|
|
#1
11-01-2005, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
but only because I don't think the government should be involved in ANY marriages.
|
|
#2
11-01-2005, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
[ QUOTE ]
but only because I don't think the government should be involved in ANY marriages. [/ QUOTE ] So what happens when a "married" man dies without a will. How is it determined that his wife gets his property without the government recognizing their marriage? Or what if a man is being tried for a crime in a court and the prosecutor want to call his wife to the stand. Should the marriage privilege not apply because the state doesn't recognize marriages. Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business.
|
|
#3
11-01-2005, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
[ QUOTE ]
Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business. [/ QUOTE ] No it's not that hard. People make private contracts outside of the government all the time.
|
|
#4
11-01-2005, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business. [/ QUOTE ] No it's not that hard. People make private contracts outside of the government all the time. [/ QUOTE ] Not all of the legal implications of marriage can be replaced by private contracts. Examples: The right of a spouse not to testify against his or her spouse in court The right of a spouse to sue for the death of his or her spouse The rate at which people's incomes are taxed based on whether or not they are married Issues relating to the custody of children
|
|
#5
11-01-2005, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
legal marragies are a necessary part of the governemnt.
|
|
#6
11-01-2005, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
[ QUOTE ]
Not all of the legal implications of marriage can be replaced by private contracts. Examples: The right of a spouse not to testify against his or her spouse in court The right of a spouse to sue for the death of his or her spouse The rate at which people's incomes are taxed based on whether or not they are married Issues relating to the custody of children [/ QUOTE ] Marriage is nothing but a contract -- some people would simply like to remove the State as a party to the contract. Except for the tax issue (which wouldn't be an issue if gov't took a neutral stance on marriage), all of these issues could be addressed by traditional marriage. In the absence of a legal contract, your church has rules. If you have no church, then write a contract.
|
|
#7
11-01-2005, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
[ QUOTE ]
Marriage is nothing but a contract [/ QUOTE ] Simply not true. Marriage is, in part, similar to a contract. [ QUOTE ] Except for the tax issue (which wouldn't be an issue if gov't took a neutral stance on marriage), all of these issues could be addressed by traditional marriage. In the absence of a legal contract, your church has rules. If you have no church, then write a contract. [/ QUOTE ] I am having a really hard time understanding your points here, but only to the extent that the government recognizes a change of status can certain rights related to marriage be conferred. The change in status is what makes marriage different from a contract. I think a better analogy is maybe some sort of business entity. People can make a contract to create a certain type of business, but that business type (partnership, limited partnership, corporation, etc.) only has teeth because of the government's recognition of the business type and the govenment's decision to confer certain rights/responsibilities upon it.
|
|
#8
11-01-2005, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
[ QUOTE ] I think a better analogy is maybe some sort of business entity. People can make a contract to create a certain type of business, but that business type (partnership, limited partnership, corporation, etc.) only has teeth because of the government's recognition of the business type and the govenment's decision to confer certain rights/responsibilities upon it. [/ QUOTE ] bingo. You simply can not remove the government as a party in something like this and expect it to work (especially in the case of testifying in court). This is exactly why all people should be allowed to marry with regards to the state. (Why should a gay man have less protection in court than a straight man if his partner is called to testify against him? Maybe we should say that people with more than a million dollars can't get married... bet you that would piss off a lot of rich people who have to pay more taxes.) If you are a bigot feel free to marry in your own church seperate from a government marriage to show your opposition to gay marraige.
|
|
#9
11-01-2005, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Saying that the government should not be involved in marriages is not as easy a solution as it sounds. The fact is that there are so many legal implications of being married (many of which most people agree with, like the right to inherit a spouse's property, etc.) that the government cannot simply divorce itself (pun intended) from the marriage business. [/ QUOTE ] No it's not that hard. People make private contracts outside of the government all the time. [/ QUOTE ] Not all of the legal implications of marriage can be replaced by private contracts. Examples: The right of a spouse not to testify against his or her spouse in court one reason why it shouldn't be involved. No one should have the right of being an accomplice of another. Should parents have this right too? Children? The right of a spouse to sue for the death of his or her spouse Families do this all the time. Ask the Brown family who sued OJ. The rate at which people's incomes are taxed based on whether or not they are married Another bad reason that should be abandoned Issues relating to the custody of children You have to be married to have children? This is not unique to marriage [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#10
11-01-2005, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ll admit it, I\'m against government sponsored gay marriage...
[ QUOTE ]
So what happens when a "married" man dies without a will. [/ QUOTE ] The property passes to (in order of legal priority in New Jersey): the parents, children, siblings, half siblings, grandparents, collateral heirs, then lastly the state. Maybe the dumbass should have had the common sense to write a will if he wanted it to go to someone else.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
