Which of the following would be acceptable?

[fillerbunny]

I chose option #1- equal civil marriage rights for both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

In reality, I could deal with options 1-3, but I have some personal issues with the latter two. #1 would be optimal, IMO.

 

[jayem]

I think you may have meant marriage penalty tax rate...

At least up to a certain income level, isn't there a lower rate if your filing status is married and filing a joint return? I thought the marriage penalty rate would only kick in at a higher AGI. But I could be mistaken.

But back to the thread: if marital status conferred no legal benefits, then for sure, tax rates should be the same, married or not.

 

[DrFate]

Replace the primitive corporate structure of marriage with the formation of modern corporations granting members of the corporate person all the rights and privleges that todays married couples enjoy.

 

[Mandrake]

I said 1 or 2, though it is, of course, a non-issue in Canada.

 

[outlaw]

Option #1

Equal rights for all means ALL…not just people Christians approve of.


I have never….NEVER… heard of a compelling or even logical reason why a minority should be legally discriminated against.

 

[outlaw]

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who wish to discriminate and deny equal protections to all citizens?

Exactly…

 

[KittyPryde]

There should be legal monogamous unions available to all couples (Tax rates, property, health insurance, family privledges, etc.).

Not being homosexual, I have no basis to argue the terminology of married vs. civil union. Legally, I would hope them to be considered synonymous.

Government should not be swayed by a religious agenda.
Just my 2 cents!

 

[outlaw]

That is an over-stated panic response.

See my State's constitution:

Michigan, Section 25 ~ Marriage
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.


It doesn't render ALL other legal contracts between two people void.

The state constitution of South Carolina expressly forbid: "marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto or a person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood."

State Constitution of South Carolina 1868 to 1998


"the legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro."
Constitution of Alabama 1872 to 1998



Proposed COnstiutional amendment:
"That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term 'negro or person of color,' as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood. "
Congressional Record, 62nd Congress, 3rd session, Dec. 11, 1912. Vol 49, p. 502


just because discrimination is spelled out in a state constitution does not mean that it is in adherence with the US constitution much less good or moral or just

 

[full_of_faith]

I chose no legal recognition whatsoever for same sex couples.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage

 

[KCDAD]

Option #1

Equal rights for all means ALL…not just people Christians approve of.


I have never….NEVER… heard of a compelling or even logical reason why a minority should be legally discriminated against.

The "discrimination" as you call it, is not against any minority at all, but I societal reward given to those social groups that help replace the the existing generation with the next... reproducing members of the species. Those that do this reproduction within legally sanctioned and protected corporations called marriages get certain societal rewards...

It is discrimination to decide to reward reward reproducers and not reward non-reproducers... but not in some great conspiracy and hate group way as you portray it.

 

[Nightson]

#1 or #2, perferably #1

 

[Stinker]

If the U.S. passed a Federal Amendment defining marriage as a civil union consisting of 2 or more people in legal contract to one another, what action (if any) would many churches take when these couples wanted to place membership with them?

 

[Moros]

Civil unions for all; marriage ceremonies for whoever. Marriage is little more than a government contract with a pair of suckers. I mean, lovers. Anyways, 'marriage' should be auxillary if at all.

 

[fillerbunny]

The "discrimination" as you call it, is not against any minority at all, but I societal reward given to those social groups that help replace the the existing generation with the next... reproducing members of the species. Those that do this reproduction within legally sanctioned and protected corporations called marriages get certain societal rewards...

It is discrimination to decide to reward reward reproducers and not reward non-reproducers... but not in some great conspiracy and hate group way as you portray it.

But this argument falls apart when one takes into account how many heterosexual couples either choose to remain childless or cannot for whatever reason bear children- and how many same-sex couples are now choosing to have children.

Not all heterosexuals are 'reproducers'.. nor are all homosexuals 'non-reproducers'. Even if marital benefits were simply to reward procreation, how is it not discriminatory to reward all heterosexual unions (including those that will never result in the production of offspring), while ignoring same-sex couples who have chosen to bear children?

 

[Brennin]

Can you tell me what legal reasons you have against same sex couples having access to legal rights that cover property, insurance, medical decisions, wills, power of attorney, children, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. ? Thanks.

I see no "compelling or even logical reason" for society to be forced to recognize or legitimize homosexual unions. "...[T]o claim that a right to engage in [gay 'marriage'] is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

 

[jayem]

I see no "compelling or even logical reason" for society to be forced to recognize or legitimize homosexual unions. "...[T]o claim that a right to engage in [gay 'marriage'] is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

Well, one very compelling reason may be that the law requires it. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has taken a lot of flak for ruling in favor of same sex marriages, but look at the wording of Article CVI of the state Constitution (which is the current version, replacing an earlier Article I):


Article CVI.
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

It clearly says that equality under the law shall not be abridged because of sex. I can see how a strict constructionist interpretation would hold that denying the legal benefit of marriage to a same sex couple is abridging equal treatment because of sex. I don't live in Mass., but I think the court had to rule the way it did. Other state constitutions may have similar language.

Which raises an interesting point--if people weren't afraid that equal protection clauses in state and the federal constitutions give no legal foundation for forbidding same sex marriage, then why would there be such a push to enact amendments limiting marriage to opposite sex persons?

 

[outlaw]

The "discrimination" as you call it, is not against any minority at all, but I societal reward given to those social groups that help replace the the existing generation with the next... reproducing members of the species. Those that do this reproduction within legally sanctioned and protected corporations called marriages get certain societal rewards...

Riiiight…and segregation had nothing to do with skin color.

 

[outlaw]

I see no "compelling or even logical reason" for society to be forced to recognize or legitimize homosexual unions. "...[T]o claim that a right to engage in [gay 'marriage'] is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

Similarly I see no "compelling or even logical reason" for society to be forced to accept prejudice and legitimize discrimination To claim that a right to engage in discrimination is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

 

[knightlight72]

Option #1

Equal rights for all means ALL…not just people Christians approve of.


I have never….NEVER… heard of a compelling or even logical reason why a minority should be legally discriminated against.

Here's one compelling argument that a minority should be discriminated against. I don't think adult men should be allowed to have sexual relations with young children.

Now should we discriminate against men who want to do that, or do you feel we should allow this?

Personally, even if you feel it is ok, I feel that I have succesfully shown a reason that groups of any size minority or not can be discriminated against.

 

[knightlight72]

Similarly I see no "compelling or even logical reason" for society to be forced to accept prejudice and legitimize discrimination To claim that a right to engage in discrimination is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

Just of note, the law of the USA shows your point isn't truth. Americans discriminate against criminals. I think they always should, and always will.