[So Cal Rocket]

And in related news, unemployment advocates today requested that all jobs be outlawed in order for there to be equity between the employed and unemployed.

[Support Free Republic]

	God Bless Those who Protect our Liberty --- Past, Present and Future.
Please visit the FR Fundraiser

[goodnesswins]

"The goal is equality between married and unmarried persons,” said David Blankenhorn at the Institute for American Values

Oh, puke....here we go......the actual DESTRUCTION of MARRIAGE as something of VALUE....how can this group call themselves the "Institute for American Values"....what do they stand for? ME...ME...ME...ME????

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - SODOMITE AGENDA

[Semper Paratus]

So if gays can't get married nobody can?

[gridlock]

They are absolutely right. The law should be neutral on the issue of marriage. It is simply none of the government's business.

If there are to be special priviledges for married people, the government will be unable to avoid making them available to non-traditional couples by expanding the definition of marriage. This is only the latest of an unbroken string of about a thousand examples of how government destroys what it seeks to promote. We should realize that government is destructive to the institution of marriage and keep it as far away from marriage as possible.

Shared property, child custody, power of attorney, and the like can be handled through other legally binding agreements between individuals. There is no need to have government mucking around in the definition of who is and who is not married. Because the government will come down on the side of inclusivity, every single time.

The FMA will never happen.

[Orangedog]

"There's no lengths to which they won't go,” said Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America. “And of course it undermines traditional marriage and we cannot allow them to do that."

Fine. Too bad she has no intention of working to repaal no fault divorce laws, which is what have weakend traditional marriage to the point where it is actually endangered by the other side. This is like someone decrying the weeds in the front yard while the foundation of the house is caving in.

[Sam Cree]

"A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples."

The whole idea of a government "distributing benefits" is counter to the American tradition of individual freedom.

Bearing in mind that marriage is the foundation of society.

[dighton]

"Victor Flatt is an advisor to several environmental organizations. He is on the National Board of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, is an officer in the legal education section of the AALS, and serves on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered sub-committee of the Law School Admissions Council."

[Pete]

Just from a pragmatic standpoint, this suggestion flies in the face of all human history.

[longtermmemmory]

always part of the homosexual agenda. Now that some states have civil unions, eliminate marriage and ONLY recognize civil unions.

Most people do not realize that states only recognize your executed marriage license not your religious ceremony.

That marriage amendment is looking better and better.

[weegee]

"The goal is equality between married and unmarried persons,”

Defining deviancy downwards. Bring everyone DOWN to the same level.

If "de-criminalizing" means "to legalize", does "de-legalizing" mean "to criminalize"???

[fml]

Oh brother.

[onedoug]

Why does, or doesn't one wash their hands before they eat?

[Snuffington]

A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples.

In the ongoing gay marriage debate between Andrew Sullivan and Stanley Kurtz, score one for Mr. Kurtz, who has been arguing that the gay marriage movement poses a direct threat to the existing institution of marriage, while Mr. Sullivan argues the contrary.

[zx2dragon]

I have stated before, and I still stand by it, that the gov't should not be involved in the marriage business unless a couple who do not belong to any faith wish to have some sort of union. Other than that, it's between the couple and their faith.

Some sort of official documentation would be needed for things like social security, name change, divorce, etc and that could be supplied by the church (official seal, notorized by an authorised individual, etc) or the gov't agency if the couple so choose not to go the way of the church.

Taxes--everyone should pay the same whether they are married or not.

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Pssst...


Ping!

[Centurion2000]

Marriage has its advantages but some think the nation’s laws give married couples too much favorable treatment

Like the IRS penalty ?

[Sofa King]

I'm all for the de-legalization of marriage. Marriage, as traditionally practiced in this country, is a Christian (yes, Christian, not Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, druidic, pagan or atheist. Like it or not, this country was founded by christians as a Christian nation) sacrament. It should be allowed to remain a religious institution rather than being twisted beyond recognition by the government.

[Aquinasfan]

"Why should you be treated differently by the law just because you're married?"

Because marriages beget children. Without children, society disappears.

This is the pathetic level to which "scholarship" has fallen.