US gay marriage ban: US government drops defence of law

[CorinneV]

This is my reply to Emperor Napoleon. All married couples benefit from Social Security. One partner usually dies before the other. the surviving spouse is eligible for social security benefits, based on the other partner’s work history, whether the surviving spouse worked or not. This is justice if the surviving spouse is a mom who raised her kids, this is not justice if the survivng spouse in a gay person who just sat home.

 

[CorinneV]

This is my reply to Scott Lafrance. Gay couples have access to all of the civil benefits of marriage, except for employer health insurance for a dependent spouse, and Social Security for a dependent spouse, and being accepted as normal by society. Any other right or benefit can be created between any two people by legal means other than marriage. Gay ‘marriages’ are not and will never be normal, and they cannot legislate gayness into normalcy. Gay couples do not need the financial benefits for dependent spouses, they just want those financial benefits.
If gay couples sincerely want to have stable relationships, there is nothing preventing them from having stable relationships without ‘gay marriage’, except for their own emotional and spiritual illness.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This is my reply to Scott Lafrance. Gay couples have access to all of the civil benefits of marriage, except for employer health insurance for a dependent spouse, and Social Security for a dependent spouse, and being accepted as normal by society. Any other right or benefit can be created between any two people by legal means other than marriage. Gay ‘marriages’ are not and will never be normal, and they cannot legislate gayness into normalcy. Gay couples do not need the financial benefits for dependent spouses, they just want those financial benefits.
If gay couples sincerely want to have stable relationships, there is nothing preventing them from having stable relationships without ‘gay marriage’, except for their own emotional and spiritual illness.

I agree. Have I indicated differently?

 

[Tigg]

It would be difficult for the churches to maintain a view of marriage that is contrary to to that of the state, if the state decides that same sex “marriages” are just as valid as authenic marriages.

Difficult yes, in fact, many Catholic clerics may find themselves jailed sometime in the near future, but don’t expect the Catholic church to capitulate, which it will never do.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Again I ask, why is the US Federal Government in the business of determining who and what can enter into a social contract with each other?

 

[iamrefreshed]

So will brother be able to marry sister?

I mean, two consenting adults and all that nonsense.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So will brother be able to marry sister?

I mean, two consenting adults and all that nonsense.

I would drop the term “marry”. Would a brother be able to enter into a social contract with his sister. Sure. You assume that just because the state won’t extend this title of “married” to a pair of individuals means it will stop their behavior.

Giving this state endorsed title of “marriage” gives platform to certain groups to go after organizations like the Catholic Church for refusing to “marry” them. I am just waiting for the time when smae sex marriage is universally accepted, and Frank and Steve go to their local Catholic Church and demand that they be married there, because it is “legal”, and then the church get brought up on charges for obstruction of justice.

GET THE STATE OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS ALTOGETHER.

 

[TMC]

Again I ask, why is the US Federal Government in the business of determining who and what can enter into a social contract with each other?

Perhaps the federal government should not be, but it is, in part because government action is required to enforce social contracts. Right now, the federal government is refusing to enforce certain social contracts created and enforced by state governments. The Obama administration says that is unconstitutional. I agree, and I can’t see why Federalist-, small government- and libertarian-conservatives don’t also agree.

 

[jilly4ski]

Again I ask, why is the US Federal Government in the business of determining who and what can enter into a social contract with each other?

Governments and states do it all the time. Minors cannot enter into contracts, if you are incompetent you can’t enter into contracts, etc. (Though I believe that out of all the different kind of contractual relations, marriage requires the least amount of competence).

Since entering into a marriage gives one access to certain federal “perks” the federal government found it wise to restrict who could enter into that contract thus have access to the “perks.” The federal gov gives tax benefits, social security, etc. to a man and woman and because that marriage benefit society (children). These benefits make marriage more financially stable, thus making them even better for society.

But since the purpose was to help families they restricted it to one man and one woman (who were not related too closely) who are competent adults to receive the benefits. Because giving the benefits to 2 men, 2 women, or just 2 of anybody that came along and wanted the benefits seemed to defeat the purpose.

 

[TMC]

I would drop the term “marry”. Would a brother be able to enter into a social contract with his sister. Sure. You assume that just because the state won’t extend this title of “married” to a pair of individuals means it will stop their behavior.

Giving this state endorsed title of “marriage” gives platform to certain groups to go after organizations like the Catholic Church for refusing to “marry” them. I am just waiting for the time when smae sex marriage is universally accepted, and Frank and Steve go to their local Catholic Church and demand that they be married there, because it is “legal”, and then the church get brought up on charges for obstruction of justice.

GET THE STATE OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS ALTOGETHER.

I have no problem with your argument that the state should get out of the marriage business, but there is no reason to think that the Catholic Church would ever be forced to marry two people the Church did not want to marry. The Church refuses to marry people for reasons of its own all the time, and there has never even been an attempt to change that. Many religions have marriage rules that would be found discriminatory if applied in a secular setting. None have ever been challenged, and there would be no basis for doing so.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Perhaps the federal government should not be, but it is, in part because government action is required to enforce social contracts. Right now, the federal government is refusing to enforce certain social contracts created and enforced by state governments. The Obama administration says that is unconstitutional. I agree, and I can’t see why Federalist-, small government- and libertarian-conservatives don’t also agree.

A contract is a contract. The federal government should no be in the business of stipulating who can enter into a contract and who cannot, with some reservations that apply to all contract law, such as the mental capacity of one of the parties, age of contract (usually 18 years ), duress, etc…

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have no problem with your argument that the state should get out of the marriage business, but there is no reason to think that the Catholic Church would ever be forced to marry two people the Church did not want to marry. The Church refuses to marry people for reasons of its own all the time, and there has never even been an attempt to change that. Many religions have marriage rules that would be found discriminatory if applied in a secular setting. None have ever been challenged, and there would be no basis for doing so.

There have been attempts in Canada at suing churches for hate speech for declaring from the pulpit that homosexuality is sinful. I am not saying that it will happen. I am just indicating that there is a door there that could be opened.

 

[vsedriver]

The problem is marriage is not respected by a great many so-called Christians today. Destinations Weddings, civil weddings, justice of peace, searching for the “perfect” looking Church, etc…they all are being used more often than true sacramental marriage.

add to that the numerous reality tv shows that cheapening marriage such as the bachelor and bridezilla. It’s reduced to nothing more than a woman centered all out party bash.

easy divorces and the removal of shame of a divorce have also reduced the respect for marriage.

 

[TMC]

A contract is a contract. The federal government should no be in the business of stipulating who can enter into a contract and who cannot, with some reservations that apply to all contract law, such as the mental capacity of one of the parties, age of contract (usually 18 years ), duress, etc…

Hence the problem with DOMA Section 3, which provides that the federal government will not recognize or enforce certain social contracts which are recognized and enforced by the states.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Hence the problem with DOMA Section 3, which provides that the federal government will not recognize or enforce certain social contracts which are recognized and enforced by the states.

Which goes back to my original point. We need to stop calling it marriage. Leave that to the churches.

 

[CorinneV]

I agree. Have I indicated differently?

I also agree with everything in your post, except that you did not include that gays are motivated to be eligible for financial benefits that are only available to normal married people. I heartily agree with you that gays do not need the status of marriage to maintain a stable partnership. They are, now, able to create contracts to share property, and share health information. I hope that I am clearer now.

 

[irishpatrick]

add to that the numerous reality tv shows that cheapening marriage such as the bachelor and bridezilla. It’s reduced to nothing more than a woman centered all out party bash.

easy divorces and the removal of shame of a divorce have also reduced the respect for marriage.

I agree…and the man bashing that now happens routinely does nothing good for marriage, fathers, children or our culture. Funny how back when women were treated unfairly and they rightly screamed to makes thing more fair–that attitude does not seem to extend to men today (shoe on the other foot syndrome).