Which of the following would be acceptable?

[ChristianCenturion]

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

Show me a current government that recognized EVERY model of marriage possible. IOW - drop the rhetoric and misapplication of "equal".

 

[Caylin]

They will be in my state.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

That means wills, powers of attorney, medicial decisions, joint property ownership, anything that gives the appearance of couplehood, etc,.... all the legal documents that gay and lesbian couples have now and have had to go through a lawyer to get can be challanged and deemed null and void under this law.

Same thing in Texas recently. Any and all contracts that approximate marrige are illegal now.

 

[Maize]

That is an over-stated panic response.

Every lawyer I've talked to disagrees with you. It's going to open the flood gates to same sex couple's legal documents being ignored and overturned.

 

[Maize]

Show me a current government that recognized EVERY model of marriage possible. IOW - drop the rhetoric and misapplication of "equal".

Same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts.

 

[jayem]

It's just different terminology because I've had many people tell me they are not against equal rights, but have issues with calling it marriage. I'm trying to give them an appropriate option to choose.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

But as the Bard said, "What's in a name?" Does any state recognize a purely religious marriage? That is, would any couple be considered married if they had only a religious ceremony, without a marriage license? Some states may have a common-law exception, but AFAIK, those can be subject to challenge. All government recognized marriage, in the legal sense, is a civil marriage. And I just don't see any compelling reason for denying this to same-sex couples.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Well, if pointing at a proven state isn't good enough and people wish to cling to their slipper-slope arguments, who am I to argue with them?

 

[Maize]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

But as the Bard said, "What's in a name?" Does any state recognize a purely religious marriage? That is, would any couple be considered married if they had only a religious ceremony, without a marriage license?

No. Civil marriage (or civil unions) is separate from religious marriage ceremonies. You can have a religious ceremony now (indeed many same sex couples do in welcoming churches) but it is not recognized by the government unless you sign that piece of paper, which of course same sex couples are denied.

 

[Maize]

Same thing in Texas recently. Any and all contracts that approximate marrige are illegal now.

And in Ohio their amendment has been used even against straight couples who are not married. Domestic abuse charges against men beating up their girlfriends have been thrown out of court, citing the marriage amendment (which was intended only to hurt gays and lesbians, but has proven to have much farther reaching consequences once it was put into practice).

 

[KCDAD]

NO marriage, no benefits, no inheritance, no civil unions.

You want power of attorney, fine
You want a will, fine.

Either choose your mates carefully or not at all.

 

[Maize]

NO marriage, no benefits, no inheritance, no civil unions.

Why should the goverment treat your family and children differently than mine? What does it gain from doing that? What do you gain from our being treated as second-class citizens and being denied legal protections?

Either choose your mates carefully or not at all.

We choose just as well as heterosexuals do (or don't).

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts.

And?
That only proves my point, I said ALL.
Apparently, you are unaware of how many types of marriage are possible ~ a brief sampling.

 

[Maize]

And?
That only proves my point, I said ALL.
Apparently, you are unaware of how many types of marriage are possible ~ a brief sampling.

And?

I thought we were talking about marriage rights for same sex couples..... if you want to talk about all types of marriages, be my guest, but that's not the topic of this discussion.

 

[Rae]

Only 1 and 2. History has shown in the United States that "separate but equal" is not equal. Or, as Dave Barry says in his book Dave Barry Slept Here (paraphrased from memory), "Under separate but equal, black people had Separate facilities that were Equal to the facilities white people used for their domestic animals."

No thanks. Either true equality, or let's show it for what it is, immoral discrimination against good people. None of this "it's really the same, but it's different" nonsense.

 

[KCDAD]

Why should the goverment treat your family and children differently than mine? What does it gain from doing that? What do you gain from our being treated as second-class citizens and being denied legal protections?


We choose just as well as heterosexuals do (or don't).

Whoa there turbo... don't get all militant with me. Did I say no marriage for gays? I said no marriage period. NO benefits for anyone for living with someone, legal or otherwise.

 

[Maize]

Whoa there turbo... don't get all militant with me. Did I say no marriage for gays? I said no marriage period. NO benefits for anyone for living with someone, legal or otherwise.

I apologize. My defenses are always up on this forum. (Thus why I don't come here very often, not good for my blood pressure).

You have an interesting idea. How do you think it would go over in the public?

 

[KCDAD]

I apologize. My defenses are always up on this forum. (Thus why I don't come here very often, not good for my blood pressure).

You have an interesting idea. How do you think it would go over in the public?

well, for centuries it was the only way things were... marriage was initiated to protect property... since wives are no longer property (in this culture)... what's the point?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Only 1 and 2. History has shown in the United States that "separate but equal" is not equal. Or, as Dave Barry says in his book Dave Barry Slept Here (paraphrased from memory), "Under separate but equal, black people had Separate facilities that were Equal to the facilities white people used for their domestic animals."

No thanks. Either true equality, or let's show it for what it is, immoral discrimination against good people. None of this "it's really the same, but it's different" nonsense.

Ah, the old aggression of the minority tactic.
No need to plead a case when one can threaten the majority with "either give us our demands or we will vilify you."

 

[jayem]

NO marriage, no benefits, no inheritance, no civil unions.

You want power of attorney, fine
You want a will, fine.

Either choose your mates carefully or not at all.

I agree, an interesting idea. It would be a definite incentive to plan one's affairs carefully. Everything now taken for granted by being married would need to be explicitly specified by contract. So if a man and woman were planning a life together, they'd need to state in writing things like possession and control of assets, child custody, decision making if one partner should be incapacitated, inheritance, eligibility to receive employment/insurance/social security benefits, etc.
It sounds like a full employment act for lawyers. I also suppose there would also be no reduced tax rates for "married" couples filing jointly.

Very interesting concept, but I think it's a little too radical for now.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

... I also suppose there would also be no reduced tax rates for "married" couples filing jointly...

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

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Please take a few minutes to include the required citations in your posts. This thread will be reviewed in 24 hours and posts that don't include citaitons will be removed.

4.2 You will restrict any posts about the following controversial topics to the Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums, or any subforums in the Congregation/Recovery section:
a. drug use.
b. gambling.
c. polygamy.
d. extramarital sexual activity.
e. abortion.
f. homosexuality.
g. transsexuality.
This site uses the scriptural definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman. In addition, the debate of the morality of the above topics must be backed by evidence complete with citations. Standard citations are acceptable but links are preferred. The above topics are also disallowed in profile entries including avatars and signatures as these are not intended to be used in such a manner.

MOD HAT OFF