Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


The states each have their own ways of dealing with this, and in many ways, they are. The important question remains the federal issue, particularly with the "equal and fair representation" credo, and there being no fair representation with unfair taxation... essentially the founding principal of the country.

As I said earlier, it is apparent that Kalifornia's domestic partner legislation will give all rights to gay and lesbian couples even at the Federal level.

The only issue that remains are state marriage licenses and state marriage ceremonies. These seem entirely superfluous. I cannot fathom any reason whatsoever for them.

Let's begin thinking about abolishing them altogether as they are causing the controversy.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


Mr.Baggins, my question remains. Why does the STATE have to issue licenses and have a formal ceremony, regardless of who conducts it, for a marriage to be validly formed?

Historically, that STATE was not invovled in legalizing marriages. Here is a link to the practice of the Romans.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa110700a.htm

Note, that everything was privately conducted. The state was not involved. The families of the bride and groom were. People could get married simply by living together for one year.

I agree with you. I've mentioned before that marriage is a secular construct... but society needs to recognise it to give it social meaning.

Personally, I think the "marriage" label alone is pretty meaningless, and that it should be marginalized to non-secular function.

If you have a civil status, then you absolutely require some form of civil acknowledgement... and I think a contract... written, certainly, is necessary.

[CharlesBHoff]

Community property right is a fairly new legal conplex. First man in Arabic have to give the wife family so many cammels as than bride price. Then she bring her own cammels to the marriage. Cammel bring in income as cammel hair was use to make brushes, can be rented out as than beast of burden or sold as than beast of burden, it milk and cheese make from it milk can be sold in the market place. The man also own cammels of his own. Let say the man own 7 cammels and the wife bring 6 cammel to divide the cammel equall you mean each get 6 and 1/2 cammel, than immpossible. Most ancient culture have no community property right laws.

When I said Islam have no community property right I was talk in general term. There are espection in Islam where community propery right do apply. Than rich man to avoid people have than unfravorably opin of him when divore than poor woman can willing give her some of his propery to support her is one espection to the general rule.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
The only issue that remains are state marriage licenses and state marriage ceremonies. These seem entirely superfluous. I cannot fathom any reason whatsoever for them.

Let's begin thinking about abolishing them altogether as they are causing the controversy.

Don't abolish them... that could be seen as an attack on religion, in some way... since many connect marriage with being a religious institution... however incorrectly.

Simply make them irrelevant to the separate status that really matters in terms of "partnership" for tax codes and other benefits of the state and/or federal organizations.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
If you have a civil status, then you absolutely require some form of civil acknowledgement... and I think a contract... written, certainly, is necessary.

Registration, signed by both before a notary.

We need nothing more to recognize a "marriage."

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Community property right is a fairly new legal conplex. First man in Arabic have to give the wife family so many cammels as than bride price. Then she bring her own cammels to the marriage. Cammel bring in income as cammel hair was use to make brushes, can be rented out as than beast of burden or sold as than beast of burden, it milk and cheese make from it milk can be sold in the market place. The man also own cammels of his own. Let say the man own 7 cammels and the wife bring 6 cammel to divide the cammel equall you mean each get 6 and 1/2 cammel, than immpossible. Most ancient culture have no community property right laws.

When I said Islam have no community property right I was talk in general term. There are espection in Islam where community propery right do apply. Than rich man to avoid people have than unfravorably opin of him when divore than poor woman can willing give her some of his propery to support her is one espection to the general rule.

Islamic citizens are subject to exactly the same legal standards of ownership as any other citizen, regardless of race or creed.

The US... which is what we're specifically discussing isn't, if you hadn't noticed, an Islamic Theocracy... therefore Islamic "rules" don't apply (although a community might enforce some different rules or standards, those wouldn't be extended in a legal sense or be legal defense in any manner.) Secular laws do.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Don't abolish them... that could be seen as an attack on religion, in some way... since many connect marriage with being a religious institution... however incorrectly.

Simply make them irrelevant to the separate status that really matters in terms of "partnership" for tax codes and other benefits of the state and/or federal organizations.

I have no clue as to why abolishing licenses or civil ceremonies would in any way be an attack on religion. I, for example, had a church wedding and never had a civil ceremony.

Abolishing civil ceremonies and civil licenses in favor of simple registration would level the playing field. Form would not then trump substance.

[Ned]

Mr. Baggins, there is nothing that will prevent Islamic rules from applying to Islamic marriages in the US. Once one separates the form over substance, people can get married anyway they want without interference from the state.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned


I have no clue as to why abolishing licenses or civil ceremonies would in any way be an attack on religion. I, for example, had a church wedding and never had a civil ceremony.

Abolishing civil ceremonies and civil licenses in favor of simple registration would level the playing field. Form would not then trump substance.

Absolutely... provided that marriage ceremonies did not automatically confer the same civil rights that simple registration did (not retrospectively, of course... all existing marriages should be legal, and newly registered couples shouldn't be able to retrospectively file tax amendments for past years claiming a different filing status.)

I.E. require a married couple to still register with the state, to be able to file taxes as a married couple, etc.

[Ned]

Mr. Baggins, everyone would have to register as "domestic partners." There would be no other way to claim the rights of a "marriage." This would level the playing field entirely.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
Mr. Baggins, there is nothing that will prevent Islamic rules from applying to Islamic marriages in the US. Once one separates the form over substance, people can get married anyway they want without interference from the state.

Property rights in married couples are specifically codified by states. A persons ignoring the law doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to them.

E.G. An islamic man marries an american woman. They split up. The man might claim Islamic style property rights, but if the woman goes to court and argues then the state law will be the basis for decision, not Islamic law.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ned
Mr. Baggins, everyone would have to register as "domestic partners." There would be no other way to claim the rights of a "marriage." This would level the playing field entirely.

Wow!! I completely agree. I believe that this is the first time, that I've utterly agreed with one of your arguments (about politics.)

[Ned]

Mr. Baggins, welcome to the "right" wing!

[MrBaggins]

/me chuckles

There you go with labels again. I'm probably centerist, but I lean left or right depending on the issue.

I certainly think that this specific issue is "right" at a number of levels.

Good suggestion, btw.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Elok
Huh...Ming, did you vote in my "Civil Unions for all" poll? If so, which way? Obviously you aren't against gay unions, I'm just wondering if you think my idea was a decent compromise. You seem to be a hermit-type debater, occasionally issuing out of your cave to tell somebody he's being stupid but otherwise staying silent...except for official moderator duties 'n'stuff. You might say I'm curious about the man behind the malevolent avatar.

I've debated these topics over and over again over the years... since nobody seems to change their opinions, it doesn't seem worth much effort to post the same things over and over again but yeah, I voted in your poll. And no, I think the compromise isn't a good one. My position has remained the same as well. I think it's an equal rights issue, and that gays should be allowed to get married. Unlike some catholics here, I don't see how it effects me, my marriage, or my relationship with my wife and family, if gays are allowed the same rights I have