Gay Marriage

In fact, the "conservative" thing to do (that is to say, having as few laws as humanly possible, and the laws you do have be as simple and easy to comprehend as humanly possible) would be to support repeal of any laws that even mention "marriage" and leave it entirely up to individuals. In a conservative world, this wouldn't be an issue, because churches would be in charge of marriage and the state would be in charge of civil unions and if you wanted one or the other, you would go to the respective authority on the matter. This would include two heterosexuals getting a civil union. Inspecting your first link, a lot of this is government imposed. All the more reason to have as conservative a government as possible. A lot of stuff would be repealed on the authority of "less stuff on the books." This is what I mean when I say things like "the Government doesn't give rights, it just imposes on them." The rest is private entities which are free to do what they want with their own stuff (and be punished or rewarded accordingly by shareholders. If that means not giving benefits out, you can call them jerks, but that's hardly "wrong" or "immoral" for using their assets in a way precived to be best suited for them. Also, the Supreme Court's official standing on something and I have disagreed on a lot of issues. Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sandford and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius being some examples. Just saying. Civil Rights vs Human Rights and all. I tend to favor Human Rights, given the choice. We like to say "Civil Rights" because it has verbal impact and isn't as explicitly easy to pin down as a single sentence (it's all marketing). More often than not, it should classify as a privilege. More on this later. My stance is and has been that the Government should have no stance at all regarding marriage - straight or same-sex... or even incest, polygamy, bestiality or anything like that. It will get progressively harder for you to find a church that will honor some of the more extreme marriages, but the Government's official position on any kind of marriage should be to bury their heads in the sand (figuratively or literally as the situation requires) the asking party until gets bored and leaves. That would require repealing any laws and regulations that mention word "marriage" in them and starting them over (if need be) with terminology that doesn't reward, damage or impact on social contracts between people.

In fact, the "awesome" thing to do (that is to say, having as few laws as humanly possible, and the laws you do have be as simple and easy to comprehend, because I hate reading) would be to support repeal of any laws that even mention "marriage" and leave it entirely up to individuals. In an awesome world, this wouldn't be an issue due to my theocratic homologous society, because churches would be in charge of marriage (due to my own disbelief of separation of church and state ) and the state would be in charge of civil unions and if you wanted one or the other, you would go to the respective authority on the matter. That way churches and heathens can have fun with tax loopholes. Inspecting your first link, I quickly clicked X. All the more reason to have as awesome as a government as possible. A lot of stuff would be repealed on the authority of "my own disdain for reading." This is what I mean when I say things like "the Government doesn't give rights, it just writes very big words." The rest is private entities which are free to do what they want with their own stuff (and be punished or rewarded accordingly by themselves. If that means not giving benefits out, you can call them jerks, but that's hardly "wrong" or "immoral" for using their assets in a way to continue to impoverish already shitty poor people. Also, the Supreme Court's official standing on something and I have disagreed on a lot of issues. Biggie Smalls v. Tupac Shakur and Pepsi v. Coke and Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei v. Jews being some examples. Just saying. Civil Rights vs My Rights and all. I tend to favor My Rights, given the choice. We like to say "Civil Rights" because it has verbal impact and it isn't explicitly easy to understand its usage in a single sentence (it's all long words). More often than not, it should classify as a privilege. More on this later. My stance is and has been that the Government should have no stance at all regarding marriage - straight or same-sex... or even incest, polygamy, bestiality or anything that shamefully get's my cock hard. It will get progressively easier for you to find a church that will honor some of the more extreme marriages, but the Government's official position on any kind of marriage should be to bury their heads in the sand (figuratively or literally as the situation requires) the asking party until gets bored and leaves. That would require repealing any laws and regulations that mention word "marriage" in them and starting them over (if need be) with words that aren't confusing, big or in spanish on social contracts between people. We let corporate america handle that.

@Isaac, aside from National Federation, you're saying that you disagree with Supreme Court decisions that have already been overturned by more recent Supreme Court decisions. The separate but equal clause in Plessy v. Ferguson, which you say you disagree with, was overturned by Brown v. Board. The state will never give up marriage and make everything civil unions. There's no point in even advocating something like that. As the system currently is, civil unions would violate the precedent set by Brown v. Board because it would try to make separate things equal, which simply can't happen considering the power of tradition behind marriage.

What if it was aliens who gave us rights!? r-i-g-h-t 5 letters; a-l-i-e-n 5 letters If we associate letters on a number line from 1-26 we get these two columns. Alien Right 1 18 12 1 9 7 5 8 14 20 Which both added up to their individual sums 41 54 Which have a difference of 13 13 is the number of people present at the last super. Coincidence? Furthering this theory along, everyone at the last super was of the same sex. The length of the English alphabet is 26 characters long. 13 goes into 26, 2 times. 2 can be said to be a couple. 13 going into 26 is a form of numerical sodomy. Thus! Jesus was homosexual alien, who loved drinking wine at dinner parties. He was also a proponent of sodomy and same sex marriage.

@Isaac<br><br> <i>In fact, the "conservative" thing to do (that is to say, having as few laws as humanly possible, and the laws you do have be as simple and easy to comprehend as humanly possible) would be to support repeal of any laws that even mention "marriage" and leave it entirely up to individuals. In a conservative world, this wouldn't be an issue, because churches would be in charge of marriage and the state would be in charge of civil unions and if you wanted one or the other, you would go to the respective authority on the matter. This would include two heterosexuals getting a civil union.</i><br><br> There is nothing whatsoever "conservative" about this. It is about as radical a reimagining and upheaval of our society as you could propose.<br><br> And there are a number of fatal flaws in this extreme, dangerously oversimplified approach.<br><br> The biggest problem is that regardless of what you call it--marriage, civil unions, lifebonds, whatever--there still needs to be a government-regulated form of social contract for long-term couples in some form. What you advocate is essentially eliminating this social contract from law altogether. This is fantasy.<br><br> Society has a compelling interest in being able to officially recognize long-term committed relationships in this fashion. Without this, disputes over custody, inheritance, survivor's benefits, hospital and custodial visitation, spousal medical decisions, and countless other scenarios have no way to be fairly and authoritatively adjudicated.<br><br> A man is hurt and taken to the hospital. They are in a coma and can't make their own decisions. They have no living will. Another man shows up and claims to be the patient's husband. The patient's family refuses to acknowledge that marriage and demands that the hospital remove the man.<br><br> In your world, their marriage is between them and whoever married them, and has no legal meaning to the government. So how do you resolve this conflict? What happens if the hospital takes the husband's side and the family calls the police or sues, or vice-versa? What if the man really is just faking it? This is going to end up in the courts, and when it does, the court has to take a position on whether or not to recognize that the asserted relationship is valid.<br><br> The slew of laws and regulations which relate to marital status exists because at some point in time, somewhere, there was a need to sort out a situation like this. If we somehow magically wiped the slate of all of this messy legalese the way you would like, we would still eventually end up back at this point--we'd simply have to work through all of these issues all over again through the courts as they came up, and precedent and the need for legal consistency in handling these cases would do the rest.<br><br> The conservative utopia you envison simply cannot function in practice.

Ah yes.... the confusion and insults begin. Ever notice the more you talk about subject, the less the actual subject matter is discussed? Just more examples of examples of examples of reasons why a reason is valid.... Then stupidity under the guise of intelligence rules supreme!... sigh. M-M, have you been suited for your brown shirt yet? So lets break this down: 1) The government should have no say in who or what you marry. And yes, that should also include live stock and/or polygamy. Whether you agree with it OR not doesn't matter: YOU have the right to judge a situation upon your own personal merits: The government does not. 2) The main issue is the Legal repercussions that "marriage" grants, and those are are being denied these "rights" under the "law". This is 100% wrong under our current understanding/translation of the Constitution. While you have EVERY right to disagree with the issue, you have NO right to deny it to others. 3) Their are religious groups that dislike the term "marriage" being used to represent a Gay/lesbian union. WHILE I can understand their point, The decision to use "marriage" as a legal term under the LAW removed it from the realm of "religion", and into the realm of "government". This is called setting precedent, and a good lesson for EVERYONE involved. It's always nice to use words to get your way when you have the advantage: BUT keep in mind, they can be used against you when you are not. 4) The supreme court has very little to do with this issue. They do not write laws (that happens to be congresses job, learn your branches). What they do is actually view cases, which have gone through many lower courts and act as the final 'arbiter' on the issue based upon there translation of the constitution. 5) Hollingsworth v Perry's decision was scary for ONE reason. Remove the underlining issue and all of its passion from the discussion, and you have the supreme court over turning a referendum. Love it or hate it, this is a dangerous precipitant to set in my opinion. 5) All of the previous numbers mean absolutely nothing since it is as it always was: Both sides want a third party to step in and tell the other they are wrong; compromise is NOT on the table. These issues always devolve into a bickering mess, as idiots argue over propaganda, pundits point out the mistakes they make while ignoring there own, and the issue it self is lost in a sea of passion; when it could have easily been solved with a little logic.

I'm not sure why you would say "the supreme court has very little to do with this issue." The Supreme Court is essentially where constitutionality is determined. This very issue is entrenched in that. Also, the Supreme Court doesn't only deal with things that have gone through lower courts. Whether we like it or not some things need to be regulated. If the government has absolutely no say in marriage, there would undoubtedly be consequences for social foundation of our society. Whether you agree or disagree with the social foundation is a separate issue. I assume you don't think the child marriages in places like Yemen are a good thing. Guess what? Government regulation in the U.S. prevents that here. Also, someone else said that they don't care about incest. Well the health care system does. Incest = children with severe medical problems and a high burden on the health care system (you could abort, but that's a whole different issue). Also, sex with "live stock" is a good way to start a really bad epidemic.