The Hypocrisy of Anti-Gay Marriage Proposals

"Proposals": lol

Published on June 4, 2006 By Ionolast In Current Events

This morning on CNN, they asked viewers to email their opinions to the question: "Should there be a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?" One of the replies said, "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."

Excellent point.

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

Comments (Page 2)

Ionolast

on Jun 05, 2006

There should never have to be laws defining marriage as between man and woman.

Now that a woman has married a dolphin, I guess all bets are off.

TheGuyPC's comment has been deleted and he's been blacklisted. KB's response to him was deleted to avoid confusion.

Ionolast

on Jun 05, 2006

Should we have to define "walk" before we can put up "don't walk" signs

Maybe we will some day because of people in wheelchairs.

kingbee

on Jun 05, 2006

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...

i'm saying the government should recognize and license only civil unions. couples who wish to have their union consecrated, blessed, etc. by a cleric in the company of fellow believers would be free to do so. absent being signatories to a valid civil union certificate, however, partners would not qualify for any of the legal benefits you mention.

So, as far as the state is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with God, that is up to the spouses to decide.

if that were the case, we'd have better things to discuss.

what every so-called 'preservation of marriage' law or initiative i've read intends to do is define marriage as a union of one male and one female.

singrdave

on Jun 05, 2006

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.

You're forgetting common-law marriages, in joint property states. In Texas, I had cohabitating friends (with a child together) who filed their taxes jointly and were suddenly married. How romantic. In that case, the state never entered the picture until the forms were filled out.

Dr Guy

on Jun 05, 2006

Mark it on your calendar. I agree with kingbee here.

bakerstreet

on Jun 05, 2006

"i'm saying the government should recognize and license only civil unions. "

I agree with that, too. I think it will be considered a loss by everyone concerned, but to me it is the only way to make a decisions that won't drag itself from the grave in 5 or 10 years. If either side "wins", i.e. one side gets their amendment or the other gets their "Roe v. Wade" for gay marriage, there'll be constant pressure to turn back the clock from here on.

If we allow civil unions to gay people, then the churched will decide what "marriage" is, and the government will only have to see to the civil aspects of marriage, i.e. inheritance, etc, that gay people honestly deserve. The real stink is going to come from the insurance companies, if you ask me.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 05, 2006

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?)

You said it better than I could, kingbee. VERY well stated.

That's why I believe marriage should not be the domain of the government.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 05, 2006

"i'm saying the government should recognize and license only civil unions. "

But that doesn't address the problem at all. It merely changes the word. It's no different than Clinton whining on about what "is" is. We are still dealing with the fact that the government offers certain guarantees, yet so many people think the government has no place in their relationship....

Daiwa

on Jun 05, 2006

Somebody bring me some water.

This conservative agrees more or less completely with kingbee. The state has a legitimate role to play in licensing marriages and overseeing the consequences thereof (divorce, child welfare, etc.), but individuals should have the right to mutually decide who the partners will be. Beyond "punishing" same-sex couples for "not obeying the laws of God", I don't see the point of banning same-sex marriage or of inventing a new legal class of relationship. Paranoia on the religious right runs a little too deep on this issue, if I may be so bold. The claim that same-sex marriage will undermine or somehow destroy the nuclear family is a fundamentally empty argument. Us heteros have already taken care of that, I'm afraid.

bakerstreet

on Jun 05, 2006

"But that doesn't address the problem at all. It merely changes the word"

Apparently not, since a lot of Americans when polled seem to think that civil unions are tolerable but calling it "marriage" isn't. What kingbee is suggesting is giving a totally secular civil union status to everyone, and letting the 'marriage' thing be taken care of privately.

Chakgogka

on Jun 05, 2006

Apparently not, since a lot of Americans when polled seem to think that civil unions are tolerable but calling it "marriage" isn't.

And this is the interesting thing. The way that language works is that things often have official names, and then names that people use in more informal speech. It hardly matters in the end what a thing is officially called (so both sides are wasting a lot of energy); if same-sex couples are only officially allowed civil unions (with all the legal rights of inheritance etc that they want), but decide to call them marriages anyway, who is able to 'police' this use of language?

singrdave

on Jun 05, 2006

if same-sex couples are only officially allowed civil unions (with all the legal rights of inheritance etc that they want), but decide to call them marriages anyway, who is able to 'police' this use of language?

Because deep in their heart of hearts, the pro-marriage people would know that they won.

bakerstreet

on Jun 05, 2006

That's why I advocate civil unions for everyone and let the moral authorities deal with the moral issues. In the end, though, this is a state issue and the states should handle it. Marriage is not a right, and the 14th amendment shouldn't enter into it.

Chakgogka

on Jun 05, 2006

Because deep in their heart of hearts, the pro-marriage people would know that they won.

I agree with this. Trouble is both sides claim to be the pro-marriage people.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 06, 2006

Diawa:

but individuals should have the right to mutually decide who the partners will be. Beyond "punishing" same-sex couples for "not obeying the laws of God",

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem when the polygamists and intergenerational relationship organazations come to you for support?

If we are saying that marriage shouldn't be defined by traditional standards... what standards are we, as a society, willing to include in our quest for Tolerance uber alles?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!