Posted on 03/24/2009 10:20:25 PM PDT by Steelfish
Getting California out of marriage business proposed as answer to Prop. 8 war
By Susan Ferriss
Mar. 24, 2009
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.
Many people say their religion tells them marriage is between a man and a woman, Shams said. But many also believe gay people have a right to equal treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
"Gay Marriage" is the "Trojan horse" method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups in the effort to legitimize the perverse behavior of homosexuality in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school children by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a "safe" and "normal" alternative "sexual lifestyle" choice and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and acceptance, kowtow or be hauled up in front of a "diversity" tribunal and be charged/convicted for hate crimes..
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
I wholeheartedly agree with your entire post.
Government has no authority to require someone to get it's permission to marry....and that's exactly what the word license means in legalese.
It is a contract between two People, and government doesn't get to decide who may or may not enter into such a contract.
As you said, though- Of course that won't satisfy the radicals on either end of the spectrum. is quite true. Those of us who find homosexuality rather disgusting must realize this dividing line between government and the People, and understand that by being publicly civil to homosexuals who identify themselves as 'married' also keeps government out of our own marriages.
Oh, good grief!
That's like saying we would all be animals if it wasn't for government paperwork.
Families recorded marriages [performed at a church], births and deaths for GENERATIONS in the family Bible. Do you think our forefathers behaved like dogs and cats, mating at will with no thought of who they were or what they came from?
Keeping track of such things is the responsibility of individual people, NOT the government.
They're free to move to those other countries. :^
Seriously, this article illustrates the problem of basing the marriage issue on religion or even tradition. The issue is really a matter of biology, common sense, logic, and reality: The purpose of marriage law is and always has been about procreation/human reproduction. The purpose is to encourage biological family units to remain intact. Society benefits when biological family units tend to remain intact (with some exceptions).
Marriage law also is not based on an emotion, like "love", either. Emotion cannot be legislated.
Marriage isn't even about "rights". It's about responsibilities. It's purely an agreement between a man and a woman that they will unite in this legal agreement, that they will have responsibilities for each other, and that children produced by their union will be entitled to inheritance, etc.
correct.
they don’t understand that if homo’s got married legally then all kinds of marriages can be legal.
The fact is that the majority do not want homo’s to get married and the more they try and force us to accept them the norm the people are getting pissed off with them.
If it is their private business as they say it is then stop telling us about your perverted sexual tendencies, stop with the freak shows and stop segregating yourselves.
Some of us were discussing that very issue on a thread recently.
We were talking about how society has reached this point where so-called "same sex" marriage is even being considered and how married heterosexual couples led us down this road. The problem began with test tube babies, sperm donors, and surrogacy. Once society accepted couples going outside their marriage to produce children, the original purpose of marriage (human reproduction) was taken out of the equation. And, because those married couples would have their own names (not the names of the surrogate or anonymous donor) placed on the birth certificates, "same sex" couples in some states have won legal cases to have their names placed on a birth certificate, based on what married heterosexual couples do.
I can understand the plight of those married couples. But, the reality is, that's how we ended up in the situation we have today. Now, we're headed into the type of society where, as you pointed out, it's not considered important to know who your biological parents and siblings are. Eventually, marriage law will have to require a medical test to ensure the couple isn't related to each other.
correct again , one only has to look at MA and see how their agenda is going.
it was marriage, then adoption and now teaching it in public schools.
I wish a group of polygamists would move to that state and get their marriage into the courts and lets see what the voters there then say and see what the homosexuals say about their rights to marry.
What’s the betting that the homo’s would not be so tolerant of that group and their agenda.
Every argument homo’s use the polygamists can use and so the courts would have to accept it and why doesn’t straight normal couples sue to get civil unions too along with the perks of it?
Excellent point.
yea why should the Govt tell a father not to marry his daughter and why should the Govt tell a son he can’t marry his sister or dog.
ARF
Lets just have anarchy hey, no laws and forget all together Govt
ARF
so should Muslims have 4 wives as that is what is said in their religion and if so how on earth do we get benefits and divorces sorted out now?
This is about getting rid of Judeo Christian marriage and the way this country was founded , they call it progressive I call it a crock of crap
nail on head.
it is a sexual perversion and nothing else.
If it is about love and nothing else as they say then why the need to have sex.
I love my family and dog but I feel no need to have sex with them just my wife and why is that?
Because I am attracted to her sexually.
Two men and one has to pretend to be the woman, two women and one has to pretend to be a man and wear a strap on. and then they say they are normal for crying out loud.
It is all based on sexual perversion and nothing else.
agree but there will always be some loons who think that Govt should never have these kind of laws.
What they do not understand is that not having these laws will present total anarchy and all sorts of weird marriages.
Man goes into hospital but his kin and wife is the dog.
Hospital by law now has to let the dog into hospital because of this new marriage
If it is not broken then don’t change it, something these so called progressives cannot understand and instead want to try their new pilot schemes.
What they do not understand is that this is about to them to destroy tradition and how the country was founded.
As a small “l” libertarian I don’t have a big problem with this. But as an American who values traditions, I do have a problem with it.
one of the best posts I have read on here on this subject
I don’t think civil marriage is an indication of a big government.
“Both can prosper without special government status.”
No. Marriage needs protection. It is deserving of protection. It is the fundamental building block of society. It needs a status. Like a corporation needs a status, or an organization needs a status, or a title needs a status. But marriage is far more important than any of those.
“Enlightened people know that state-sponsored marriage came from a time when women were second-class citizens”
my dear FReeper, marriage is the only special legal protection a woman or a child HAS.
Legitimate marriage protects women and children.
Shacking up, promiscuous sex, various children by various anonymous dads, and fluid household and protection and providence arrangements destroy us.
We no longer need to pass property on legally, or determine paternity???
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.