What are your state's "hot issues?"

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote: I think, at least for me that its a non issue cause the state should not regulate marriage in any way. It is a contract between two people an there god. The state should butt out completely.

 

[oldrooster]

I think, at least for me that its a non issue cause the state should not regulate marriage in any way. It is a contract between two people an there god. The state should butt out completely.

Had someone tell me a few months back they thought almost the same as you other than they thought there should be a legal and a separate religious marriage or union so that it would make it a mute point from those ethically opposed to it. I asked if it would offend her if it would be called a civil union for homosexual couples as long as they had the essentially the same rights (meaning some verbage may have to be changed in some laws to equal the same for both types of unions). She had no problems with that.

 

[mom'sfolly]

Personally, I think the idea of marriage and civil commitment should be divorced from each other. A civil commitment should be the governments part of the deal, conferring all the legal advantages to any adult couple. Marriage would be considered a religious union between two people, allowed combos of two would be determined by that church. If you wished to be married in the eyes of the law, as part of your religious ceremony you fill out the civil commitment paperwork. This would work the same for every couple, straight, gay, lesbian, bi or transgender.

I truly feel that when this all comes to a head with the Supreme Court, it will come down this way. The government will have to show they have a valid reason for conferring rights on some people but not others. I cannot see a valid argument that would find any reason for allowing some adult couples to marry, but not others. The other possible outcome would be for all of the government conferred rights to simply disappear, and everyone being obligated to fill out the reams of legal paperwork to get them.

As for the argument that states should decide...hogwash. Does that mean that someone married in Maine ain't married in Ohio? Or is it only them nasty gay folk that aren't married?

 

[Joe Jordan]

 

[KristyHall]

Personally, I think the idea of marriage and civil commitment should be divorced from each other. A civil commitment should be the governments part of the deal, conferring all the legal advantages to any adult couple. Marriage would be considered a religious union between two people, allowed combos of two would be determined by that church. If you wished to be married in the eyes of the law, as part of your religious ceremony you fill out the civil commitment paperwork. This would work the same for every couple, straight, gay, lesbian, bi or transgender.

I truly feel that when this all comes to a head with the Supreme Court, it will come down this way. The government will have to show they have a valid reason for conferring rights on some people but not others. I cannot see a valid argument that would find any reason for allowing some adult couples to marry, but not others. The other possible outcome would be for all of the government conferred rights to simply disappear, and everyone being obligated to fill out the reams of legal paperwork to get them.

As for the argument that states should decide...hogwash. Does that mean that someone married in Maine ain't married in Ohio? Or is it only them nasty gay folk that aren't married?

That is a good point. "traditional" marriage varies with each culture, religion and family. To have one religious view determine what is traditional marriage under the law is ridiculous. I like the idea of separating marriage and civil unions, for EVERYONE. Bi gay strait mixed race couples mixed religion couples. Let religious (or non religious) marriage ceremonies be determined by that person's personal beliefs, but keep that persons religious views on marriage out of the laws that legally bind people into a united household.

Then there are those who argue that people are trying to change the "definition" of marriage. Who's definition? Which religion? which branch of said religion? Even different Christian groups can't agree on what is acceptable marriage. The legal definition in the US has changed multiple times. Women stopped being their husband's property, mixed races can now marry, age of marriage consent has changed, rules about common law marriage have changed. All of these have changed the legal definition of marriage.

I personally don't understand some people's obsession with forcing other people to adhere to their religious beliefs on marriage or who is in what relationship. They can go police their own bedrooms. Stay out of everyone elses.

 

[sezjasper]

Personally, I think the idea of marriage and civil commitment should be divorced from each other. A civil commitment should be the governments part of the deal, conferring all the legal advantages to any adult couple. Marriage would be considered a religious union between two people, allowed combos of two would be determined by that church. If you wished to be married in the eyes of the law, as part of your religious ceremony you fill out the civil commitment paperwork. This would work the same for every couple, straight, gay, lesbian, bi or transgender.

I truly feel that when this all comes to a head with the Supreme Court, it will come down this way. The government will have to show they have a valid reason for conferring rights on some people but not others. I cannot see a valid argument that would find any reason for allowing some adult couples to marry, but not others. The other possible outcome would be for all of the government conferred rights to simply disappear, and everyone being obligated to fill out the reams of legal paperwork to get them.

As for the argument that states should decide...hogwash. Does that mean that someone married in Maine ain't married in Ohio? Or is it only them nasty gay folk that aren't married?

Well said. I'll have to read this post to my mom, who believes that I'm the only person in the world who takes this view (removing government conferred rights from marriage as a "solution") She can't get past the idea of a gay couple checking "married filing joint" on their tax return. Good grief.

 

[KristyHall]

Well said. I'll have to read this post to my mom, who believes that I'm the only person in the world who takes this view (removing government conferred rights from marriage as a "solution") She can't get past the idea of a gay couple checking "married filing joint" on their tax return. Good grief.

I do not understand the point in perks and penalties for married people either. It may have had a use at one time, but what is the point now?

 

[tiki244]

Well I live in Wisconsin! Need I say ?

 

[oldrooster]

Also I have a question some posts said the definitions of marriage are different from person to person how about having multiple spouses? like sister wife/husband shows are exposing? and if we allow 2 straight or 2 homosexual people to marry why should a bi sexual person be restricted to one spouse? why not one of each if the other 2 are agreeable? otherwise it's just as sexist to make them chose vanilla or chocolate when they want both.

 

[KristyHall]

Also I have a question some posts said the definitions of marriage are different from person to person how about having multiple spouses? like sister wife/husband shows are exposing? and if we allow 2 straight or 2 homosexual people to marry why should a bi sexual person be restricted to one spouse? why not one of each if the other 2 are agreeable? otherwise it's just as sexist to make them chose vanilla or chocolate when they want both.

I am agreeable to plural marriage (male and female or both) as long as everyone are capable of consent and agrees, I don't see the problem.