Vanity: same sex marriage certificant bustin idea

FR | March 14th, 2004 | risk

[risk]

I have a proposal at the federal level that would break this debate over same sex wedding certificates. Couldn't we pass a bill in congress that would deny Social Security benefits to spouses in counties that recognized (not just issued) certificates to any couples not defined as male and female? Any government benefits that are allocated on the basis of marriage should be denied to areas in the United States that make it ambivalent as to what kind of non-traditional unions would recieve them.

[risk]

Please discuss.

[AZLiberty]

It ends up in the same place. Someone will invoke "equal protection", and then you're back to the need for a Constitution change.

[Dutch Boy]

A gay marriage amendment is needed but from the gay side. If gays want the law to change they are the ones that need to do it. It should never have gotten to the point that the traditional side has to write legislation to keep things the same. On the other hand, I think the gay activists know that the general population of the country would reject gay marriage by a huge margin.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

ping

[sharktrager]

Deny people to recieve funds from a program they paid in to for years?

What's the old saying about 2 wrongs?

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda - an idea for discussion about defeating the "gay" marriage cr*p.

Sounds like it wouldn't happen to me.

But what do I know?

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this ping list.

Once Republicans get elected and go to DC, they mostly turn into wimps, enablers, or just regular politican scum. Of course, there are notably good ones, but the Senators in particular seem to just want to play the game.

[EdReform]

Bump

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[King Prout]

I still say, get the government at all levels entirely out of the marriage business.
Let private citizens and groups thereof settle this matter in their own way.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Hear, hear!

[risk]

A gay marriage amendment is needed but from the gay side.

There is no such thing as "gay marriage," so I tend to agree.

[risk]

Deny people to recieve funds from a program they paid in to for years?

No, it would rarely happen. Only people who wanted to make a statement would ever use certificates from such a county (and there would be very few of them) to prove they were "married."

[risk]

I still say, get the government at all levels entirely out of the marriage business.

That bypasses the issue: the left wants to continue redefining the English language so that our laws no longer mean what they used to mean. Once they succeed, the Constitution will actually be meaningless. We must not allow them to redefine the word "marriage."

I think we have an interest in lowering taxes for everyone, but our traditional family unit is especially vulnerable to taxation. That's why we recognize traditional families with social security and tax exemptions. If the government can't rely on a given county's marriage proofs, then we shouldn't trust them enough to pay spousal benefits to people trying to use those documents to prove their elegibility.

About equal protection: this should be debated and cast aside. We have equal protection for the unions blessed by our civilization for 4,000 years. Men and women who marry are equally protected by our laws that say men and women who are not relatives can be married.

[risk]

Deny people to recieve funds from a program they paid in to for years?

Just to be clear: deny funds to people who claim to be their spouses. We can't rely on the criteria used to determine the spousal relationship in a county that will "marry" same sex partners.

[GovernmentShrinker]

If the word "marriage" doesn't appear in any laws, then it won't matter a whit if people have widely varying definitions of the word.

Your suggestion that the "traditional family" needs to be registered with the government, so that the government can maintain its little schemes to give back a small portion of the many tax dollars which the government confiscates from said families' members, is too preposterous for words. Lower taxes for EVERYBODY by getting the government out of many of the things it currently meddles in, including marriage.

[King Prout]

GS - yes, precisely.
Risk,
additionally, by allowing the government to have official input on the issue, you open yourself up for the governement to have an input YOU DON'T LIKE on the issue - input which essentially equals the fed and state govs taking the homosexual agitators' side in the ongoing culture war.
That's... remarkably short-sighted.

[risk]

I think your arguments apply very well to the newcomers, the ones who want to redefine the term "marriage." The problem for the rest of us is that marriage qualifies a couple for a massive array of benefits bestowed by society today. For example, immigration is usually approved on the basis of a valid marriage. You're fighting a separate battle: reducing government involvement in our daily lives. If you allow the left to redefine marriage, you will certainly get more involvement by government in personal lives. Doing nothing about this will certainly lead to that.

[King Prout]

again: by removing government entirely from the picture, one removes a weapon from the hands of the deviants - they can no longer hope to wield the might of the government as a hammer to forcibly reshape society and redefine by government mandate the meaning of the word "marriage."

Homosexuals constitute only 2% of the population. Their ardent supporters constitute perhaps another 5%. Seven percent of the population cannot win a culture war against an estimated 85% of the population who oppose them... without that same government hammer.

So, again: Get the gov outta the picture, and let civil society sort this crap out in its own way - we (the normals) will win.

[King Prout]

perhaps I am not making myself clear when I say "get the government entirely out of the marriage business"?

I mean, among other things, BAN -by law or amendment- the use of the word marriage by any organ of any level of government

[risk]

The chances are about 0% that society will decide not to address married couples in one special way or another. You can't avoid this battle by pretending that married couples don't exist from the government's perspective.

[King Prout]

for pete's sake, the government is not the society, or vice-versa.

I am not dodging the battle, I am picking the terrain and limiting my enemy's selection of weapons, so that I can win the battle.

to do otherwise is tactically and strategically unsound.

This subject is outside of the government's mandate - if you give them the power to decide, you lose that power and lose all right to bitch about how they decide the matter for you.

DO YOU GET IT NOW???