Jon Stewart in High Form-

[Met Income]

Marriage can not be privatized unless it is contracted out out to each individual justice of the peace or religious group for profit.

Marriage must be definded as a moral concept with moral grounds (which is a consensus of opinion amongst those willing to hold forth as moral authorities) ; or a political concept with political and and legal rights. If there are those who want to have it both ways they must realize that morality is not enforcable in a court of law.

For decades there has been religious mariage with religious courts (notably Jewish and Catholic) that have granted religious marriage and divorce.

Civil requirements for marriage are different. This has also been true for decades.
What we need to do is clarify the rights, priveleges, and procedures for both legal and civil marriage and apply constitutional law to civil procedure and religious law to religious procedure.

Why on earth is this such a difficult subject for people to understand?

We just need to let people do their non-violent thing and for the State to get out of the way.

 

[Stary Hickory]

We just need to let people do their non-violent thing and for the State to get out of the way.

You did not even answer his response. Gay activists are agitating for government force against the concept of religous marriage. It's not the role of government, among many things, to get involved in this and resolve it via the use of force.

 

[kathy88]

government has no business being involved in marriage whatsoever, whether to allow or to disallow. Likewise, the idea that married people should be taxed at a different rate than single people is repugnant, and likely creates more divorces than it creates successful marriages. Government should not even recognize that marriage exists whatsoever. Government only first got involved in licensing marriage during reconstruction after the civil war in an attempt to prevent interracial marriages. The practice of government licensing marriages is a holdover from the original form of segregation, and it needs to be done away with.

exactly.

 

[teacherone]

You did not even answer his response. Gay activists are agitating for government force against the concept of religous marriage. It's not the role of government, among many things, to get involved in this and resolve it via the use of force.

my god you are daft....

the government is and always will be involved in certifying marriages for a variety of legal functions.

anyone in love and wanting to marry their partner and receive equal recognition under the law must go through the official legal system in order to do so.

ranting about the "proper role of government" won't get them anywhere.

 

[teacherone]

Hate to be the one to 'stir the puddin' here but gays DO have the same rights as the rest of us. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like me. If I tried to marry a dude it would be just as illegal as if a gay did it. Now hold on. I personally think they should be able to avail themselves of the same legal benefits as the rest of us. Maybe they should start by framing the arguement in a way that dos not defy legal logic?

my god...did you get lost on the way to special ed?

you don't have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. you have the right to marry someone you love and are attracted to.

gay people are not attracted to members of the opposite sex, nor do they fall in love with them. so yeah...they DONT have the same rights you do.

just because you see plenty of straight people married to un-attractive spouses they no longer love doesn't mean that gay people should be forced into the same situation. besides...usually it takes at least a year till your spouse gets fat and you stop loving them.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Government shouldn't be in charge of marriage.

That I am totally fine with. But as long as they are involved I don't want them supporting a perversion.

 

[BlackTerrel]

you are so right! and black people--they shouldn't be able to vote, own property, or be educated either.

black people can be black all they want. but i believe that citezanry is reserved for whites only. one drop is one too many!




before i get banned please note that the above was pure irony.

Honestly I hate when people try to make this comparison. The two issues are not even close to the same thing.

 

[teacherone]

Honestly I hate when people try to make this comparison. The two issues are not even close to the same thing.

lol... they are exactly the same-- equal recognition of intrinsic rights. sad a minority carrying a heritage of oppression wants to oppress others.

typical human behavior really...

but I thought we were the "Liberty"movement.

 

[someperson]

No group has a "right to marriage." Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Absent coercion, individuals have the right to voluntarily associate with anyone for any reason. These individuals can call their association a company, a family, a flock, a chess club, a herd, a married couple... it matters not. If a set of individuals wish to draft a contract for shared property ownership, end-of-life terms, etc., they can go right ahead; it's no business of the state or any other individual.

Reject collectivist false dichotomies.

 

[teacherone]

No group has a "right to marriage." Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Absent coercion, individuals have the right to voluntarily associate with anyone for any reason. These individuals can call their association a company, a family, a flock, a chess club, a herd, a married couple... it matters not. If a set of individuals wish to draft a contract for shared property ownership, end-of-life terms, etc., they can go right ahead; it's no business of the state or any other individual.

Reject collectivist false dichotomies.

unfortunately we do not live in a libertarian utopia so the above rant while full of pretty words is completely meaningless.

as of now, individuals wishing to marry the partner of their choice are being denied this right/privilege. their only recourse is legal and political action in the reality they live in.

 

[someperson]

No group has a "right to marriage." Groups have no rights. Only individuals have rights. Absent coercion, individuals have the right to voluntarily associate with anyone for any reason. These individuals can call their association a company, a family, a flock, a chess club, a herd, a married couple... it matters not. If a set of individuals wish to draft a contract for shared property ownership, end-of-life terms, etc., they can go right ahead; it's no business of the state or any other individual.

Reject collectivist false dichotomies.

unfortunately we do not live in a libertarian utopia so the above rant while full of pretty words is completely meaningless.

as of now, individuals wishing to marry the partner of their choice are being denied this right/privilege. their only recourse is legal and political action in the reality they live in.

I hope it's not completely meaningless, but you're right. I believe that elimination of marriage as a state function should be the goal of any political activity, regarding this issue.

 

[RyanRSheets]

I do believe that marriage means a man and a woman.

That's perfectly fine. I agree that ultimately marriage should be between a man and a woman, but just like other situations where something should happen, I oppose the use of force to make it happen. Homosexuals can call themselves married all they want. It does me no harm. I'm not going to go out and promote it, nor will I protest it, because it's none of my business. It's none of my business what happens in anyone's bedroom but my own.

 

[BlackTerrel]

lol... they are exactly the same-- equal recognition of intrinsic rights. sad a minority carrying a heritage of oppression wants to oppress others.

typical human behavior really...

but I thought we were the "Liberty"movement.

How are gay people being oppressed? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. Is a guy who wants to marry his sister oppressed as well?

 

[Met Income]

How are gay people being oppressed? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. Is a guy who wants to marry his sister oppressed as well?

They are being denied the ability to legally marry another person. The government has no place in this business.

 

[Met Income]

Honestly I hate when people try to make this comparison. The two issues are not even close to the same thing.

How?

 

[Met Income]

You did not even answer his response. Gay activists are agitating for government force against the concept of religous marriage. It's not the role of government, among many things, to get involved in this and resolve it via the use of force.

I agree the best solution is to have the government out of the marriage business.

That being said, legalizing gay marriage is much better than the status quo.

 

[2young2vote]

I believe that marriage is not something the government should do. I believe it is a religious thing only so it should be left to the churches to marry people. If it were only the churches then there wouldn't be this debate.

 

[Met Income]

I believe that marriage is not something the government should do. I believe it is a religious thing only so it should be left to the churches to marry people. If it were only the churches then there wouldn't be this debate.

What does that mean, only in churches?

 

[BlackTerrel]

They are being denied the ability to legally marry another person. The government has no place in this business.

You said they were oppressed. Is a guy who can't legally marry his sister oppressed as well.

I would agree 100% with getting the government out of marriage - but that's a separate issue because as of now they are involved in marriage.

 

[Met Income]

You said they were oppressed. Is a guy who can't legally marry his sister oppressed as well.

I would agree 100% with getting the government out of marriage - but that's a separate issue because as of now they are involved in marriage.

They are oppressed because they are denied the ability to marry. Who are we to deny voluntary transactions? What other people do shouldn't matter to you.