hey...it's june. it's an election year. which means karl & his rove-bots gotta launch their next strategic sequence of state initiatives to bar same-sex marriage.

it's a great scam for as long as it lasts (at 10 states avg per 2 year cycle and, lessay, 30 states in which anything anti-gay can be expected to pull in more voters who can be expected to vote republican once they show up, this one's good to go thru 2008...possibly even 2010).

yeah, i can almost hear you saying, but it's not like a renewable resource. what about those states in which marriage is no longer threatened thanks to initiatives ensuring no mo can marry there no mo?

not to worry. they're ripe for an anti-gay adoption initiative--takin us to 2020, if implemented properly.

that whole federal constitutional amendment thing is the electoral equivalent of a carny sideshow barker and some shills warmin up the crowd.

whether they're the product of nurture or nature, gays are payin off bigtime for the gop.

who woulda thunk it?

"On a side note, marriage is not a right. It's a privilege. That's why a license is required"

I always thought the license being a requirement was just the governments way of garnering more money, It might be a priviledge, but who decided to charge for it?

It probably is hypocritical, but then so are a lot of laws when it comes right down to it. We don't need a gay marriage amendment. It is only being pondered as a way to overcome a runaway court system that is poised at some point to shove it down our throats.

The core issue here is that if one state allows it, and another doesn't, crusaders for the issue have an immediate 14th amendment case, and they WILL eventually win. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, we should be seeing the heinous way many positive changes from the civil war era can be abused to overcome democratic rule.

People in Vermont should not be able to impose their will on the people in another state. All activists need to do is find judges that accept their view that a given issue is a "right" and they can. No one state can deny fundamental rights that other states guarentee. The awful truth is that when they loaded that gun after the Civil War, they couldn't have imagined what we would be considering "rights" today...

State governments should have the right to regulate the licenses they issue without imposition from other states. That's just a fact, and we don't need an amendment to ensure it, the Consitution already does. Unfortunately the big hole in it is the ability of our robed overlords to stamp anything they like with the label "Fundamental Right".

"People who want to ban gay marriage say it's to protect families and children. I would believe them if there was a ban on rapists, child molesters and wife beaters getting married."

Sure, who would not agree. Now identify them.

Sure, who would not agree. Now identify them.

Not a problem in some cases.

I had a problem with your terming of marriage as a privilege, but I thought about it, and you're right. I inititally erased what I was going to say. It is most DEFINITELY a privilege.

The problem is, though, it is a privilege granted by the other party(ies) in a marriage, not by the government. I should be able to marry any consenting adult I wish to marry, and so should you, without the government's intervention.

Not a problem in some cases.

Those convicted.  But before conviction, how do you prevent them from marrying before conviction?

"The problem is, though, it is a privilege granted by the other party(ies) in a marriage, not by the government. I should be able to marry any consenting adult I wish to marry, and so should you, without the government's intervention."

No Gid. A marriage license is issued by the state to those who meet the state requirements. Saying that marriage is a priviledge not granted by the government is like saying a drivers license is a priviledge not granted by the government, or a business license, and on and one.

I have no problem with gay people marrying one another in their churches and making their vows to one another, and honestly if the people of any state want to license that officially they have the right to do so. I think it is a much more heinous abuse of our rights to tell us that we have to ask the permission of voters or courts on the other side of the country to pass our state laws.

There are laws against rape, molesting and beating one's wife.... and should be laws against gay marriage. I will only support a legal contract between gays.... any thing more is wrong.

is like saying a drivers license is a priviledge not granted by the government,

what's being licensed--in the sense of registration and regulation--by the government in this instance is a contract.

if you're gonna take the position marriage is a sacred religious rite, it should no more be subject to that type of oversight than a bar mitzvah nor baptism. in that case, it should be performed--and terminated--by a cleric.

if, on the other hand, the process is subject to state oversight and approval, i'm not aware of any basis by which citizens can be legally denied participation. (it occurs to me all taxpayers subsidize administrative costs associated with marriage and divorce actions; perhaps license fees should be increased and those who aren't able or choose not to avail themselves of those functions recieve some sorta refund?)

"if, on the other hand, the process is subject to state oversight and approval, i'm not aware of any basis by which citizens can be legally denied participation."

Being related to different degrees in some states, first or second cousins, etc. There are states that still require a blood test. You have to have a social security number in most states I think. You can't be married to anyone else, and divorces must be final. There's a waiting period in some states, believe it or not. And once you get the license in most states, if not all, you have to have a ceremony officiated either by a clergyman or a justice of the peace, and the license expires within a certain amount of time if you haven't.

They are loose regulations, but they are regulations nonetheless, meaning that marriage is a regulated state. The fact that 'opposite sex' isn't there is because it was unfathomable to previous generations that no one would suggest doing it with a straight face.

It all comes down to the fact that most people look at marriage as an institution between two people. Hoever, it isn't. It is an institution between two people and the state.

If marriage was simply between two people then there would be no quarantees of anything for the spouse or the kids. If your spouse dies, you automatically have claim to all their property that is not willed to somone else. Is that a product of the love shared between the spouses? No. It is a product of the fact that government IS part of the marriage contract.

People say that the government shouldn't have any say in the marriage contract, they should just license the marriage and remain silent. I'll ask this...

How many contracts would YOU enter into if the first requirement is that you have no say in the contract?

There are just some things you never thought would have to be so strictly defined. There should never have to be laws defining marriage as between man and woman. The very word means that. What next, we'll have to define the word "run" before any person can ever run for office again? Should we have to define "walk" before we can put up "don't walk" signs... should we have to define "dont"?

Talk about a nanny state. As soon as a completely infantile president made the innane defense that challenged the definition of the word "is", we should have known that stupidity was the order of the day.

It is only the infantile who need everything explained to them is so much detail. No, Marriage shouldn't have to be defined anymore than the word "homosexual" should have to be. Words mean things. Only those who need their hand held through ALL phases of their existance in order to cope in society need such babysitting.

In other words... if a person doesn't understand what the word "marriage" means, they are probably too infantile to qualify to enter into the contract anyway.

They are loose regulations, but they are regulations nonetheless, meaning that marriage is a regulated state.

of course it is.

The fact that 'opposite sex' isn't there is because it was unfathomable to previous generations that no one would suggest doing it with a straight face

i'll have to check but i'm guessing there once were no provisions in some--if not all--states for licensing or certifying females (possibly males as well) to practice professions for exactly the same reason.

not that long ago, we coulda spent a lil time clerking for a local attorney before moving on to another town to begin lawyering as a career.

People say that the government shouldn't have any say in the marriage contract, they should just license the marriage and remain silent.

you're missing the point entirely. government shouldn't have a role in religous rites & rituals nor any authority to bar or permit participation. on the other hand, government can--and does--register, regulate and enforce certain contracts without regard to the sex, ethnicity, etc. of the parties involved.

defining marriage is exactly what's required to resolve the issue.

Kingbee:

you're missing the point entirely. government shouldn't have a role in religous rites & rituals nor any authority to bar or permit participation. on the other hand, government can--and does--register, regulate and enforce certain contracts without regard to the sex, ethnicity, etc. of the parties involved. defining marriage is exactly what's required to resolve the issue.

The government role in marriage has nothing to do with religion. If you are saying the government should have no role in marriage then there should be no divorce court, no automatic recognition of spouse or offspring for insurance, disposition of property or even visitation rights. No judge should be able to tell either former spouse how much they have to pay each month in alimony or child support...

You can't have it both ways. If the state has no business being involved in marriage, then no judge, social worker, elected official (or any other agent of any level of government should have any place in the marriage contract.

The fact is, while my religious beliefs include the concept that my marriage is blessed by God, the state doesn't care one way or the other. So, as far as the state is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with God, that is up to the spouses to decide.