Skip to main content

View Diary: Let's Not Ban Gay Marriage... Let's DESTROY it (82 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A different perspective (13+ / 0-)

    As a single atheist I often wonder about the marriage debate.  If marriage is a religious issue why does the government recognize marriages at all?  In light of the separation of church and state wouldn't it make more sense to do away with the government's recognition of marriage and allow a form of civil unions for all?  

    Let the churches handle marriage howevery they want and get the government out of it.  For government and legal purposes such as tax filing, estate taxes, health care, adoption, etc. allow any couple, homosexual or heterosexual, to form a civil union.

    This seems like the obvious and constitutional solution to the problem to me but I'm not sure I've ever heard it proposed.  This method has the added bonus of sticking it to all the fundies.  "You don't want the government to recognize gay marriage?  Ok, we just won't recognize your straight marriage either.  Happy now?"

    •  Your last paragraph reminds me (6+ / 0-)

      ...of something I thought about when watching the reports of the Supreme Court oral arguments, particularly when Hagan was making the "fecundity" argument the laughing stock it deserves to be.

      Indeed, some sort of civil union like this may well become necessary for everyone in the coming years, since the Dominionists seem to be usurping not only the right to monitor every pregnancy, but every woman's fertility as well.

      After all, if the Rick Santorum fantasy of marriage defined by fecundity becomes the new normal, then the government will not only harass LGBT couples, but will start annulling hetero-marriages of post-menopausal women as well — & thus some sort of civil unions will have to be formed to keep middle-aged-to-elderly couples from being thrown in jail for "illegal cohabitation".

      Time once again to fight cyber-spying! Defeat CISPA!

      by Brown Thrasher on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:39:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely (3+ / 0-)

      It is long past time to rip apart this conflation of church and state. Religion should have no say in the decision of two (or more, afaic) consenting adults to enter into a domestic partnership.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:02:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In practice, civil unions is exactly what we have (11+ / 0-)

      for man and woman.  We just happen to call it marriage, and tell gays they can't have it.

      Ridiculous.

      •  That's a very good point (5+ / 0-)

        Whether you call it marriage or civil union we've created this special type of contract/partnership.  Preventing certain people from entering into that contract based on their race, gender or sexual orientation would seem to be clearly unconstitutional and discriminatory.  For the record, I'm 100% in support of marriage equality.  I'm just trying to think through the legal implications.

        Another question: say we blow the doors off this thing and allow any two people to marry.  Could I marry my brother for the sake of the tax benefits or to get on his health insurance?  I don't see why not.  Is the government going to require some loving/sexual/procreative motivation as a condition for the marriage contract?  What reason would the government have to disallow such marriages?

        •  IMO... (3+ / 0-)

          the key to marriage is "consenting adults."

          I mean, marrying my brother is not my cup of tea, but hey... whatever floats your boat. As long as you and your brother are consenting adults.

          This also invalidates the idea that "gay marriage" is going to lead to bestiality and/or child abuse. When we speak of bestiality or child abuse, we are no longer discussing two consenting human adults. Animals can't legally consent, neither can children. Therefore, the argument that gay is equal to bestiality and child abuse is invalid.

          Scalia should know better, but he's a fucking twat, so I'm not surprised.

        •  well... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ebohlman

          I know you aren't talking about incest, but when you start introducing the idea of siblings entering into come kind of civil relationship, you really can't be talking about anything equating to marriage.  That, as the author of this post suggests, is a union of two people in a loving relationship, and the creation of a new family.  The brotherly relationship is not a "new family," but a financial arrangement which, imho, should not muddy the waters, and which should rightly be maintained as a matter of estate planning.

          •  Right. The legal effect of marriage (0+ / 0-)

            is to create new family ties without breaking any old ones (as adoption would do). In the case of people who already have family ties, the effect of marriage would be to overlay another, possibly conflicting, set of family ties, resulting in two people being related to each other in incompatible ways.

            Writing in all lower-case letters should be a capital offense

            by ebohlman on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 07:44:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Marriage is not religious. (8+ / 0-)

      You can have a religious ceremony every hour of every day for a year and you still won't be married. You can only become married by properly filling out and filing a marriage license. Marriage is a governmental function, not a religious one.

    •  i've heard this argued but (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Munchkn, maf1029, Cassandra Waites
      Let the churches handle marriage howevery they want and get the government out of it.  For government and legal purposes such as tax filing, estate taxes, health care, adoption, etc. allow any couple, homosexual or heterosexual, to form a civil union.
      I really don't like it, because historically it's never really been a religious act.
    •  The state marriage license in many states (3+ / 0-)

      is already the legal document. The ceremony after that is up to the couple- religious, city hall, sea captain, etc.

      My niece for her marriage in Mass. had her FIL fly over from Scotland with full regalia and triple layer wedding cake, to perform the ceremony.  That state gives an option for a private individual on a specific date to perform the ceremony.

      In New York State the marriage form does not include gender and apparently never has.  So there are no statistics being kept on how many single gender marriages are being performed.

      I thought this civil, practical license for marriage was the norm for most if not all states and any religious or personal whatnot above and beyond that is up to the couple .  Is that not the case?

       

    •  I've thought of this also, and posted about it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bigjacbigjacbigjac

      Nobody seems to see the logic of it, though.  

      Lately I've been thinking a lot about marriage, and the cultural expectations that aren't totally global, and I've been thinking that there should be some kind of legal template contract for marriage (or better, civil union) that will have a cafeteria type menu that the people could select how they want to be together, and what expectations would be accepted by the couple.  

      Each marriage would be an individual unique contract signed by both parties.    Thinks like inheritance and social security benefits can be selectively conferred on the spouse, or on dependent children, or on elderly parents, or even given to a charity, or something.  

      If they want ceremonies, parties, and what not, they can do that on their own.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site