Gay marriage opponents need smarter arguments

Tax breaks for married couples - subsidised by single people.

that is not equality

 

There was nothing holy about BC Roman law. It was a civil code, not a religious one.

Zablocki was a court decision based upon Constitutional law, not opinion polls.

 

Aren't you the one who suggested I move to Uganda? yes, you were - such a hypocrite.

and by the way, gays do have the same rights anyway, a gay man could still marry a woman

 

Their civil code was influenced by their religion. The United States was the first country ruled through a separation of church and state.

So was Windsor.

 

Yep, Inequality by design.

 

Children certainly don't want two dads cuddling up on the sofa.

And why not just ban ALL marriage?

 

So what, society can just do without all that administration anyway.

Whatever happened to the free market dream?

 

anarchy...who decided there was a free market dream?

 

No. Their marriage laws were influenced by the biology of procreation. Just as all religions are influenced by the biology of procreation.

 

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry

 

Patently false. Indigenous Polynesian beliefs valued the homosexual relationship more than the heterosexual. Heterosexual relationships were largely confined to procreation and nothing more. I believe the same was true of the Greeks for a time during the ancient period, and not around the time of their decline as I am sure you are going to try to say.

 

Gay rights is a ruse.

 

The courts routinely say it's not

 

smarter?
I mean I say end str8 marraige, government has no business taking peoples money in so called divorces.
Gays try an project narrative of discrimination which is a lie.
Any gay can marry in civil suit anytime.
What they want to o lawyer up the money and bring in gov force.
no way
end all gay mararige and ban it

 

You mean the liberal judges.....no surprise there.

 

Soooo what was false? You are not contradicting anything I said

 

This is the patently false statement in your post:

 

End all marriage and be done with the sham.

 

Maybe the issue is not as simple as you would like to make it. You can't just dumb everything down like that without putting any thought into it:

Of late there seems to be an element in the gay marriage debate that is taking the position that government should be out of the business of regulating marriage. They take this position as an alternative to the legalization of gay marriage and assert that in the absence of government regulation anyone can form a union-via contract- with anyone else who they chose to, and call it whatever they want. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when such nuptials are universally recognized by government. My immediate reaction has been that it is not so well thought out idea, wrought with problems and pitfalls, and promoted by people who do not really want it to come to that-indeed they don’t believe that it will-but who are also being coy about their opposition to equality. However, far be it from me-the Progressive Patriot- to jump to conclusions or rush to judgment so I decided to take a closer look.

First, let us consider why marriage is something that is regulated by the government in the first place. It is true that for centuries, marriage was in fact a private affair between families. However it is also true that the practice of requiring marriage licenses dates back more than 400 years in England. (When those opposed to gay marriage talk about tradition, I say, now there is tradition! A tradition that you might want to think twice about discarding)

This license requirement came about because ” …. When the state-run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving marriage partnerships, laws regarding marriage licensing were established to ensure a level of control and source for revenues.” The American colonies later adapted many of the same customs and laws. Gradually, the states began to exercise greater control over who one could marry and a major concern was to prevent inter racial marriage. Later, the primary reason for government control of marriage licenses remains for vital statistics recording and continues as a source of revenue for local and state governments. Source: http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html#ixzz2sg0BKysk

It’s interesting to note that while marriage licenses came about in England at the behest of the state run church, and the church continued to have enormous influence in the colonies , once the United States came into being, there was no longer a state church and in fact a state church was specifically prohibited. However, concessions were made to the church such as granting tax exempt status, and most notable with respect to marriage, clergy were afforded the right to perform wedding ceremonies that result in a legally binding union under the law. Some would say that doing so blurs the lines between church and state.

So while I set out to make the case as to why government should regulate marriage, it may seem at this point that government regulation came about for the wrong reasons or is no longer relevant:
• Interracial marriage is no longer an issue so few would stand in the way of “private vs. government sponsored marriage
• There is no state sponsored church that has official influence on government so presumably, government could pull out of the marriage regulation business if chose to.
• Marriage licenses are probably not a significant source of revenue, it is restricted to local government and it is not a reason to require legal marriage that most people would endorse.

• Public health and vital statistics could be compiled by the census and through the registration of those private contracts
But wait! What is a “private contract” Not being a student of midlevel history, I don’t know what the concept of “contract” was then. However, I know that in our system of government and law, a contract is a legal construct that is it is created by law. Its execution and desolation is controlled by statute, and only government creates statutory law. So I submit to you that to get government “out of marriage” is not a choice under the contemporary definition of contract

Ok, so some government involvement is inevitable. But you might say if those contracts are regulated by government, why they can’t just be like any other contract such as one you might enter into with an employer, or someone remodeling your home. What makes a “marriage contract” special? Why require a license to enter into a marriage contract, but not other contracts?
As it turns out, there is at least one supporter of traditional marriage who think that it would, in fact be a very bad idea to remove the government sanction and regulation of marriage.

Robert George, one of the leading voices contending for traditional marriage today, along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, have written a thorough and well-documented piece in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy entitled What is Marriage? Among other things, they argue that attempts to stop government from regulating marriage are naive at best and ruinous at worst.
They go on to say:

“Almost no society that has left us a trace of itself has done without some regulation of sexual relationships…The wellbeing of children gives us powerful prudential reasons to recognize and protect marriage legally”.

And while a main concern of theirs stems from an opposition of extension of marriage to gays, they have much more to say in support of government regulation.
“…… the government cannot simply bow out of the marriage regulation business, as divorces will still have to be adjudicated, for there will inevitably be disputes over marital unfaithfulness, assets, and custody of children. The state will have to involve itself in disentangling the mess after traditional marriage has been thus dismantled. This is why the libertarian argument fails. For a true libertarian would surely want less governmental intrusion into our private lives, but the de-regulation of marriage would in fact lead to more of it”.
And: “Although some libertarians propose to “privatize” marriage, treating marriages the way we treat baptisms and bar mitzvahs, supporters of limited government should recognize that marriage privatization would be a catastrophe for limited government. In the absence of a flourishing marriage culture, families often fail to form, or to achieve and maintain stability. As absentee fathers and out‐of‐wedlock births become common, a train of social pathologies follows.”
http://russellandduenes.wordpress.c...with-all-governmental-regulation-of-marriage/

In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. While traditionalist who rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, to say that marriage is no different than other contracts and not recognize it as special would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.


A variation on the government out of marriage theme has been the suggestion that marriage be preserved only as a religious institution while all those who do not want a religious nuptial-both gay and straight- are relegated to civil unions http://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/‘...n-marriage-and-emergence-domestic-partnership
However, while this might solve the issue of equality between gays and straights, it sets up another dichotomy – that between religious unions and others.

In addition, the domestic partnership or civil unions would still involve government as do all contracts as explained above. In fact the same article describes the contracts this way : “When a couple decides to commit to living together, they can apply for a domestic partnership license regardless of sexuality, race, gender, or religion. These licenses would ensure that a couple would have government recognition of their partnership so that (in case of an emergency, for example) one partner would have the legal right to make decisions regarding the welfare of the other partner. –

Another issue is that according to , Lenore Weitzman, a former George Mason University Law Professor, argues that such contracts should be available to every cohabitation style: homosexual couples, extended families living together, communes and group marriages - See more at: http://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/‘...nce-domestic-partnership#sthash.neZrOh4W.dpuf

While I am aware of the fact that there is some spotty support for the concept of extended family unions, there is a large overlap between those supporters, and those who want less or no government involvement in marriage, and for the same reason. That reason being, to avoid and derail the conversation about marriage equality for gays. Beyond the fact that intra familial marriage is not on the table, and few if any want it we should also note that while no compelling government interest against gay marriage has been established, I believe that a case can be made against marrying close relatives. If government did not regulate marriage, the flood gates would be opened to every sort of loveless union of convenience imaginable, in effect destroying the concept of family as we know it. But that is another topic

My position continues to be that we must bring gays into the legal fold of the institution of marriage as it exists for unrelated heterosexual couples. Any further expansion of marriage rights should be handled as a separate issue when and if they should become part of a national conversation.

 

I've pretty much given up on getting anything reasonable or intelligent out of you so I'm just going to tell you where I'm at in the most plain direct way that I can. Lets see what you have to say:

I am a heterosexual male of a certain age, who has had the joy and privilege of being married to a wonderful woman for many years. I am also an unabashed and unapologetic liberal who also considers myself to be a patriot, much to the chagrin of conservatives. While conservatives believe that patriotism requires them to cling to tradition to the point of stagnation, my patriotism compels me to promote progress. While the conservative view of patriotism dictates that we must pretend that all is well in America, save for a national debt and too many undocumented immigrants, my patriotism calls for a recognition that, while we have the potential to truly be the greatest nation on earth, there is much to be done before we get there. And of all the matters that need attention, the area that I am most concerned about is equality, and that includes marriage equality. This cannot be truly great nation until it is a great nation for all of her people.

Much of the debate over same sex marriage centers on abstract concepts such as the nature, meaning, tradition and purpose of marriage. All too often the focus is on sex and morality. There is much bloviating about such inane topics as procreation, the slippery slope to polygamy, pedophilia and every other logical fallacy imaginable to avoid the real issue. And what is the real issue? It is the fact that these are real people who we moralizing about and passing judgment on. People who are contributing members of the community. People who have jobs and families and yes, children. They pay their bills and taxes, and like everyone else, sometimes struggle to do so. In short, they are people who are more like, than unlike heterosexuals. They are people who want nothing more than the same rights that those heterosexual people take for granted. Yet, those who oppose marriage equality continue to be so averse to the changing cultural landscape that they are unable to see this simple truth.

It comes down to this. There is no rational basis, no logical argument for denying gays full equality in all areas of life. The evidence is clear that to deny them marriage equality inflicts harm on gays, while allowing marriage harms no one. When a right that most people take for granted is denied to other, similarly situated people in an arbitrary fashion, those who will deny that right are burdened with the need to demonstrate why it is appropriate and necessary to do so. No one has been able to do that to my satisfaction, and the courts are rejecting the arguments against equality with increasing frequency.

Yes, marriage equality does in fact mean a great deal to me, because my country means a lot to me and I want to see it firmly grounded in the 21st century and a place where there is true freedom and social justice for all.

READ MY SIGNITURE LINE! ( You might also want to read my bio)

 

Yes I am! You still here? Tell gay people that they "Can move to another state" is moronic. All that they want is to build a life like others can without having to jump through hoops. You, on the other hand want to keep them from doing that. When a crime is committed, you punish the criminal, not the victim. You are the criminal. You may go now

 

What were you smoking when you wrote that?>

 

But you haven't provided anything that contradicts that statement.

 

And a straight man can still marry another man. It is same sex marriage that will be legalized. Not "Gay marriage" You see, Everyone will be equal. Gays are not asking for a "special privilege" to marry someone of the same sex. You'll be able to also. Now you know, I can be just as moronic as anyone else. I just have to work at it harder. . For a thread that has the word "smart" in the title, this is sure getting stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

And a straight man can still marry another man. It is same sex marriage that will be legalized. Not "Gay marriage" You see, Everyone will be equal. Gays are not asking for a "special privilege" to marry someone of the same sex. You'll be able to also. Now you know, I can be just as moronic as anyone else. I just have to work at it harder. . For a thread that has the word "smart" in the title, this is sure getting stupid.

 

Recognizing that only men and women engaged in sexual relations have the potential of procreation, isn't a judgment upon those who chose not to engage in such relations.