disgusting. Homosexuals are clearly mentioned in the bible and is pretty damn clear how God feels about them. How can anyone challenge what God feels? It does not matter what we think about it, if God says its wrong...its wrong, nothing we can do about it.
Also important to keep in mind, sodomy is illegal, just last week I heard of someone being charged with this around here, not sure of the details, but sodomy is something between and man and another man.Just something to think about.
If homosexuals were meant to be, they would have the ability to produce children, but ONLY a man and woman can do that..nothing we can do will ever change that fact!
For the Christian (I am certainly one) it is absolutely true that there is no such thing as marriage that is not between one man and one woman AND where the two are not related by blood in the primary degree. Period. That is a spiritual matter. No other combination can possibly be married no matter what anyone says, does, or gets sanctioned by some governing body. It cannot happen.
HOWEVER... And this is the hard pill to swallow for those of us who profess Christianity... WE are the ones who abandoned God in the marriage contract. Seriously go get your marriage license and look at it. God is not mentioned. The STATE is mentioned. WE abandoned God as a party to marriage when we decided to accept the bowl of porridge offered by the state in the form of Social Security benefits.
We sold the birthright and now we have awakened to find what we thought was a spiritual matter has become a simple secular contract between the state and two people.
Our constitution LIMITS THE STATE. It does not limit God. Guess what? Our constitution demands that the state NEVER treat two people differently. It is called the "Equal Protection Clause". The State cannot say to these two people "I will let you get married" and to those two people "I will not let you marry".
So you can talk about sin and the bible all you want. I will likely agree when we are in the church house. But we aren’t in the church house now. We are in the public square. We aren’t talking about a contract between two people and their God. We are talking about a state that has a constitution and its contract with two people.
Don’t blame gay people for wanting access to something the constitution says they already have. Blame YOUR brothers and sisters in Christ, who sold out right to a spiritual contract with God for a bowl of Social Security soup.
Once gay marriage is legalized everywhere in the US (possibly as soon as June of this year), it's going to be so much fun to watch all the extreme RWNJ's heads explode simultaneously.
They're on the wrong side of history and the USA has moved on from their bigoted and hateful stances. Just get over it guys. It's really NOT an issue.
You are completely wrong in saying that those who oppose Gay Marriage are “haters” and on the “wrong side of history”
In fact it is vastly more complicated than that.
The whole history of mankind has stood for the idea that marriage is an institution that is important to civilization as a stabilizing force, and is in fact, between a man and a woman. In most cultures it is between a man, a woman and God.
Now it is true that many civilizations allowed a man to have multiple wives, thus multiple contracts for marriage at the same time. However, even in those cases, each marriage was between a man and a woman.
Even in the most “gay friendly” states of history, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Sparta as an example, was not simply “gay friendly” it instituted homosexuality as part of the cultural norm. However, when it came to marriage, every single man, who was even then actively engaged in homosexual relationships, was required to marry a woman. Spartans held an annual festival in which the young men who had reached marriage age, but had not gotten married, were forced to dress as women and parade before the public for ridicule. This was done with the intent to “shame” them into marrying. Why? Because the Spartan’s understood that marriage, between a man and a woman, was the bedrock of their civilization.
Now we have reached a very new place in the First World. We have reached a place where it seems, we have decided that this past way of thinking no longer stands. I can accept that. BUT I will not say that those who are alive today are hate filled or “on the wrong side of history. They stand on ten thousand years of accepted belief by every single civilization that has come before, and by every single religious system, and even by those civilizations that held on particular religious dogma.
You are not simply fighting “right wing nut jobs” and you aren’t fighting “Fundamentalist Christians”. You are seeking to upend the whole history of civilized mankind. That is why places like California passed amendments where 70% of the people stood against gay marriage. That is not a “right wing” thing my friend. That is a “whole history of mankind” thing.
[color=black][font=Verdana]For the Christian (I am certainly one) it is absolutely true that there is no such thing as marriage that is not between one man and one woman AND where the two are not related by blood in the primary degree. Period. That is a spiritual matter. No other combination can possibly be married no matter what anyone says, does, or gets sanctioned by some governing body. It cannot happen.
I disagree with this. Your notion of this being the only option is not a fact, but your opinion. Same-sex marriage has been performed by the Church for 2000 years. Most Jews and Christians support it. The Bible never states that is the only possible option.
And then again, there's this conservative answer to the problem: rather than extend the civil benefits of marriage to all adults, end those benefits for all.
Certainly it would simply the tax code: instead of four filing categories, just two: single and head of household (or, more accurately after such a change, "no dependents" and "with dependents"). No SSA widow/widower benefits, but presumably we'd retain the survivor benefits for minor children and surviving parent having custody. And so on - the ramifications are immense.
I would propose something slightly different. My goal is to protect religious insitutions from being forced to do something that is counter to thier belief system...
That would be to change marriage entirely to be controled by simple contract law and change what it is. Make it a law of Primary Relationship. It would look and feel like current marriage law, only it would extend to any two adults.
Leave "Marriage" to the individual. That would allow religious institutions the right to participate in only those religious ceremonies that they accept and allow each individual to make those decisions in their own way.
Marriage would then be in its proper place, and no one would be discriminated against according to the Equal Protection Clause.
I disagree with this. Your notion of this being the only option is not a fact, but your opinion. Same-sex marriage has been performed by the Church for 2000 years. Most Jews and Christians support it. The Bible never states that is the only possible option.
In fact, I stated that this is my opinion. Your disagreement is perfectly acceptable.
However, you are wrong about the Christian church. You are wrong about what the bible says about marriage. This is not a religious forum. I will not get into the particulars. Most Americans DO NOT support gay marriage. That includes Christian and non-Christians. That is why anti-gay-marriage laws have passed in places like California.
But let me be very clear. My religious views are simply that. MY religious views. They are mine and I do not project those onto others. If one asked me my opinion or my council in matters pertaining to religion etc., then I am happy to share. But I do not expect anyone other than myself to live up to my standard (it is hard enough for me; I can’t be in charge of anyone else).
BUT let’s also be clear that Gay Marriage is NOT a religious issue. It is a SECULAR issue. God is not involved in the Marriage contract as it exists in America today. And our secular society is governed by our constitution which is a SECULAR document. A document that clearly indicates that religion cannot be "established".
I want the government out of religious matters (marriage) and I want the secular government to follow the constitution and treat everyone the same.
I would propose something slightly different. My goal is to protect religious insitutions from being forced to do something that is counter to thier belief system...
That would be to change marriage entirely to be controled by simple contract law and change what it is. Make it a law of Primary Relationship. It would look and feel like current marriage law, only it would extend to any two adults.
Leave "Marriage" to the individual. That would allow religious institutions the right to participate in only those religious ceremonies that they accept and allow each individual to make those decisions in their own way.
Marriage would then be in its proper place, and no one would be discriminated against according to the Equal Protection Clause.
Well, sure - this is semantic, isn't it? If we're headed for same-sex civil unions, probably without any workable limitation requiring the partners to be sexually-involved, then we're talking about expanding a range of civil benefits and duties from a limited group of people (opposite-sex couples, originally because the state took a vested interest in a) the furtherance of holy ordinance and b) procreative family units) to a potentially much wider group.
It might make Christians (including myself) and adherents of other faiths which teach similarly (Judaism, Islam?) more comfortable if the state didn't use terminology for these unions which sounded confusingly close to what we, in our churches, regard as a holy sacrament or however your denomination describes it. But it's a semantic issue - it's easy enough for an intelligent person to distinguish in their own thoughts: oh, we're talking "state-regulated marriage" here, not "holy matrimony". Right?
What concerns me more is the implications for public policy and especially public expenditure. Do we expand the pool of those entitled to various perks, like SSA survivor benefits? Or do we go the other way and say, no one gets any of that now: from now on there are no civil benefits defined as deriving from marriage.
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.
