You know, it was once a custom to be Handfasted to your beloved. This Handfasting consisted of a contract of sorts to be in effect for a year and a day. After this time the couple could go their separate ways or renew the contract for another year (or for life if they so chose). Maybe we should go back to that instead. THAT would erase any divorce disputes. Any items gotten during that year could be sold off and the money split evenly at the end of the contract term.
Huh? This doesn’t make any sense to me. Different church denominations handle baptisms differently – some baptize babies at birth, whereas other won’t baptize you unless you’re a consenting adult. Different churches sometimes won’t recognize the baptism ceremonies conducted by an opposition denomination. Should we get the government to step in and define baptism so that we have an objective, third-party standard?
Of course not. We should let each church determine for themselves what it means to be baptized, and which baptisms that community will respect. The government should limit itself to issuing birth certificates.
I’m not sure I’m following you here. The issue for me is precisely enforcement of the laws regarding marriage, as long as we’re referring to things like insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, child custody rights, etc. The word “marriage” itself isn’t so much an issue as it is a hindrance and an annoyance. I don’t think the government should entangle itself with this word. But the government should absolutely enforce the rights that we’re used to associating with marriage; they should just do it under a more neutral moniker, one that allows folks with nontraditional arrangements to obtain the rights.
Daniel
So what is the argument that gay marriage opponents are using? Is there some real or imagined monitary loss to the State? The way the tax laws are now, I would think they would benefit, cuz married people usually pay more than singles. Or are the politicos just pandering to the bible-thumping conservatives because this is an election year? All the rhetoric about how it’s “a threat to the institution of marriage” I just don’t get, and smaks of homophobia.
Rob
I wonder why people haven’t thought of this before. Now that gays have advanced a pretty strong argument and support for gay marriage, all of a sudden we are hearing this proposal? I don’t know… Doesn’t it sound like “Now that gays are asking for the same privileges, let’s do away with the whole concept altogether! :D” Yipeee!!!
Yes, yes, definitely get the government out of the whole thing.
It’s either that, or get it more involved.
Regardless of my opinion on the whole same-sex marriage issue, I don’t think the focus is where it should be. The gov. wants to strengthen the institution of marriage, there are a few things it could do, and a few things it could stop doing. Each of these questions has but one choice in my mind.
-sanction all civil unions (gay, straight, dude and his rottweiler) as legal marriage, and afford them the same benefits as are given to what is now the ‘normal marriage’
OR
-do away with added benefit for married couples such as tax breaks and increased military pay, lower insurance rates and such. This could help with the divorce problem, as well, by decreasing on the number of couples marrying for money.
-Make laws to their hearts’ content regulating what is and is not a marriage, but keep religion out of it. One is forced to wonder if they know what novus ordo seclorum means.
OR
-declare another inquisition and get rid of all the non-fundamentalist-Christians, so their personal agendas could be better enforced. Hey, it must be easier to rule a country less than half the size of the US’s current population.
-Consider the fact that convicted killers, child molestors, rapists, and wife beaters are not prohibited from marrying when and whom they choose, and realise how very silly it is to be stressing over the voluntary union of two people who love each other.
OR
-There is no ‘or’ on this one.
On most points in this debate there is a stalemate. Not everyone’s going to be happy, but I do think that prohibiting one group from having the same social and political rights as another is what equal rights activists have been trying to prevent for decades. Are we now going to change the pledge to say “One nation, except the gays…” Does the government really want to make themselves out to be homophobes? Probably not.