Gay Marriage

[PHXConx]

OH, as far as the SCOTUS Is concerned I think they will have to do something.  As more and more states strike down the ban on marriage equality how will states deal with people who move?  A couple has been married for 10 years in CA, have a few kids, move to TX and all of a sudden they are not married and the kids have only 1 parent?  Then they move to UT and all of a sudden they are married again?  There are bank accounts, assets, medical care along with a host of other issues that would all of a sudden become null and void.  How does all that work?  
 
Something like 20 states have or will have marriage equality.  More will follow since there are cases pending in every state now.   I think the court will be forced to act.

I dont think they are going to reverse their position that its a states issue only a year from the previous ruling... even if 49 out of 50 states have gay marriage.  its still going to be a states issue in their mind. and the fact that more and more states are adding it means that the system is working... at least in SCOTUS' eyes

 

[PHXConx]

 
I get it.  I agree with it BUT…  why do it?
 
 
You want to eliminate marriage out of the public sector.  You want me and my wife to have a contract that is equivalent to the rights conferred by current day marriage.  All you are doing is rearranging the deck chairs.  I am still going to tell everyone I am married.  That is what two gay people will do, that is what polygamists will say.  So nothing will change other than the behind the scenes stuff that no one sees nor cares about.  If I get on a boat, I don’t care if there is a Penta or a Volvo engine in the stern.  The boat will get me from point a to point b.  Beyond that WGAFF. 
 
 
If you don’t change and remove ‘marriage’ I fail to see the point of why change how it’s done.  As far as I am concerned there are two marriages.  One is required by law, the other is an optional religious ceremony.  If you want a state/fed recognized union you go to a JP, get hitched and file your paper work.  Done.  If you want to go to your religious institution of your choice and have them do something for you, go for it. 
 
 
Bottom line is Im married,  I don’t care what you behind the scenes.  I think the sticking point for a lot of the religious zealots is that they do not want gays to get married.  With our plan they would be able to get ‘married’.  Call it a  contract or whatever you want the end result is that they are married.  They will have the exact same rights as a married couple.  They will say that they are married.  How they got there is irrelevant.  For all intensive purposes I have a contract with my wife.  It’s just called a marriage license.  The union is enforceable in a court of law and should the union be dissolved we have legal obligations to each other that are enforceable by law.  
 
 

because marriage as it is now is a states rights issue, they get to dictate the rules... we are not talking about what you say you are, but what is considered legal in the eyes of the law.  
 
If its a contract between two or more people the states cant dictate any part of it, the marriage license isnt a contract its a license that you will follow the laws of the state you were married in. if you are in a gay marriage state you are lucky, if you are not you arent.
 
the constitution makes this a states issue the supreme court ruled that it is.  the constitution makes contracts a non issue when it comes to the states. they have to follow a legal contract...
 
you see it as splitting hairs..  but its not once you understand there is a difference between legal marriage, and contracts it will make sense... 
 
It seems like its just words... that a marriage in your eyes may be a contract between you and your wife but its actually a contract between you your wife and the state.  i want the state out of it.  
 
But after the gay marriage fight is over... the marriage fight will not be over, polygamists are denied the same rights they are consenting adults.  and their rights are only being denied because in the middle 19th century there was a push against mormons..(especially in the south, because they were abolitionists..  in missouri it was legal to kill a mormon.. thats how serious they took it...  so because christians didnt like mormons and dictated their views on every other polygamist relationship, mormons are not the only ones..  
 
my way ends it..  for everyone.  finally fairness 
 
you can still be "married" to your wife, but as far as legal term the only way this works is contracts what you call that is up to you...  
 
 
 
and actually you said that they will have the same rights... that depends on what you consider rights?  each contract will be different they will be based on what each party of the contracts for lack of better word negotiates... you may have a 50 50 clause..  you may say if one side cheats the other side gets 80percent. there is no set rule of what each contract will be that will be decided on by the only people that matter, the people involved.  so when they fail, they will individually be subject to the courts based on their contract... 
 
 
oh and  to answer you first question, you do it, to keep religious zealots, or other busy bodies out of your business, you do it because its noone business but you and your partners what you decide is fair and equatable marriages fail because states put undue burden on them make them made to fail.  we are wrapped in the idea that unions should be traditional its time to change that.  no more divorce where a judge decides what you get, now you decide before hand good contract lawyers are going to make this worth it...  you could decide before union what happens to kids, before you have them before hate and discontent gets in the way after you get so pissed at another person it becomes revenge instead of whats best for all 

 

[Ms Tree]

OK.  That makes more sense now.  I still agree but I still dont think it will happen.  I think the battles that the various groups will have will be peace meal.  So I think we are back to square one.  I still believe the court will rule on it.  
 
Again, I like your idea but I dont tink it has a snow balls chance in hell of coming to fruition.  

 

[PHXConx]

Short answer the reason to do is you aren't at mercy of inbred state senators continously changing the laws to match court opinion. To change contracts. The only way the mouth breathers win. Is through constitutional amendment to change contract law never going to happen...

 

[PHXConx]

 
Again, I like your idea but I dont tink it has a snow balls chance in hell of coming to fruition.

All it takes is one state..

 

[700UW]

http://www.examiner.com/article/20-quotes-from-historical-americans-against-the-u-s-being-a-christian-nation

 

[delldude]

http://www.examiner.com/article/20-quotes-from-historical-americans-against-the-u-s-being-a-christian-nation

 

 

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

This is a misquotation. The first sentence has often been credited to Jefferson, but I’ve never seen an accurate citation. John Remsburg’s Six Historic Americans cites it only as coming from a letter to a “Dr. Woods”, but as far as I know no such letter has ever been found. In fact, it’s often appended to various other legitimate Jefferson quotes, as it is here.
 
Until sometime after the civil war the capitol building was used for church services.
 
What of separation of church and state?
 
Separation of church and state is the most perverted reference ever.
 
Separation of church and state is a reference to the government endorsing a religion as the 'official religion of the United States of America". That is all.
 
The reference was perverted in the early part of the century the last time Progressive asssholes were in power. It is a wrong decision.

 

[Ms Tree]

Both the 7th a s 10th circuit courts upheld lower court rejections of same sex marriage in UT and IN.

 

[PHXConx]

 
 
Until sometime after the civil war the capitol building was used for church services.
 
What of separation of church and state?
 
Separation of church and state is the most perverted reference ever.
 
Separation of church and state is a reference to the government endorsing a religion as the 'official religion of the United States of America". That is all.
 
The reference was perverted in the early part of the century the last time Progressive asssholes were in power. It is a wrong decision.

absolutely there is no such thing as "separation of church and state", its no where in the constitution and i didn't realize constitutional law has anything do with a letter Jefferson wrote to danbury Baptists...  
 
i mean he didnt have anything to do with he constitution he was in France when it was being written...  but the court went to a letter written years later to prove legislative intent..  by someone who was not even in the legislature in the first place

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Good essay on the topic from Forbes:

"Thus the Constitution decreed that Washington had no occasion or authority to interject itself into matters as obviously local as doctrines of faith. Congress was not empowered to establish a church because the framers feared that concentrated power, whether favored religions, standing armies, banking monopolies, or an overarching federal government, invited tyranny.

Church and state were distinct in that the Federal Government could not elevate one denomination over others. Nor could government and its flawed inhabitants usurp divine authority by harnessing politics to the church. Faith is no civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics.

State controlled churches frequently exploited this latent power for evil. The Spanish Inquisition didnt originate in the Vatican, but the Castilian court. It was not of the church, but the king. By Philip II, Spain had the makings of the first police state infused with the ill-gotten moral authority of a tyrannical clergy.

Much of our Bill of Rights was meant to prevent dictatorships such as Cromwells, which married church and state in such manner as to mar many of the freedoms our forefathers sought to enshrine."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/

Kind of a tangent off the gay marriage thing.

 

[signals]

Actually the separation of church and state is spot on this discussion. Just like the state can't dictate its rules to the church, the church can't dictate its rules to the state. Gay marriage in a state building is fine, in a church not so much. Because the religious fanatics are rendering unto Caesar what is God's, then Caesar is given the right(or balance) to render his authority in what should be God's.

And that is where the Christians are bringing the gov down on themselves.

 

[SparrowHawk]

All I know is that I dream of a day when a married Lesbian couple can own Ar-15's to protect their legal marijuana fields from thieves.

 

[xUT]

At least the buttf---kers and dikes wore clothes this year.
Must be a first for the SanFranFreako LBGTXYZ parade.

 

[southwind]

http://www.examiner.com/article/20-quotes-from-historical-americans-against-the-u-s-being-a-christian-nation

Separation of Powers:
Federal and State
 
"While smaller governments are better adapted to the ordinary objects of society, larger confederations more effectually secure independence and the preservation of republican government." --Thomas Jefferson to the Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
 
"The extent of our country was so great, and its former division into distinct States so established, that we thought it better to confederate as to foreign affairs only. Every State retained its self-government in domestic matters, as better qualified to direct them to the good and satisfaction of their citizens, than a general government so distant from its remoter citizens and so little familiar with the local peculiarities of the different parts." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483
 
"I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
 
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1050.htm

 

[Dog Wonder]

At least you passed cut and paste in First Grade.