No election threads?

[Thomas Rogers]

Right, marriage doesn't HAVE to be a religious thing, but more often than not it is...and one recognized and defined by many religions. It has it's roots in religion. And the govt, in defining marriage, shapes religion which is why many religious people are against gay marriage.



The govt sponsors and advocates marriage through it's tax and other programs. It should not, IMHO, and it is stepping over the line when it does.



We wouldn't have the debate of gay marriage IF the govt wasn't in the marriage business.



I am not against gay marriage. I'm all for it. Just just against our govt recognizing it, as I am against our govt recognizing and promoting marriage in general.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Legalizing gay marriage would be a 2nd wrong. The first wrong was allowing our govt to define and recognize marriage in the first place. Marriage should be defined by religions and by people, not by our govt. And the govt shouldn't create incentives for people to marry as that puts them in the marriage business. I see our govt recognition of, programs surrounding and definition of marriage as the only REAL, clear-cut violation of the "so-called" seperation of church and state.

Unfortunately, marriage is codified into our legal system. It conveys rights. Since we live in a society that is supposed to guarantee equal protection to all citizens, I don't see how marriage can be ok for some, and not for others, and still live up to the equality principal.



In other words, it is wrong for our government to recognize the marriage of two individuals while denying that status to any other two individuals, regardless of gender.



Any other approach is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, and the 14th Amendment.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

You missed my point, Rich. The other approach is to get the govt out of the marriage business. Change our tax codes so there is no penalty nor incentive for marriage. Change our inheritance law so that beneficiaries must be stated explicitly, not assumed by marriage. Change our healthcare and health proxy laws to also recognized named proxy care.



It's not that hard. We could do it. It would create a big headache at first, but think of all it would change for the better. Think of what it would do to divorce law...the one area of our law that NEEDS overhauling.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Tom, I understood your point.



How about not having to testify against one's spouse and being treated as one legal entity? How about all of the estate, will and inheretance issues? Gonna do away with those concepts? That would dramatically alter the landscape of our legal system, and not in a good way.



There is good reason for government to sanction marriage, because marriage is tied to other important legal issues. It just needs to be equally applied to any two adults, regardless of gender.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yup, get rid of all of them...they are all antiquated.

 

[Rich Stern]

I don't think that's realistic. With marriage, most people share not only a social status, but also their assets and liabilities. That has monetary and contract ramifications that can't be avoided.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

With the upcomming nearly-guaranteed resumption of the marriage penalty in taxes, why would that make a difference?



Inheritance? It's called a will.

Medical issues? It's called Power of Attorney



So really, it seems to me just one more way for the Gay Activists to kick religion's rear-end, again. Why should we let that happen?



My point of all of it is why is it up to the Majority to protect what marriage is? Why do we need an amendment to protect traditional marriage. US History show that the proper thing would be an amendment to allow gay marriage....



Course that is backwards from reality and I would fully support a protection of marriage amendment as well as an amendment banning all abortion (except when the life of the mother is is immanent threat as verified by two or more independant doctors). That is another arguement.

 

[Bill V]

Q--You sound like you've been listening to too many of Paul R. Nelson's campaign ads.



Not familiar with him? He ran as a Republican for a House Seat in Wisconsin. His campaign ads were so over-the-top ridiculous in some of their claims and positions that most people who heard them assumed they were a joke, a la Borat or SNL. He lost the election, big time, in large part because not only did he alienate all the Democrats and most independent voters in the district, but he even pissed off most Republican voters. To hear some of his ads, check his website--I think it's www.paulrnelson.com, but I'm not positive. Either you'll agree with him, or you'll laugh out loud at how ridiculous he is--either way, it's worth visiting.



His ad about his opponent's supposed support of sex studies was particularly amusing.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

His ad about his opponent's supposed support of sex studies was particularly amusing

The funniest part is that his oppenent did and help authoize the spending of millions on it.... not quite so funny now is it?