Posted on 03/24/2009 7:53:44 AM PDT by SmithL
At California's historic hearing on Proposition 8 earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin briefly imagined a scenario that might solve the legal conflict over a gay marriage ban.
What if the government were to get out of the "marriage business," Ming asked, and issue civil-union licenses to both straight and gay couples?
The justices agreed such a change would have to be handled by the Legislature, and discussion closed.
But outside the court, the question still hung in the air.
On March 10, five days after the court hearing, two California college students got the OK from state election officials to try to put Ming's question before voters.
The students are circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would strike the word "marriage" from state laws and substitute "domestic partnership."
The change would keep all the rights of marriage now on the books. But it would nullify Proposition 8 and make the new partnership category applicable to both gay and straight.
"We want to take marriage out of the battlefield," said Ali Shams, a University of California, San Diego, student who co-authored the language.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
After we’ve been hearing for years that gays need to be married, and how only marriage gives them the legal protections and all that, now we’re being told that everybody should just be in a domestic partnership?
We’ve been told that domestic partnership / civil union type laws aren’t enough, that it has to be marriage.
Why are the same people who are hell bent on forcing homosexual marriage on society, now saying that they want to do away with marriage for everyone?
So, my question to gay activists, was marriage the goal in the first place? Is marriage still a goal, or is it equally acceptable to you to just do away with marriage entirely?
\
To paraphrase zero, “We won, get over it.”
And what will be the legal status of traditional married couples in California if that passed? Federal law defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman only. But, does federal law only recognize marriage if their state also recognizes marriage?
This is opening a legal can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened. If we want to debate homosexual marriage, that’s one thing. But to just say, we won’t have marriage as a legal status anymore, just because it’s not open to homosexuals, that’s carrying things way too far.
I’ve been thinking this is a good idea for a long time apart from the gay issue. What business does the government have sanctioning a marriage? That is a private affair between two people and (if applicable) a church.
“At California’s historic hearing on Proposition 8 earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin....”
....Ming Chin!???.....gawd, what is happening to this country....more and more I think of California as street scene straight out of “Blade Runner”
Anything to thwart the will of the electorate.
Hell no. It was all about promoting the gay lifestyle.
This is the losers taking there bat and ball and going home instead of the mature option of doing what the pro-8 folks did, you know, work hard, honestly discuss the issues and let the people vote.
Won’t happen of course.
antiRepublicrat: “What business does the government have sanctioning a marriage?”
I can answer that. Government has an interest in encouraging activities that build up society. You may not agree, but marriage is an institution that is very, very beneficial to society at large. If more people would marry and stay married, there would be much less demand for government provided social services, like welfare.
For Catholics, if the marriage didn’t take place in a Catholic church, it’s not a valid marriage. If a marraige ceremony does take place in a Catholic church, it is a valid marriage.
California can label their partnerships anyway they want, but a Catholic marriage will always be a sacrament that will always be labelled a Catholic marriage.
This answer is total b.s.
The people have a right to representation on the issues of sexuality and marriage. To take government out of the marriage business is to say that the people do not have that right.
The leftwing is trying to use the Court to force people to treat homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality. People had better stand up for their right to representation on the issues of sexuality and marriage or else we will lose that right and the state wil then just dictate right and wrong on these issues to us.
I’ve been thinking of this as a possible solution, too. But I’d only be willing to sign on to the idea if there was no implication that the two people were sexually involved with each other.
This could help solve some other real issues that families face. If any two (or more) people could form a domestic partnership, then this could be beneficial to families that take care of an older relative, or two older brothers or friends who live together. Why can’t a middle aged son and his wife form a domestic partnership with his mother, thereby enabling him to put her on his health insurance?
The libs have been clamoring for years to “get the government out of my bedroom.” Well, let’s do that. Why should only gay couples be able to form “domestic partnerships?” Why does my employer have to know whether or not I’m having sex with the person I live with? It’s none of their business.
I’m not completely convinced of what I’m writing, but I’ve been thinking about it.
I think we should consider a little “legal jujitsu” here. It’s not a completely crazy idea.
The purpose of gay ‘marriage’ is to destroy Christianity.
First, get ‘marriage’ as a state-sanctioned label.
Second, find a church that won’t ‘marry’ a gay couple.
Third, take that church to court for breaking the law.
So the government will get out of the marriage business, but the CASC will still force employers and private citizens and private organizations to offer benefits and/or accomodation to homosexuals?
And of course you will have to fear threat of a lawsuit for not treating homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality.
You’re right. And by removing the government from the marriage business, it becomes a completely private, religious thing, and as far gone as we are in this country, any attempt to force churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. to offer a religious ceremony to anyone would obviously be a violation of the freedom of religion that even this Supreme Court would overturn.
Let’s face it... Marriage, as defined by Jews and Christians, has been absent from our legal system for 50 years. What we have is serial polygamy. The benefits of marriage for raising healthy children are beyond question. However, the law has been violating these principles for so long that there’s no way to put horse back in the barn.
The only thing we can do is to make marriage a completely private, religious affair, and to rebuild the concept of marriage as a lifelong commitment that one man and one woman make to each other. Then, perhaps after we’ve rebuilt that idea (after several generations, perhaps) there will be sufficient cultural support to reintroduce the civil aspects of marriage.
I’m in a rush and not developing my ideas very well, I know, but let’s not just assume it’s a crazy idea.
That being said this once again proves that the argument for gay marriage has always been one based on semantics. Civil unions are essentially a contract and if such a contract was such a basis for all "unions" then this farce would be relatively over.
I know many here would see this as an assault on marriage but as of now, with the divorce rate and number of children out-of-wedlock, the concept of marriage as a union of love would be seperated from the legal mumbo-jumbo of visitation rights, property rights, etc. And maybe alimony laws would be put in a more fair orbit.
It looks like Christians are going to have to start getting married underground again.
Saint Valentine anyone?
Well, taking government out of the job of labelling what is marriage and what isn’t marriage certainly closes this avenue for the homosexual agenda to destroy religion.
The drawback, however, is huge. Removing any state recognition of marriage would certainly further destroy the family unit and I’m not sure if this is tolerable, even for the short run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.