Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Aeson]

To give marriage equivalent benefits to unmarried couples in some particular contractual configuration would require amendment of several hundred existing federal and state laws. Easier by far to just let the queers have their civil marriages and be done with it.

I agree it would be easier. Part of me looks forward to when we do get nationwide legalized gay marriage, just to spite people who opposed it.

I would prefer government out of marriage completely though. (Even though in my situation that would potentially hurt my options, as I probably will move with Net to the US at some point, if only temporarily.) Doing so now would help avoid the "next 2 decades of wasted political capital" for the "next marriage issue". Polyamorous relationships most likely. And that one is going to be more complex legally anyways.

Also, I think government's recognition of marriage has served to undermined what meaning there is in "marriage" as a concept. I spent several years on the beaches of Oceanside, and met countless Marines who told me they got married solely for the benefits. No doubt they get divorced soon after leaving the service. The tax system is also set up to promote gamey marriages (and piss on other people for getting married, absurdly enough). I don't think we accomplish anything useful this way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hopefully so nuanced that it doesnt even resemble ben's theocratic state.

How about my theocratic state?

[PLATO]

Simple Solution: All couples wanting to be associated must sign civil union contract. All religious organizations wanting to perform marriage ceremonies are allowed to marry whoever they want. Legally...civil union contract rules. Religiously...up to each persons faith and conscience.

Complex solution: wait for the ruling from SCOTUS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The simply solution sounds too French!

[N35t0r]

Simple Solution: All couples wanting to be associated must sign civil union contract. All religious organizations wanting to perform marriage ceremonies are allowed to marry whoever they want. Legally...civil union contract rules. Religiously...up to each persons faith and conscience.

Allowing gay marriage is exactly the same as this, just using the same 'name' for both things. Just call them Legal Marriage and Religious Marriage and be done with it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Or we could just stop pandering to zealots with Cromwell fantasies and not look like PC tools by changing the names at all.

[PLATO]

Allowing gay marriage is exactly the same as this, just using the same 'name' for both things. Just call them Legal Marriage and Religious Marriage and be done with it.

No...it takes the "name" part out of the governments hands and puts it into the religious hands (where it belongs) and takes the legal part out of the religious hands and puts it in the governments hands (where it belongs).

As a consequence, people could choose to be "married" religiously and not legally. That should be a benefit to those that complain of the "marriage penalty".

[PLATO]

The simply solution sounds too French!

Hey..they can't be wrong about everything...can they?

[MichaeltheGreat]

No...it takes the "name" part out of the governments hands and puts it into the religious hands (where it belongs) and takes the legal part out of the religious hands and puts it in the governments hands (where it belongs).

As a consequence, people could choose to be "married" religiously and not legally. That should be a benefit to those that complain of the "marriage penalty".

They can do that now - have a religious ceremony without obtaining or filing the license. Why should a particular set of religious hands get a monopoly on the name? I'm sure a lot of interdenominational, interfaith and atheist/agnostic married couples wouldn't be thrilled to have their "status" changed to something widely perceived as lesser (oh, a civil union is sort of like a marriage, without the name, because you didn't perform it in a church). Not to mention it's a sort of Establishment Clause issue, giving a preference to churches.

Not that I mind too much, I figure I'll incorporate The Church of Dog, ordain myself, and make some money off the marriage biz.

[PLATO]

I'll incorporate The Church of Dog, ordain myself, and make some money off the marriage biz.

All Hail Michael the Great...Vicar of the almighty Dog!

[MrFun]

They can do that now - have a religious ceremony without obtaining or filing the license. Why should a particular set of religious hands get a monopoly on the name? I'm sure a lot of interdenominational, interfaith and atheist/agnostic married couples wouldn't be thrilled to have their "status" changed to something widely perceived as lesser (oh, a civil union is sort of like a marriage, without the name, because you didn't perform it in a church). Not to mention it's a sort of Establishment Clause issue, giving a preference to churches.

Let's also not forget straight couples who marry through a justice of the peace, rather than through a church. Not sure those straight couples would appreciate the second-class status either.

[MrFun]

Anyway, how would Neal and I getting married affect other people's marriages?

[PLATO]

Let's also not forget straight couples who marry through a justice of the peace, rather than through a church. Not sure those straight couples would appreciate the second-class status either.

I am not sure what would make this a "second class status" ????

[PLATO]

Anyway, how would Neal and I getting married affect other people's marriages?

It wouldn't.

[MrFun]

It wouldn't.

So "defending" marriage against teh gays is just a bunch of hyperbole and hyperventilation then?