Let's Ban Heterosexual Marriage

[BOSSHOG]

How can conservatives justify placing the sanctity of marriage in the hands of a segment of the population which has a proven track record of, oh say, 50% success? Necons rail against social programs they tell us don't work. Why then is the blatant and overwhelming failure of heteros to uphold the sanctity of marriage accepted by conservatives from sea to shining sea? Why is this social program accepted as a success by those who hate those who don't comply.

Will gay marriage end up like freeing the slaves and giving women the right to vote - stuff conservatives opposed but turned out alright after all?

For the record: I have been happily married for almost 30 years and my wife and I have zero christian conservative moral absolutist influences in our household. I guess we'll burn in hell for eternity.

[Newsjock]

1. Ban divorce

Let the "defense of marriage" people weasel their way out of that. Some Democrat in Congress, anyone, should try to amend the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.

If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one.

[Beaker]

2. the sanctity of marriage MUST be preserved & protected-

banning divorce is the only logical solution.

[LeahMira]

8. I don't understand...

... why so many of these people are opposed to "no fault" divorce. It seems to be a major thorn in their sides and they seem to think that the divorce rate would plummet if "no fault" divorce wasn't available.

Since I'm happily married for 36 years, I have never really had reason to take a look at the pros and cons of any sort of divorce. Can someone explain?

[K-W]

10. No Fault makes it easier for a consenting couple to get divorced.

No one has to prove anything and no one is held responsible.

[DarkPhenyx]

3. I'm all for it.

I do not think that the State has any business legitimizing a religious sacrament. If we desire some sort of relationship status that gives soecial benefits to those within the relationship, fine, but it must be defined in the absense of any religious definition.

This is why I want the Government to do away with, ban, marriage and require everyone to get a civil union certificate. If you want to get married that fine, adn go to your church for it. But marriage does not give you those benefits that a civil union does.

[truthspeaker]

4. as a heterosexual I whole-heartedly agree!

[starroute]

5. No establishment of religion?

Frankly, marriage has always had an ambiguous status, as being both a civil/economic institution and, in most societies, also a religious one.

In this country, the ambiguity is particularly strong because of the no-establishment-of-religion clause. You can have either a civil marriage or a church wedding, and the government will accept either one for tax and similar purposes. But in some cases (such as gay marriage), you might have a church wedding that would not be accepted by the government. And there must be some religious denominations (or at least some parents) that will not accept a civil marriage as being married in the eyes of God.

But this ambiguity is one of those that only works if you don't look at it too closely. The more civil institutions you load onto marriage (tax status, child custody, medical visitation, inheritance, etc.), the more pressure there is for courts to determine that the equal-justice clause requires marriage to be available to everyone. But the moment you start trying to define marriage in terms of "sanctity," the less possible it is to justify the government granting it a privileged status.

It seems to me perfectly possible that an amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman would turn out to be as silly and ultimately irrelevant as whatever state law once tried to define pi as being equal to three. (Because that's what it says in the Bible!)

Once you define marriage as a sacred institution, the no-establishment-of-religion clause would seem to mean that the government can no longer perform marriages, and can no longer accept church-performed marriages as valid. Once you define marriage as a favored situation available only to certain couples, the equal-justice clause would seem to have the same effects.

So to get they result they want, the sanctity-of-marriage types would have to craft an amendment that specifically overruled both those clauses. And that might stick in the throats of even many people who would say, when polled, that they thought marriage was sacred.

Of course, IANAL, and I could be completely off base about this. I'd like to see what some real lawyers have to say about it.

[megatherium]

6. pi = 3 in Indiana (almost)

It was Indiana that tried to legislate the value of pi, in 1897. Some nutcase named Edwin J. Goodman, MD thought he'd "squared the circle" (an ancient geometry problem proved in 1880 to be impossible) and convinced the lower House to pass a resolution affirming his work. It would have become law but for a Professor Waldo of Purdue University, who set them straight. Actually, the resolution did not give the value of 3 for pi, it actually said pi was 3.2.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi Megatherium!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Sterling]

23. Where in the bible does it say pi is 3?

This is very interesting.

[Taeger]

7. A BIG stinking mess

Marriage is a direct derivative of English Common Law.

I know this is shaky. But tradition makes precedent. And if you want to destroy precedent, you must prove that there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

I do agree that the religious reich is being hypocritical on this issue. They preach against gays because they are "promiscuous". Yet, they deny gays the ability to enter into contracts of monogamy otherwise known as marriage.

I know that gays are probably celebrating the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. However, that decision has screwed things up royally. It's given more ammo to the conservatives. It also casts a shadow on a governments ability to regulate contracts between individuals because of "equal protection" issues (didn't think about that did they????). The Bush vs Gore issue half opened a can of worms. Now application of the equal protection clause will become universally applied to ANYTHING you want it to.

This is a BIG stinking mess and it has prompted a lot of moderate Massachusetts politicians to sign onto a constitutional amendment AGAINST gay marriage. Thats what you call a backlash.

This is why settling for gay civil unions is the best strategy. Oh, and BTW, do you think that the presidents gang of character assassins will use this against the liberal Kerry from the most "LIBERAL" state in the nation. You bet their ass it will!!! How much you wanna bet that Kerry had a hand in getting some of those Massachusetts Supreme Court judges appointed??????

They couldn't have picked A WORSE time to do this. This will threaten Democrats ability to retake the White House and a House of Congress. Now you will see gay marriage bans passed across ALL fifty states. Plus, with all the extra publicity, it will be HARDER to get Civil Union legislation passed!!! I dare say you will see constitutional amendments in some states banning even civil unions. You see what overplaying your hand accomplishes!!!!! Two steps forward, five steps back.

[maxsolomon]

9. i reluctantly agree

kerry, if he gets the nomination, should avoid this issue like the plague. i want to hear "we have more important issues" every time its brought up.

it is going to be the centerpiece of bush's campaign.

i agree with the ban marriage sentiment. i've been saying it ever since i first heard of gay marriage. civil or legal unions are the only thing the state has business approving, and there's nothing a lawyer's contract can't do that marriage can.

[LeahMira]

15. Enough with the waffling...

This is why settling for gay civil unions is the best strategy. Oh, and BTW, do you think that the presidents gang of character assassins will use this against the liberal Kerry from the most "LIBERAL" state in the nation. You bet their ass it will!!! How much you wanna bet that Kerry had a hand in getting some of those Massachusetts Supreme Court judges appointed??????

I don't think anyone wants to "settle for" when it comes to human rights.

I also don't think Democrats ought to let Republicans set the agenda of topics under discussion for the next election.

I do think that there will never be a "good time" to do what ought to be done. People say the same thing about a third party candidate... that this election is too important for a "spoiler" to take votes away from the Democrats, but I haven't heard anyone yet tell when it would be a "good time" for a third party, even though a lot of people applaud the idea of a third party. In the same way, I think there will never be a "good time" to affirm the equal human rights of people who are homosexual.

Quite honestly, I am getting a little tired of people who are afraid to do anything out of the fear that it might cost Democrats the election or people who are willing to compromise rights in order to get a few more votes (i.e. a poster who thinks Democrats ought to agree to criminalize abortions after the third trimester because it might remove the only stumbling block for other Democrats and a lot of Republicans to vote Democratic.)

OTOH, a lot of folks here are rooting for their favorite candidate because he offers a real change, or is not part of the "Washington Beltway" crowd, or because he hasn't taken donations from special interests, or because of some other reason. Well, dern it, make up your minds!

Personally, I think it's great that Massachusetts courts have decided as they have. It's one state, and all the rest of us can watch what happens in Massachusetts. If the "sanctity of marriage" falls apart, we all can learn from Massachusetts' mistakes, but if Massachusetts does no worse, or maybe does even better overall... even with legal same sex marriages, then the rest of us have no reason to be afraid of it.

I guess I just think that if you really stand for something, you stand for it all the time.

[maxsolomon]

16. i don't want gay marriage, frankly.

i think civil unions are fine, and i don't think straight people should be "married" by the state either.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. It's not one state

Other states are supposed to recognize laws passed in each state.

[Taeger]

20. Is it possible

Is it possible to celebrate progress, take what you can get and then lie low to avoid a backlash?

A law recognized civil union would be great progress. Right????

Do you have to have EVERYTHING NOW?????

This lawsuit will end up defeating you own cause. There will be a backlash from this that will echo throughout the land. Kerry will be harmed by this.

[loudnclear]

11. Actually we have had centuries of "heterosexual marriage" and dysfunction

within families reigns supreme. All the child abuse, dyfunction, illiteracy, and immorality has existed and flourished under a nation dominated by Christianity and conservatism. Go figure. :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

12. The Pick a Partner Solution

SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-04-04 11:56 AM
Original message
The "Pick a Partner" provision.. Time for the US to grow up


It's high time that the USA grew up.. Gay people exist..Get OVER it..

Churches that want to stamp God's special blessing on a union (their choice) could still do so.. The wedding industry will not go quietly into the night..

As long as employers "offer" special benefits to people who are "married" ...one of those benefits is that the "special" extends to that person's family.. If the employee is single , does he/she get "extra benefits" to compensate for the guy who has a wife and 5 kids?? Nope..

Here's a much simpler way for employers (and the govt) to approach this issue..

Pick a partner..

Each person OVER 18 could (totally voluntary) choose a person to be their "dependent/partner" call it waht you will..

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CALL IT A MARRIAGE AND NEEDS THE CHURCH'S BLESSING MAY DO SO.. This plan is the "keep-your-nose-out-of-my-life" plan..

As far as the legalities go, it's A person and A partner. The partner could be anyone..

Suppose a single person who is widowed, and chooses to live alone, has a sister who has no benefits....that person COULD legally file for "partnership status" and voila' Sis has insurance..

The partnership would have to be legally recognized and if dissolved, would also have to be legally handled..

What's the big deal anyway??

This might actually spur the govt to see that universal healthcare is part of the solution to so many problems..

[bleedingheart]

21. I like that plan although I would like to see a provision for kids

however that said I think that it sounds feasible...although to be honest I think that within about 4 years most of us will be self-insuring as big business sheds that responsibility...so in essence it will be a non-issue.

[Ilsa]

13. Ban heterosexual marriage? It might improve our sex lives! n/t

[stopbush]

14. The marriage "success rate" has improved to 57% in the USA

Still, would you buy a car if you knew that 43% of cars ended up self destructing?

[11 Bravo]

17. That would make * a "bastard"

both literally and figuratively.

[Faygo Kid]

19. Geez, where were you in 1976, 1983 and 1997?

Could have saved me a LOT of grief if you had banned marriage earlier. Thanks for nothing.