Pray for America.
We need wisdom.
That’s the thing about the sodomites: they are screaming for marriage “rights”, but they only want the “privileges”.
Hit them with the marriage penalty taxes and ObamaCare taxes, and listen to them REAALLLY shriek.
The only way to reverse the USSC on gay marriage is a Constitutional amendment. Period.
Anything else is a total waste of time and a distraction.
As an adoptive South Carolinian, living in Calhoun’s territory, I say the solution is NULLIFICATION! Let us tell the Supreme Court that we do not accept their ruling and let John Roberts enforce it!
“I have often argued that the state can’t “get out of the marriage business” because the state has an interest in it..”
I don’t believe the state has an interest in marriage. This is one of those areas that the state has involved itself in for reasons of taxation, control, and authority. And we have gotten so used to it, that we expect it and think of it as normal and acceptable. Go back many thousands years of history and see the reasons why some states determined it should have and interest in marriage, and why some states determine it shouldn’t have an interest in it.
Pray for America.
We need wisdom.
I’ve thought of a similar approach. Just have all couples register for “marriage” as they do now but call it a “civil union”. Everyone gets a civil union, remove any association of “marriage” to said union (in a legal sense) and transfer all legal rights and duties that are now associated with marriage to the civil union.
The state gets what it wants (regulation of the Union of two people) and religion gets what it wants (absolute claim and definition of what is indeed a “marriage”).
The only thing those with same sex attraction want anyway is the money/benefits entitled to married couples. So once they get that they shut up. Or they should. So let them have their mammon.
If people like the dear Father here are serious about their claim to want to separate the legal from the religious my proposal shouldn’t be a problem. It’s only a problem to those who, for whatever reason, want to regulate marriage itself by force of law. There is no reason, unless one believes that the laws of a society reflect the morality of the society. There’s some merit there, but I think we are way past the educative value of the law in this respect.
It’s time now to cut losses and focus on protecting the institution itself, before it becomes the mockery it inevidibly will be given this course, full of triplets “married” and man and dog “marriages”. If we want to protect the religious reality we better start being pragmatic. And there’s no reason to be as complicated as Father proposes.
Force the issue where it needs to be. In the religious sphere. The only way anyone could have a problem with the above proposal is if they wish to redefine “marriage” RELIGIOUSLY, and not just legally. Then we will know to make our final stand there. On much firmer ground. Right now it’s muddied in-between all sad claims of denied benefits and legal rights. Take them out of the battle and see if the radicals are satisfied. I’m betting not but at least then their evil will be easier to point out.
That which you must permit can be denied.
We should not say that the state’s permission should be required to have children, except perhaps to say if you’re on welfare, every female gets contraception until you’re off welfare.
But registering to have children, as a productive taxpayer, is an insult.
Community property registration is a separate problem, because not every state has community property laws in marriage, and the LBGTA are going to argue for group rights. Heck, just an ex-wife demanding partial property shares when the guy gets remarried is enough to challenge it.
That is ridiculous, if you don't care if your gay marriage or polygamy, or traditional marriage performed by your "religion" is legal, then don't seek to make it legal, you could have done that in 1950 or right now, and since when do Americans, by law, have to belong to a religion, to get married?
bfl