Posted on 05/12/2011 10:05:22 AM PDT by massmike
Delaware has joined New Jersey in granting marriage-like rights to same-sex couples joined by civil unions.
The law, which will take effect next Jan. 1, stops short of conferring full marriage rights, as has been done by five states and Washington, D.C.
Gov. Jack Markell signed the legislation on Wednesday at Wilmington’s Queen Theater, as hundreds of supporters toasted the occasion with champagne.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
How fitting!
“stops short of conferring full marriage rights”
So it’s not marriage. Good.
In one sense, it’s good to have a clear demarcation between the degenerate fag states and real America, in case Obama gets re-elected and the option of secession becomes an increasingly appealing course of action.
It’s about time to remember California, civil unions were considered “not enough” there. I hope, as a Delaware resident, this does not repeat, but it probably will given enough time. Politics these days isn’t too clear cut as to what policy pacifies for good. Most of what I care about is whether or not religions and non-profit organizations are treated separately from the governmental (i.e. don’t have to treat as marriage what the government does). That is a tough debate that can’t be completely ruled out in coming months, but hopefully we can keep up the honest, sincere, effort.
Secession doesn’t sound so appealing when the fact comes along that it does not solve the base problem. I have spoken about the same for the few dissappointed political figures who suggested breaking up Arizona to have separate red and blue states in response to Arizona SB 1070, it creates plenty of problems for what you supposedly solve. In addition, sexuality can be concealed, if any secession did occur, we would find ourselves with any “closet homosexuals” that were already there coming in and campaigning for their “rights” just as they did before. There is no alternative to living where you live, believing what you believe, enduring, and defending faith as needs be.
In addition, I would advise against suggesting secession on FR, most of us understand the urge, but the drawbacks of secession (division, smaller weaker forces to defend or believe in something, etc.), outweigh any perceived benefits.
.
Not much point in getting deeply invested in opposition to gay marriage".
Demographics are destiny on this one - this year as predicted we crossed the line between minority and majority support for such unions on a national basis, and you can predict within a reasonable margin of error when such legislation will be passing in various state.
The most recent estimate I've seen posits that Mississippi will be last holdout, legalizing such unions sometime between 2032 and 2035.
Likely well before that most if not all states will have some form of some form of civil union or full marital status because not having such is going to become an increasing competitive disadvantage in attracting businesses.
For example my wife works for an F-100 multinational where the majority of gays and lesbians are "out" and there is a strong anti-discrimination policy on the basis of sexual orientation, and there is just no chance that this company is going to be establishing major new facilities in states that don't recognize some form of marital rights for such employees - many of whom are highly placed in the company.
Also, we are rapidly going to get into problems aligning benefits, rights and responsibilities between various states, it's going to be a real mess for example when one state refuses hospital visitation rights to a "spouse" entitled to them in their state of residence - it's bad publicity, bad press, and it's rapidly going to be seen as a bad idea.
Of course, you can talk secession - the problem is that within 10 or 15 years rural areas rural would have to start seceding from urban areas *within* most (likely, all) Red States... as by that time there will be majority voter support for some form of marital status and most of them.
And in the meantime - to the extent that this is a touchstone of conservative policy - it means that you are alienating large numbers of younger voters who might otherwise be a natural conservative constituency.
Nope, time to let this one go.
It looks like someone has been drinking the koolaid by the gallon.
Might be a good time to get government out of the marriage racket altogether.
Please elaborate.
My main point about this is establishing a genuine separation between church and state. Although I have a hard time understanding how some things are unique to marriage. For instance, I have joint-healthcare benefits with my parents. I signed it out, because frankly, Ms. Wonderful has not come around for me to marry just yet, that’s fine. I would also like to wonder how hospital visits are denied when all I had to do was sign in to visit my friend, also a guy, as well in the hospital. This person is not any romantic interest or spouse of mine, not by a long shot. I would also mention that the hospitals in Delaware let me drop by and visit my then-girlfriend who I was not married to either at that time. I did have to sign in and out to let them know I was there at that time, but they didn’t vastly care about whether or not I was the spouse of either of these people. I can write a will out to pretty much anyone who can agree to it, even though I am unmarried as of yet as well. SO that is the point, inheritance, healthcare, and hospital visits I can do with someone to whom I am not married, I just have a real problem understanding what is going on here? As far as businesses go, let them pass what policies they may, let other nonprofit or “religious” groups do as they may, because in the end, it’s to their benefit or loss.
I will say that I only agree on the secession part, primarily because secession does not solve anything, plus I also doubt any state is without its’ major cities, which have their own significant voting population.
“Get government out of the marriage racket altogether.”
What is the difficult to understand part?
All the reasons put forward by homosexual activists to prove why they should be allowed to “marry” someone of the same sex are bogus red herrings. As you indicated, they already have many of these “rights” available to them, just as anyone else does. What they want is official affirmation of their sexual practices, which “marriage” would give them in spades. This is why the fight is critical not only to deny the redefinition of marriage to include that which is not, but also civil unions and other official government-recognized forms of domestic partnership.
I think I know what your getting at, but to be fair to you and avoid assuptions, I'd like to give you a chance to explain "government getting out of the marriage business." Don't you even know what it is that you're proposing?
Yes I am proposing that the only governing bodies over marriages be the houses of worship in which they are performed. One of the things that led many away from their church being their central focus in life was the government in large part taking over marriage; Wedding licenses et al....you get government out of marriage and it solves a few problems right away; 1. If you want to be “married” you better be on good terms with a religious official somewhere. 2. Married couples might once again place their God at the center of their marriage, rather than government. 3. If government were completely out of the marriage racket, who exactly would the lavender mafia be suing for the “right” to marry?
Who will government recognize as “married,” as it must?
The government recognizes NO ONE as married or unmarried. It’s none of their business. You know I find it ironic for conservatives that want government out of every other aspect of our lives, this is the ONE (and the most personal one) that my fellow conservatives want the most government influence. It’s disturbing.
I don’t think you’re thinking through the implications of no one being married in the government’s eyes. What about children of a widow who marries a new husband? How does he get to adopt her children if he is as good as a stranger to her? What ties people together in a society if there are no recognized ties? Who enforces contracts?
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.