Completely agree.

I agree as well.

I posted a whole write-up on the topic a little while back on my blog.

But it boils down to marriage, as far as the government is concerned, has always been a civil union.

Tellyawut, Amy... When you truly decouple marriage from the state power structures — which you've always described as the clearest expression of your beliefs and values — then you can do whatever you want with it.

Whatever. Not kidding.

That would be a pretty quick way to clean up healthcare at the same time, right?... If every goofball in the workplace suddenly demanded healthcare support for his beer buddies and second cousins and God knows who else, employers would completely lose interest in providing insurance. Two birds with one stone, right?

So is marriage about making a nice old man in a courthouse with a robe and a flag and step down from a really high wooden desk to kiss people on the forehead and tell them that their feelings are very special, too?

Or is it not?

'Cause if it's not, then we're done.

(PS- No more of that family court bullshit, either.)

Again, repeal and ban all hate crime laws and I'll buy into the equality argument for "marriage". I want something for my support. Otherwise, it will end up like Crid's Brazil story there and the family court laws will be worse than they already are.

"The fact is that the state has not looked to the churches for its definition of marriage for a very long time."

Then why can't I have a ceremony at a church without a valid marriage license with the state?

hmmmmmmm?

Either EVERYONE and ANYONE is allowed to marry, and get all the benes and privileges or it is for a familial unit that will be doing as nature intended - raising a family.

So there it is. You want same sex marriage - then you cannot limit it, because you have changed the definitions from it's original intended purpose. So any limitation now on others wanting to marry is now discriminatory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/three-people-get-married-thruple?CMP=twt_gu

If some man wants to marry 500 women and collect all the benes, they should be able to if two people of the same sex wish to be married.

Neither churches nor the government can define marriage. "Marriage" (Pair bonding) pre dated both of those institutions.

Humans like to believe they can rule nature, but they don't. Sorry.

I didn't read Crid's post before I posted mine.

We were on the same page.

Good morning, folks. Happy Friday!

Remember this one?

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/08/14/three.html

Last quote in the post:

"Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to. The spurious arguments of marriage being for procreation of children is ridiculous."

Any people. ANY at all. Not for procreation. Redefine it (to remove the intent of the institution) and it becomes discriminatory to prohibit ANYONE.

"For some people, it's a marriage."

Right, Amy?

"civil society long ago decoupled marriage law from church doctrines. And aren't most of us glad it did"
Nope, the government should have stayed out of it, completely. If they had we wouldn't have these stupid argumants about marriage we have now.
The problem with gov't making rules and laws about something is there can be no dissent, no opposing oppinions.
You don't want to make the wedding cake for them, sorry, your opinion is illegal.
You don't want to have them do the ceremony on your property, sorry that will be illegal.
It is classic gov't overstepping it's bounds into the area of the Church.

Then why can't I have a ceremony at a church without a valid marriage license with the state?

Wouldnt that be the choice of the church? Mormon couples have meaningless and not legally binding wedding ceremonies all the time to include family and freinds who are not worthy enough to attend the 'real' ceremony

> government gives people benefits based on
> their being married--making it a government
> thing.

("But,") If we get government out of the business of telling people which romantic choices are darling and which ones aren't, then government won't have any say as to how benefits are distributed. People would be able to choose for themselves.

That's what you want, right?

The Puritans shocked the Church of Englanders when they made marriage a civil, not religious, act.

want to decouple marriage from the religious? Fine.

try decoupling it from the religion of government... shocking, I know.

> government gives people benefits based on
> their being married--making it a government
> thing.

putting it a different way from Crid, WHY should the government give anyone benefits from this? You are acting like this is the only correct conclusion.

The idea that this is about benefits is bull.

Else the govt would simply rule that ALL coupling agreements be civil contracts and we'd be done. IF the LGBT community would ask for that, it would happen in short order, because they could sue based on discrimination.

But instead of asking that discrimination END, they are asking to be formally ADDED to the discriminating group. That group BEING marriage.

This is about acceptance and forced legitimacy, neither of which are likely to happen.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html

Interesting the justifications made to deny polygamy by the Canadian judge.

The Puritans shocked the Church of Englanders when they made marriage a civil, not religious, act.

Posted by: NicoleK at August 31, 2012 9:58 AM
_______________________________

Reminds me of this, from Richard Shenkman's 1994 book "Legends, lies & cherished myths of world history":

"A curious fact about the institution of marriage in Britain is that it doesn't have nearly the tradition behind it that people think it does. It wasn't until the twelfth century that the English began getting married in church. And it wasn't until the eighteenth century that they were required to by law.

"The fact is that through most of English history nobody much worried if a couple was formally married or not. Or I should say among the lower classes nobody much worried. Lacking property, the members of the lower classes did not need to sanctify cohabitation with fine legalities. The rich, of course, did. For them marriage constituted an exchange of property.

"How many people actually got married in church in the Elizabethan era? You will be shocked bv the answer I read in one book. Only fifty percent.

"The problem with church weddings was that they were hard to undo if the couple found out later they'd made a mistake. Church weddings also cost a lot. The only alternative to having a church wedding was to have what was called a 'private wedding.' Why they called them this I don't know. They were anything but private, seeing as how they were usually held in a public tavern."

(snip)

And, on another subject, it's interesting that many "old-fashioned" types in the 20th century would have sputtered at the idea of cohabitation, but would have said "oh, okay," if a certain couple was married by a judge - but not in a religious ceremony!

On the other hand, of course, there have always been those like the priest in Doris Day's biography who cheerfully dismisses her marital problems (her first husband was a psychopath who beat her and her second husband abandoned her) on the grounds that she "was never married," since she wasn't married in a church. She accused him of implying her son was illegitimate and soon after left the Catholic Church.

Nice article Sio, did you notice how all the focus was on white polygamists? Nary a word on muslim polygamists

> But instead of asking that discrimination END, they
> are asking to be formally ADDED to the
> discriminating group.

Exactly. They want some of the sweet, sweet candy.

Jar's empty, though.

From now on, when you wanna be nice to someone, you'll have to give them your own money.

We'd better get this sorted out soon. Civilization's newcomers are going to be needing some instruction.

(via Balko)

Damned Hollywood limousine liberals like Clint Eastwood with their pro-gay marriage nonsense! Typical left coast insanity.

Wait - Clint endorsed Romney. The GOP platform is heterosexual marriage only.

Is this cognitive dissonance at work?

"Is this cognitive dissonance at work?"

No.

"Is this cognitive dissonance at work?"

No.

But, government gives people benefits based on their being married--making it a government thing. ~ Amy

WHY should the government give anyone benefits from this? ~ SwissArmyD

The government benefits from people being married.

Society as a whole benefits from pair-bond marriage - that's why it's been around for a few thousand years.

Women civilize men. Or, they used to before they all decided they want to be a party hound like Paris or Lindsay.

Married couples tend to settle down and stay a while, providing stability. One reason why a high divorce rate is of concern to any government is the erosion of the stability marriage provides. Married folks tend to invest time and energy into the local community (PTA, Little League, school boards, etc.).

They buy houses and the things needed to decorate and/or upgrade the house.

They tend to upgrade to a bigger or more posh house at some point, providing both demand for houses and a supply of maintained houses.

Marriage couples tend to have children. Married parents ensure that these children have people with a vested interest in their welfare looking out for them. It may take a village to raise a child, but it takes a parent to forego weekend golf games in order to pay for braces for him.

The US has elected only two unmarried presidents - and one of them got married during his presidency.

One reason why Muslim societies today are having problems with societal stability is that polygamy has led to a scarcity of marriage-eligible women for its young men. Men who would have poured their energy into building a comfortable life for wife and child find themselves with no reason to invest themselves into their community, no outlet for their increasing anger and frustration other than violence, and no reason to protect the stability of society.

Society as a whole benefits from pair-bond marriage - that's why it's been around for a few thousand years. -- Conan the Grammarian at August 31, 2012 1:23 PM

What does it take away from pair bonding that two males or females decide to be a committed pair? As lenona noted above most of the secular reasons for marriage are property or tax relief.

Yes a GLBT couple can incorporate, or trust fund, or multiple other ways to get the equivalent of a simple contract that has already been written under the law as marriage. But the GLBT community has to do this deliberately, and hope it is respected by an institution in a time of stress.

I was with my lady for 13 years. We never married (for various reasons). I had no say in what happened to her body the night she died because we never executed the paper work.

This simple answer would have been a marriage certificate, or doing all the paperwork the GLBT community has to do.

JimP: "I had no say in what happened to her body the night she died because we never executed the paper work."

So because you were lazy, you had no rights...

Hell, these days trusts, powers of attorney etc. have more force in a court of family law than marriage "contracts" do.

Lujlp, yeah I saw they mentioned it once, that Muslims would have "implications" for their community.

So because you were lazy, you had no rights... -- Sio at August 31, 2012 10:19 PM

The various reasons revolve around SSDI, Medicaid, the welfare system and the common law marriage statutes which were repealed but still observed by the judges in my state. I.e. were we defrauding the state, or fed? We get married would her Medicaid benefits end, but not be covered under pre-existing condition rules?

But it still comes back to some simple things -- if I was married to a lady and she was killed in a car accident tonight, the presumption is that I get everything, that isn't mentioned in a will, tax free.

If I were LGBT and didn't have the trust network pre-done, I would have no right of inheritance, and even then may still have to pay taxes for the inheritance.

Really it boils down to either inheritance tax is gone, or give equal opportunity to the LGBT community without the penalty.

Freebie - nitpick about "Then why can't I have a ceremony at a church without a valid marriage license with the state?" No problem, legally. A particular church leader may not want to perform the cermony, but the State is not involved in that. Indeed. in my State only a few religions are allowed to sign the "marriahe" license. Out of luck if you are Buddhist, Hindu, Russian/Eastern Orthodox or many others - for a legal "marriage" you would need a government official to sign the license.

SwissArmyD - "the govt would simply rule that ALL coupling agreements be civil contracts." Make that "should" and you pretty much have my position...

The "marriage license" started in the Republic of Rome, and was about inheritance. Some religions kept records, some did not, and what records existed were often enough lost, which led to a lot of inheritance fraud. Remember "Cui Bono?" The case involved a widow and children being bilked out of an inheritance because there was no record of the marriage (this was after the government kept records, but apparently the record had been "misplaced, destroyed, or stolen" by "someone").

Over time, goovernments used the license for other purposes - yes, including but not limited to some benefits. Perhaps the one that most annoys me is when "only family members may visit patients on the Intensice Care Unit." Live with someone for thirty years but can't ralk to them when they are sick?

As to "going back to" having a single religion define "marriage" - no thanks. As commented above, for a time in Great Britain you were only considered married if you were married in the Chuch of England. Note that Roman Catholics, among others, were not "married." But then, the Church of Rome did not consider those married in the Church of England to be "married." This pretty much is the case between ANY two religions.