Constitution Admendment to ban gay marriage?

[harleyquinn]

Originally posted by Faceman: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: Here's a really off the wall idea - get rid of the idea of marriage from law altogether. Let it remain as a religeous ceremony - as it is a religeous concept. That way church and state are further separated. Now this does not mean tearing down family values or such, but removes the legal discrimination that having laws for marriage creates. It will put a dent in Las Vegas' economy, but hey. Come to think of it, there will be a cut in the divorce law sector too... [img]smile.gif[/img] NOTE: I am not arguing against morals or any such, just the discrimination marriage creates and the "benefits" it excludes people from.

This is actually a great idea ... at the first look
Marriages have always been religious ceremony's. The only interest the state takes in marriage is to deal with the issues that arise if two people get into a relationship this deep. To provide for children ...
Now - you can't ever hinder gay people from getting married in an abstract way (i.e. setting up a ceremony and making vows to each other). What you can hinder is

a.) special treatment that legally married couples receive from the state
b.) religious marriages blessed by a certain religion (if the pope says "NO" there won't be catholic marriages for homosexuals)

So the major problems that arise if two homosexuals decide to "get married" are
a.) They may not get the same legal treatment as a married heterosexual couple
b.) They may no get blessed by their chosen religion (e.g. the catholic church)
c.) They may offend people who think that their ceremony is a mocking of the idea of marriage.

The first two issues I do not consider grave.
a.) Even if there was no special legal treatment I'd still want to marry my girlfriend some day. It's a matter of love not of legal advantages.
b.) If your lifestyle is opposing the values and teachings of your religion you have to change either your lifestyle or your religion (that can also mean still going to church and praying but disagreeing with that one point and thus not really practicing the whole religion but rather your own interpretation of it). This may be tough but it's not seldom that you have to take tough decisions in such delicate matters.

The third issue now is troublesome because other people are affected. If two people disagree on a religious topic there can be bloody murder. However many (sadly not all) people in the world by now have learned that you can just "leave be" what does not concern you directly even if you disagree as long as no direct harm comes to anyone. [/QUOTE]The legal advantages are not there to cancel out love, they serve to protect and provide for the spouse in an unfortunate event. Under current laws, if you're gay, you're not entitled to those protections. Just ask all those gay people who lost their partners on 9/11.

[ 07-01-2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: harleyquinn ]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by harleyquinn: The legal advantages are not there to cancel out love, they serve to protect and provide for the spouse in an unfortunate event. Under current laws, if you're gay, you're not entitled to those protections. Just ask all those gay people who lost their partners on 9/11.

Exactly, "rights of succession" who has to pay for whom on insurance (don't get me started here) - eliminate it all. Let people tell the Ins Co.s and the gov who they are covering and who succeeds them. That way, traditional families, broken families, gays, straights, and armadillos are all covered equally - at the direction of those affected.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Actually, here in the UK we are making steps towards giving long-term gay partners the same rights as married couples when it comes to inheritance tax, next of kin status etc.

Amazingly, the measures proposed are *so* complete, that a notable gay-rights activist has actually criticised the measures as being discriminatory against cohabiting straight couples. I'll try to dig out a good article on what's going on.

EDIT : hehe, no sooner said than done [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/...855141,00.html

Equal rights plan for gay couples Staff and agencies Friday December 6, 2002 Gay men, lesbians and bisexual people are to be offered the same rights as married couples, a government minister indicated today, although she said this will not amount to "gay marriages". Barbara Roche, the minister for social exclusion and equality, said there was an "extremely strong case" for allowing same-sex couples the chance to register their relationships. So-called "civil partnerships" would confer property and inheritance rights on homosexual men and women for the first time. Mrs Roche told the Independent: "This is not about being PC, but about bringing law and practice into line with the reality of people's lives." Mrs Roche said society had "moved on" and now recognised that many gay relationships were loving and enduring, "but their partnership has no recognition in law". She added that the "practicalities of introducing partnership registration for gay couples, with rights and responsibilities attached, are complex". But Mrs Roche said she would be consulting on the issue over the summer, and a it is thought that a short bill setting out the changes could be introduced in the next session of parliament. Mrs Roche said: "We are not talking about marriage here. What we are talking about is the signing of a register." But she added that couples would be perfectly free to arrange their own private ceremonies to mark the event. The shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, indicated that the Conservatives would support the measure when legislation was introduced. "Whilst we attach a huge importance to the institution of marriage we do recognise that gay couples suffer from some serious particular grievances," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "If what the government is coming forward with is indeed a set of practical steps to address a set of practical problems that affect people, then we will welcome them." He denied that it would undermine the "special" status of marriage, insisting there was nobody in his party who saw a contradiction between believing in marriage and accepting that gay people have concrete grievances about their current legal status. The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, fulfilled an election pledge last September by bringing in a "partnership register" for gay people in the capital. It allows couples to declare their commitment to each other and sign a document giving their relationship mayoral recognition. The document is not recognised in law but Mr Livingstone said he hopes that will eventually change. The first registration events took place at the Greater London Authority's former headquarters in Victoria last September. One year on, and of 314 gay partnerships registered, five have been reported as de-registered, which is roughly in line with the heterosexual divorce rate after a year of marriage.

[ 07-01-2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Timber Loftis]

Which is why such civil partnerships should also be available to unwed couples -- "marriage lite" [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img]

Gay couples can currently get the same protections, but it takes about $5-10K worth of legal documents to do it, including will and testament, durable power of attorney, assignment of rights, etc. -- not easily accomplished by most folks (even gays, who tend to be richer).