Group Calls for De-Legalization of Marriage

FoxNews.com ^ | 10/09/2003 | Steve Brown

[FormerLib]

I'm not surprised at this is the least. It is quite clear that these people are dedicated to the destruction of our society and they will use whatever methods they can to do so.

[FormerLib]

PING!

[Egon]

Heh. You gotta give them this: at least they're imaginative!

[Support Free Republic]

Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!!

Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute!

[JudgemAll]

This is another way of saying make religion illegal and idolatry of feelings mandated.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"University of Houston Law School professor Victor Flatt"

Another item for the Texas budget cutting list of priorities.

[exile]

Tax Benefits???? It's obvious this guy doesn't have a background in accounting. I'm a CPA, and it's common knowledge that most married couples end up paying more in taxes than they would if they were single. Hasn't he heard of the marriage penalty?

[KarlInOhio]

When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws.

[Argus]

De-legalization of property ownership will be the next step. Why should anybody own their own house when other people can't? It's not fair. Everybody should be housed in barracks with a regulation-size cot, chair and nightstand apiece. This is the actual Utopia these neo-Bolsheviks have in mind for us.

[billb]

Well, that's one way to reduce the divorce rate.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Getting government out of people's personal lives isn't "destruction of our society". And while Professor Flatt is listing the perks that government showers on people who get their marriages licensed by the government (University of Houston (search ) Law School professor Victor Flatt cites social security, immigration, tax benefits and travel benefits as some of the perks married couples receive , he forgets to mention all the welfare payments that government showers on single moms as long as they DON'T possess one of these government issued marriage licenses. That practice definitely has contributed to the "destruction of our society". Get rid of legal recognition of marriage, and the government will no longer be able to bribe women not to marry the fathers of their children.

[Hodar]

It is quite clear that these people are dedicated to the destruction of our society and they will use whatever methods they can to do so.

Instead of being 'me'-centric, think about what this group wants. They want equality. They want the benefits that society bestows upon a married couple, that they are denied bases solely upon the gender of thier mate. When they asked for gay-marriage, the uproar was that somehow allowing them to be married would destroy the American family. I can't speak for your marriage, but frankly, mine would not be affected if a couple of gay men, or lesbians made a legally binding commitment.

As they have been denied the ability to marry and obtain the legal benefits found in marriage (spouse automatically inherits in case of death, spouse may sign to permit surgery in emergencies, Alimony, taxes, Social Security, insurance, property ownership, ect). Their next step is to show that the 'married' group is patently uncounstitution under the equal protection clause.

You simply can't have it all your way. Either we openly and freely discriminate against homosexuals in work, school, property, religon, housing, health and education; or we allow them equal access to all benefits the rest of us enjoy.

[SuziQ]

Hmmm, if this gets wide airplay, it may help to show regular folks just what the agenda of the homosexual activists really is. Most people don't know what the homosexual activists have in mind, they haven't been paying attention because they figured it would never affect THEM. This kind of stuff WILL, and I'm thinking the average married couple in America won't take to kindly to monkeying with the institution.

[mikesmad]

Every "legal benefit" you list can be bestowed upon non-married persons with contracts and power of attorney except one notable exception - Social Security. That's right, the government run program. The answer to that is get rid of Social Security and allow everyone to have private savings for retirement (or none). Once it is in the private marketplace then you can designate who gets those funds (if they exist) upon your death, just by putting a name in a box.

In reality all of those benefits enjoyed by married people are just an implied contract we "sign" by getting married.

[Salman]

You mean it really is about destroying traditional marriage after all. But they said ...

Duh!

[onedoug]

"Everybody should be housed in barracks with a regulation-size cot, chair and nightstand apiece. This is the actual Utopia these neo-Bolsheviks have in mind for us."

Us. Not them. They are the elite.

[gridlock]

Duplicate Post.

We thoroughly thrashed this out here

[gridlock]

BTW, mikesmad and governmentshrinker are right.

Get government out of the marriage business, before it defines marriage out of existance.

Given that the government has botched the job in every other area of human endeavor it has been involved in, I wonder why so many people want it central to the institution of marriage?

[Hodar]

In reality all of those benefits enjoyed by married people are just an implied contract we "sign" by getting married.

And is there any reason that gay couples can't "sign" the same type of contract? If people have a problem with the word "marriage", maybe they could call it "bonding" or some other PC term. While I may not agree with their lifestyle and choices, I do think they have a valid arguement, as long as we are talking 'equality' and NOT "protected status".