Ad: Same sex marriage will take my freedom away

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I HAVE THE ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM!

So here it is- we put 2 propositions on the ballot-

1 that bans gay "marriage", but allows all the same benefits to legally bound gay couples as married straight people but forces straight couples to be actually married (not common law, but "I do, I do", etc married) before they are granted any of those benefits, including insurance.

The second one simply allows gay marriage.

The religious wing is satisfied with prop 1 because they don't like straight people shacking up without being married anyway, AND it is bound to change most straight people's attitudes about gay marriage since they don't want to be forced to get married. Thus bill 1 is defeated, and bill 2 passes.

I posted it earlier in the thread, but a conservative judge in California said regarding our recent Prop 8, debacle - the state will either have to remove the word 'marriage' from our laws, or reject the amendment to the Constitution.

There's no getting around the 14 Amendment. If heterosexual marriages are recognized by our civil laws, than so should gay marriages. It's that simple.

[Danno 1,228]

There's no getting around the 14 Amendment. If heterosexual marriages are recognized by our civil laws, than so should gay marriages. It's that simple.

Actually "it's" not that simple... BUT the judge is.

How do we dispose of the tradition of man/woman but not the Christian tradition of a marriage consisting of two people?

I'm sure the threesome nextdoor would wonder why you forgot about their "Rights"?

Don't be narrow minded, let people decide for themselves what their marriage and family will consist of.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no getting around the 14 Amendment. If heterosexual marriages are recognized by our civil laws, than so should gay marriages. It's that simple.

Actually "it's" not that simple... BUT the judge is.

How do we dispose of the tradition of man/woman but not the Christian tradition of a marriage consisting of two people?

I'm sure the threesome nextdoor would wonder why you forgot about their "Rights"?

Don't be narrow minded, let people decide for themselves what their marriage and family will consist of.

Firstly noone is "disposing" of any traditions. The original tradition will still exist.

Secondly, wheeling out that 3-some/group marriage cliche (you really can't let that go can you) - well... if you want to start a bandwagon for that - it being a free country and all... you're quite free to do that. You might even succeed in a few decades, but the issue for consideration *now* is gay marriage.

Practically speaking gay marriage can be accomodated without requiring the rulebooks to be rewritten. Polygamy cannot.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh good grief, still at this nonsense?

Marriage is basically a legal contract between two people and only two people. The matter of their sexuality is less important from the basic contractual construction than the fact that it is between two people. It is that simple.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh good grief, still at this nonsense?

Marriage is basically a legal contract between two people and only two people. The matter of their sexuality is less important from the basic contractual construction than the fact that it is between two people. It is that simple.

Indeed. A man and a woman can marry and never have sex - there are no laws against that.

[NickD 203]

Oh good grief, still at this nonsense?

Marriage is basically a legal contract between two people and only two people. The matter of their sexuality is less important from the basic contractual construction than the fact that it is between two people. It is that simple.

No contract needed in our state, just the fact that two are living together is defined as a common law marriage, but no regards to the sex of that couple. But is assumed between a man and a woman. But don't test that law with the USCIS, they won't buy it, want to see that piece of paper first.

Feel it's safe to assume, we live in a very screwed up country.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh good grief, still at this nonsense?

Marriage is basically a legal contract between two people and only two people. The matter of their sexuality is less important from the basic contractual construction than the fact that it is between two people. It is that simple.

Indeed. A man and a woman can marry and never have sex - there are no laws against that.

You can also marry for reasons totally unrelated to "love, sex, commitment and children" - hence marriages of convenience and people getting hitched to secure immigration benefits.

[Peikko 1,575]

A common law marriage is still a contractual agreement and the construct is still between two people, the premise holds good regardless of whether there is actually a piece of paper to look at or not.

[NickD 203]

A common law marriage is still a contractual agreement and the construct is still between two people, the premise holds good regardless of whether there is actually a piece of paper to look at or not.

LOL, tell that to the judge.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

nm, really.

Edited April 15, 2009 by *Len*

[Peikko 1,575]

Either something is legally recognised or it is not. The problem there is that it is recognised at state level, but not at federal level. What happens when common law couples move to a state where it is not recognised? I would imagine the marriage becomes undone, but I am not sure. Interesting question