How about, instead of a GAY marriage ban,....

Great Debates
21

I like my solution.

Evidently, the “problem” is that many in society find people making certain choices about who to marry objectionable - and want a democratic way to prevent such from happening.

In particular, some marriages ruin the sanctity of the institution in some people’s eyes. The majority ought to have a say!

At the same time, reality TV involving marriage has apparently become very popular (see the “big fat obnoxious fiance” show, not to mention “who wants to marry a millionare”!)

The solution is obvious - marrages, all marriages, ought to be arranged in a giant reality TV program, by vote from the public!

Direct democracy, baby. It’s what the people want.

22

Oh yes…let’s just become the Soviet Union while we’re at it… :rolleyes:

Use your brains.

23

In the United States, generally, marriage law is left up to the states, and every state has its own rules about who can get married and what they must do, but it doesn’t, legally, matter whether you’re married by a justice of the peace or in a religious ceremony. The married couple has the same legal status either way. I think every state allows religious figures to legally marry people, as long as the two being married fit the other legal requirements. Does this help clear it up for you?

24

Just like Admiral Q said above, it would be a great thing.

Being a Libertarian, I hate that my marriage is even so slightly tied to the State, although I know it is mostly for tax and property purposes.

I don’t think that the Power That Be realized the can of worms they were invoking when they tied Marriage into a State affair. I mean, I know it didn’t happen overnight, or by a select few people who chose it to. But I can definitely see over time, the phrase, “Eh. Marriage will take care of it.” repeatedly being the solution of bureaucratic problems.

If followed through, it won’t effect me at all. My wife and I will still be married by the Church. So, let’s do it.

25

Alert! Alert! Person incapable of understanding sarcasm! Assign for re-education!

26

I would support an Amendment that forbids the government from becoming involved in any religious ceremony, or practice.

But I thought we already had one of those.

I think we need to make parenthood a civil relationship, with legal responsibilities (all on the part of the parent) and rights (on the part of the child.) And since we can pretty much prove who the parents are, if it is a matter of legal contest, the matter can be entirely secular, and thus constitutional.

The sanctity of your marriage is only affected by you and your spouse. The sanctity of someone else’s marriage is pretty much none of your business. My religion is my business, your religion is yours. Children are the responsibility of their parents, irrespective of their parents’ opinions on religion, or politics. Where religion violates the rights of children, the interests of the State in providing assurances of care and safety to the child are the overriding civil concern. God must to deal with the religious implications of child abuse on His own.

Tris

P.S. By the way, have any married Christians of conscious sued to have the Government withdraw its unwanted and illegal sanction of their state of Holy Matrimony? Just wondering.

27

Although that’s a fine idea, the state should also recognize people’s tendency to couple and share their property. Call ithwat you want, but it’s simple efficiency to have bundled contracts recognizing the rights folks need for coupling.

Daniel

28

LHoD -

Is the major advantage of your proposal that we call it “civil union” instead of “marriage”, but no other real changes are involved (apart from being extended to gay couples)? IOW, it would be exactly the same as being married by a justice of the peace.

I am assuming that churches and other religious institutions would not be allowed to perform civil unions, or at least not to call them that.

Regards,
Shodan

29

“Call ithwat you want, but it’s simple efficiency to have bundled contracts recognizing the rights folks need for coupling.”

But there’s no particular reason to think the state needs to be terribly involved in creating/mandating those contracts. Lawyers have created standard contracts for all sorts of things without needing legislation from the state to specify the form of the contract, after all.

A couple would simply talk to a lawyer who deals in marriage contracts; he’d give them the choice of a few standard contracts, or the option to negotiate their own. It’s really just like setting up a small business. :slight_smile:

From a legal point of view, marriage is a relic from a distant time when contract law was poorly developed and women’s legal rights poorly established. You could argue that the legal concept of marriage is an idea whose time has come, gone, and been replaced by contract law.

Of course, this’ll never, for the simple reason that married couples will never agree to give up the tax benefits.

30

What makes you so sure that in a country where over 50% of the elctroate can’t even be bothered to get off their asses and VOTE that an overwhelming majority of people will suddenly become so proactive.

And what makes you so sure that putting this in the hands of lawyers is such a good idea? At least I know the state will be somewhat occupied with other matters. Therefore it less likely that a justice of the peace will sit me and my partner down in a beautiful oak-lined office and “encourage” (read: compel) us to sign a dozen or so unecessary contracts all for the low, low price of $(insert 3 to 5 numbers here).

And what makes you so sure that all these legal agreements will free up the courts? How long do you think it will take before these agreements are challenged in courts all over this country? And what happens when my partner and I decide to separate. What if we don’t really like each other any more, and ,“I’ll be damned if I let that #%&%@ get anything of mine”. Then we’ll have to fight over each and every agreement that we signed in the heady bloom of young romance. (A feeling which always sends me rushing to my lawyer’s office, BTW.)

Like it or not there is still a compelling state interest in establishing certain rules about marriage. For instance:

Who is responsible for the unplanned for, possibly unwanted child?

Partner A and partner B cohabitate for years after entering into a “civil union” presided over and blessed by their attorney. They haven’t kept strict records of who bought what for the apartment, now they find themselves in a painful “breakup” Who steps in to arbitrate their quarrel over who keeps what?

What about spousal priveledge? Do you think that it’s right for a spouse to be compelled to tesitfy against their partner in a court of law?

And most importantly, what makes you think that couples will be willing to dedicate the time and money required to constantly revist these legal agreements and keep them up to date with the changing situations of a life led?

Whether or not the state is corect in limiting which persons amy benefit from those rules is another discussion. But to simply do away with the state in this matter is an overly simplistic, and thoroughly irresponsible idea.

31

Right on both counts. Calling it “civil union” would free up the word “marriage” to be used however private citizens want: the government wouldn’t put their imprimatur on one definition above another, and so the culture wars about what marriage means wouldn’t have to involve the government at all. In addition to being extended to gay couples, it could also be extended to good friends, siblings, long-term roommates, or anyone else for whom the bundle of rights currently included under getting married would be efficient and reasonable.

Churches would not be able to issue civil unions any more than they would be able to issue conditional use permits. A civil unions would be purely a government ufnction.

Note that I wouldn’t even make it like getting married by a justice of the peace; it’d be more like going down to get your marriage license at town hall, no more ceremony involved than applying for a driver’s license. People would be welcome to have exactly the amount of ceremony they wanted, of course – they just wouldn’t do the ceremony on the taxpayer’s dime.

Daniel

32

Not too long ago, it seemed the main arguments to convince people that SSMs should be legal were:

  1. Because not allowing gay/lesbian couples the right to marry just like heterosexual couples was discriminatory and treated gay/lesbian couples as second class citizens.

  2. Allowing gay/lesbian couples the right to marry legally would not have any effect on heterosexuals.
    I thought these were very fine lines of reason. It is true that not allowing same sex couples the choice to marry or not just like heterosexual couples is discriminatory. Good reason to change the law. It is true that allowing same sex couples to marry would have absolutely no effect on heterosexual couples relationships. Excellent line of reasoning.

What I don’t understand is why proponents of Civil Unions have abandoned these two lines of reasonings.

It seems to me that deliberately giving the people who are opposed to same sex marriages a chance to set up a situation in which same sex couples would not have the rights associated with being married is crazy. Does anyone really think this “separate but equal - except for a little name change” would actually be a fair set-up?
I heartily believe that allowing same sex marriages to be called civil unions is the worst thing to do. Many people instantly have an idea of the relationship between two people when you say that they are married. For most people it means that at least sometime in the past they made a lifelong commitment to care for one another. A civil union sounds like nothing more than a simple convenience and gives no intimation into the depth of the involved parties feelings and commitment for one another.

Isn’t this recognition of the same feelings, the desire to have heterosexuals stop treating gay/lesbians different, what same sex couples are striving for?

33

Just to point out, though I’m sure it’s clear to most, that getting rid of marriage and replacing it with civil-union would not remove, and may even increase, the number of divorce proceedings. Divorce doesn’t exist to make breaking up of mariages difficult, it exists to ensure fair distribution of the shared wealth and property of two individuals who had been in married (or civil unioned) and no longer whish to remain married (or civil unioned).

34

Daniel, I’ve heard your proposed solution before, and it makes sense to me. Further, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made it pretty clear that that solution would pass muster under the Massachusetts constitution. It will be interesting to see if it is seriously considered by the Massachusetts Legislature.

Mornea, the solution of changing the name for everyone doesn’t mean that same-sex couples can’t get married, as well as “unified.” They can get married in any church that permits it, of which there are a number. They probably can make up their own religion and “marry” one another under it. It’s just that being “married” is not something the government gets involved with.

35

<b>Like it or not there is still a compelling state interest in establishing certain rules about marriage. For instance:

Who is responsible for the unplanned for, possibly unwanted child?</b>

Any two citizens, notwithstanding their domestic civil union status, who can be genetically proven to be the father and mother of the child. The relative custodial and financial responsibilities of each party would have to be decided by the judiciary and enforced by the police.

A notable exception would be egg/sperm donors.

<b>Partner A and partner B cohabitate for years after entering into a “civil union” presided over and blessed by their attorney. They haven’t kept strict records of who bought what for the apartment</b>

In this case a bit of tough love would be necessary from the courts. Any property being contested for which there is no strict record of indisputable ownership should be auctioned off with the proceeds split evenly. Anything bought from a jointly held bank or credit account would fall into this category. No discussion.

The benefits of this policy are twofold: it would encourage responsible book keeping by couples while encouraging both parties in a separation to come to an agreement before bringing the courts into it. King Solomon style.

<b>What about spousal priveledge? Do you think that it’s right for a spouse to be compelled to tesitfy against their partner in a court of law?</b>

I think in the case of a civil union it would be possible to apply the 5th ammendmant. Testifying against one’s domestic partner could lead to severe personal repercussions tantamount to self-incrimination.

If this argument doesnt have merit, then i see no reason to uphold spousal priveledge. What’s the difference?

<b>And most importantly, what makes you think that couples will be willing to dedicate the time and money required to constantly revist these legal agreements and keep them up to date with the changing situations of a life led?</b>

They’ll be VERY willing to do so when that is the only option available. For those who chose not to keep their domestic civil union contract up-to-date and who decide to separate but can’t come to an amicable agreement there would always be the 50-50 option. If that option is unsatisfying to them: tough.

It sounds distasteful, but no more so than the current state of marriage/divorce law in the U.S.

<b>to simply do away with the state in this matter is an overly simplistic, and thoroughly irresponsible idea.</b>

Absolutely true.

But limiting the government’s role is an admirable objective. IMHO limiting both parties’ property rights, in the manner I described above, would be a good change in the state’s treatment of divorce proceedings.

Your first point is strong. Child support and custody disputes require a much more invoved role on the part of the courts. This is unavoidable, but official government recognition of marriage is neither here nor there. Even our current system treats marriage as irrelevant in matters of parental responsibility.

36

**Like it or not there is still a compelling state interest in establishing certain rules about marriage. For instance:

Who is responsible for the unplanned for, possibly unwanted child?**

Any two citizens, notwithstanding their domestic civil union status, who can be genetically proven to be the father and mother of the child. The relative custodial and financial responsibilities of each party would have to be decided by the judiciary and enforced by the police.

A notable exception would be egg/sperm donors.

Partner A and partner B cohabitate for years after entering into a “civil union” presided over and blessed by their attorney. They haven’t kept strict records of who bought what for the apartment

In this case a bit of tough love would be necessary from the courts. Any property being contested for which there is no strict record of indisputable ownership should be auctioned off with the proceeds split evenly. Anything bought from a jointly held bank or credit account would fall into this category. No discussion.

The benefits of this policy are twofold: it would encourage responsible book keeping by couples while encouraging both parties in a separation to come to an agreement before bringing the courts into it. King Solomon style.

What about spousal priveledge? Do you think that it’s right for a spouse to be compelled to tesitfy against their partner in a court of law?

I think in the case of a civil union it would be possible to apply the 5th ammendmant. Testifying against one’s domestic partner could lead to severe personal repercussions tantamount to self-incrimination.

If this argument doesnt have merit, then i see no reason to uphold spousal priveledge. What’s the difference?

And most importantly, what makes you think that couples will be willing to dedicate the time and money required to constantly revist these legal agreements and keep them up to date with the changing situations of a life led?

They’ll be VERY willing to do so when that is the only option available. For those who chose not to keep their domestic civil union contract up-to-date and who decide to separate but can’t come to an amicable agreement there would always be the 50-50 option. If that option is unsatisfying to them: tough.

It sounds distasteful, but no more so than the current state of marriage/divorce law in the U.S.

to simply do away with the state in this matter is an overly simplistic, and thoroughly irresponsible idea.

Absolutely true.

But limiting the government’s role is an admirable objective. IMHO limiting both parties’ property rights, in the manner I described above, would be a good change in the state’s treatment of divorce proceedings.

Your first point is strong. Child support and custody disputes require a much more invoved role on the part of the courts. This is unavoidable, but official government recognition of marriage is neither here nor there. Even our current system treats marriage as irrelevant in matters of parental responsibility.

37

But the state is already heavily involved in enforcing contracts. The only reason why people obey contracts is that they know that otherwise they will have to face the consequences in court.

Marriage already functions like a contract; it’s just a contract whose terms are. predetermined by the state, though parties are free to arrange their own terms by private contract. If every couple had to negotiate the terms of their marriage in advance, there would certainly be fewer marriages taking place.

38

Hmm…
Common Law Marriage. if 2 people live together as man and wife for a set number of time units [some states just registering in a hotel as man and wife works, other states it is a time of 7 years…it varies] and you are defacto married. no ceremony or license, just ‘common usage’

It is legal to have a civil only ceremony, i was married by a justice of the peace, no clergy involved.

39

Certainly I don’t think that would be a fair set-up. As I’ve said, this solution only works if it’s NOT a separate-but-equal solution: if straight people have access to governmental marriage but gay people don’t, that’s a non-starter. Happily, I’m not suggesting such a scenario: I’m suggesting that nobody gains access to governmental marriage.

FWIW, I agree with the two lines of reasoning mentioned: gay couples should have all the rights straight couples have, and gay marriages don’t harm anyone, near as I can tell. However, I do think that marriage is entwined with many strong religious and traditional values, and also deals with the most intimate of emotions; as such, it strikes me as the sort of institution that is best handled by nongovernmental organizations.

This is apart from the gay marriage issue: even were that not an issue, I’d slightly prefer the government to issue only civil unions and to be out of the marriage business. With SSM as an issue, you get some happy synergy: you can get rid of government entanglement in religious/emotional/traditional matters best left to the citizenry, and you can correct an injustice in the law, all in one fell swoop.

Daniel

40

The government as an objective third party should be involved in marriage precisely because of the emotional and religious issues. Having the government involved in mitigating disputes and setting up general rules about what marriage legally entails is an excellent way to make sure that everyone has equal rights and protection.

People enmasse suffer too much from a group think mentality to ensure that the appropriate things are done consistantly. This is why we don’t allow vigilantes to enforce the law.

If the issue for you isn’t enforcement of the laws regarding marriage - then the only issue left is the mechanism by which to people can be married. As has been stated over and over again throughout these threads, there are many avenues available for people who don’t want a religoius or emotional connection to their union or who simply don’t want to spend a lot of money to be married. The reason a licensed official should perform these is to make sure they are done correctly so that there is no question of the validity of the union.