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]

I see a lot of merit in what you are saying, but it's wholly unrealistic to expect the kinds of changes you're proposing. You won't accomplish your goals by barring the word "marriage" from governmental use. For one thing, divorce and custody battles usually end up in the courts. Judges need to use it every day. If you don't care to fight to make sure that judges don't have to treat same sex cohabitants as "married" for the purposes of custody, you're missing the point.

[King Prout]

you miss the point: courts already deal with the fallout of non-marriage hetero shackups.
BFD - the point is to protect the word, the concept, and our kids from being recruited in the schools.

[risk]

Doesn't marriage predate christianity and judism?

It does seem quite natural, doesn't it? Maybe something the majority would want to protect and encourage so that the tribe would be continued?

So who here would have stoned mary magdellan too?

We are discussing English and what it means in our laws, not the stoning of anyone. That's something I think the left and homosexual political activists misunderstand. Sure there are Christians who believe anything but heterosexual activity under the blessings of marriage, and for the purposes of procreation is immoral. But that is an entirely different issue here. What we're talking about is the language of our laws. What does the word "marry" mean? What does spousal obligation entail, and what does society want to offer to individuals who have entered into these relationships? I'll give you some guidelines I think most Americans believe:

1. Marriage is between unrelated men and women.
2. Marriage is either related to having a family, or is a superset of couples who would like to bear children (but who might not due to age or infirmity, or personal choice).
3. The traditional, monogamous, heterosexual, committed relationship is the best means for bearing and rearing children.
4. Marriage should be life-long unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Do we always achieve the ideals? No. But shouldn't we limit our support to those couples who either would qualify if they wanted to? Resources are limited. Bearing and supporting children is expensive and risky. Children are our future. We have no interest in supporting unions of citizens who are unnaturally able to raise children (same sex unions). It's a matter of economics as well as values. If we encourage same sex couples (or trios, or octets?) to raise children, perhaps via test tube or otherwise, we are diluting our ability to support the traditional family unit. With the state suddenly "approving" of non-traditional unions, children grow up wondering what they should do. The laboratory experiment these well-meaning people are demanding of us could take many generations for us to discover the true dangers it entails. We already know that children without mothers or fathers grow up with more pathologies; why make it something the state actually sanctions?

There is no stoning here. We think the real threat is coming from the people who blithely approve and encourage this activity. The status quo has been established for a reason, and it seems that the initiators for change should prove the value of this experiment to society. I see no value except to the individuals who will benefit from my county clerks, judges, tax officials, and social security agents spending more time calculating their benefits and ajugements.

These proposals are fundamentally selfish, and we can reject them on that basis alone.

[longtermmemmory]

No, it would not work.
Only a constitutional amendment will stop homosexual activists.


For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.



This amendment acomplishes the goal of keeping ALL FORMS OF ALTERNAIVE LIFESTYLE MARRIAGE out of federal benefits.

[longtermmemmory]

define it as genetic male and female. You are opening up yourself to the challenge homosexuals at HRC are planning after the FMA. They will then set court cases with transexuals (mentally ill cosmetic surgery recipients) to challenge man and woman. Most courts solve the issue by going by the gender in the DNA.

[risk]

Bring back the blood tests.

[longtermmemmory]

Was tried, caused open abuse for fraud and no records were 100% reliable. There are also problems when it comes to intestasy and inheritance.

There are just too many "what if" scenarios to cause problems.

What if a man leaves his live in commonlaw wife, goes to another state legally marries a woman. After earning a financial fortune he dies. The commonlaw wife comes forward and demands an equal widows share (usually 1/3). The issue becomes does the dead man believe in polygamy since he did not formally divorce? What happens if there are minor children?

It is one big mess, this is part of the "least" in best governance. Keep marriage one man and one woman. Outside of marrige adults can do whatever cohabitation agreements they want within their particular state laws.

[longtermmemmory]

What did the bood test ever proove?

These days there would be too much temptation to DNA record the blood tests. Do you really want a gov. record of your DNA. (or insurance companies)

[longtermmemmory]

actually that is the case now. Polygamous marriages are not recognized by the USA. Homosexual marriages are not recognized by the USA. At least at the federal level.

Those states with homosexual unions probably have their state pension funds raided by homosexuals. Just imagine the survivor benefits that will be paid out.

[risk]

Nope I don't want any DNA records on file.