www.ditl.org

Gay marriage has been, and is, a reserved right since it became an issue.

me,myself and I wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Since when are human rights issues settled on a state by state basis? What if they'd decided to settle slavery or segregation on a state by state basis?

For the longest time, those were settled on a state by state basis weren't they?

They were indeed. And perhaps I'm not up to date on my US history, but I understood there was a... spirited debate... on that topic which concluded with it being a national issue.

Civil rights issues based on race were hardly settled by the Civil War. And more germane, the federal government ha NEVER attempted to adjudicate gay marriage over the states' authority.

You could have said much the same about slavery before the civil war.

Captain Seafort wrote:You could have said much the same about slavery before the civil war.

Seems pretty obvious that "gay is the new black" south of me. Which isn't all that surprising considering the religious nature of the US.

Captain Seafort wrote:You could have said much the same about slavery before the civil war.

Er, yes. OK. And?

Mikey wrote:Civil rights issues based on race were hardly settled by the Civil War.

No, but they are settled NOW, and not on a state basis.

And more germane, the federal government ha NEVER attempted to adjudicate gay marriage over the states' authority.

So what? The question is not whether they have, it's whether they should.

I can think of no other human rights issue in which it's a state matter. States can't legislate discrimination against women, blacks, jews, etc. But discriminate against gay people, and suddenly it's a local matter? Does that make any sense at all?

GrahamKennedy wrote:I can think of no other human rights issue in which it's a state matter. States can't legislate discrimination against women, blacks, jews, etc. But discriminate against gay people, and suddenly it's a local matter? Does that make any sense at all?

I think that's because there isn't yet a national judicial consensus that gays are a protected class, like women or racial minorities. Thus gay marriage and gay anti-discrimination laws are treated as a matter of state discretion, not as one of human rights.

Mikey wrote:The who would certify the partnership as "marriage,"

No one. There would be no more governmentally recognized status of "married."

in order to make avialable spousal benefits, default beneficiary status, estate planning, etc.? By me, at least, marriages may be legally performed by clerics but must be ratified by a civil license. Or, of course, a civil ceremony may be performed.

Designate a next of kin. The government would no longer use marriage status to determine who gets the benefits. You designate a next of kin in such situations and they recieve those benefits. Estate planning, they're called wills.

I think you are gonna have a hard time removing marriages altogether. While I like the concept, the problem is people like the idea of being married. I dont mean just calling themselves "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", I mean they like having a legally recognized bond. It is going to be incredibly difficult to get rid of marriages because of that.

Reliant121 wrote:I think you are gonna have a hard time removing marriages altogether. While I like the concept, the problem is people like the idea of being married. I dont mean just calling themselves "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", I mean they like having a legally recognized bond. It is going to be incredibly difficult to get rid of marriages because of that.

It's not getting rid of marriage. I'm married and I like it. It's getting rid of the legal status of "married". In the government's eyes calling yourself married would have all the legal ramifications of calling yourself catholic, ie, none.

Ah, I see. Fair 'nuff.

Tyyr wrote:

Mikey wrote:The who would certify the partnership as "marriage,"

No one. There would be no more governmentally recognized status of "married."

in order to make avialable spousal benefits, default beneficiary status, estate planning, etc.? By me, at least, marriages may be legally performed by clerics but must be ratified by a civil license. Or, of course, a civil ceremony may be performed.

Designate a next of kin. The government would no longer use marriage status to determine who gets the benefits. You designate a next of kin in such situations and they recieve those benefits. Estate planning, they're called wills.

and what about married persons tax allowance? You only get it if you are married. Civil partnerships don't get it. It's a government thing nothing to do with religion. From my point of view religion should have nothing to do with marriage. If they want to perform them then fine, so long as they perform the certification parts as required by the state and file the documentation in the normal way. If you want to invite god to your marriage then fine for you, if you don't then you should not be refused a marriage.

The state controls marriage just as it does divorce. It's been that way here since Henry VIII, given there was no USA prior to that it's been that way since your country existed, we gave it to you and I don't think you've ever changed it.

Tyyr wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:I think you are gonna have a hard time removing marriages altogether. While I like the concept, the problem is people like the idea of being married. I dont mean just calling themselves "Mr. and Mrs. Smith", I mean they like having a legally recognized bond. It is going to be incredibly difficult to get rid of marriages because of that.

It's not getting rid of marriage. I'm married and I like it. It's getting rid of the legal status of "married". In the government's eyes calling yourself married would have all the legal ramifications of calling yourself catholic, ie, none.

I totally disagree. I think we're looking at marriage from different sides. I think it's got nothing to do with religion and you think it's got nothing to do with state. Given there's always been a way of getting married without the church then I think I'm more correct. People married by a registrar (or justice of the piece) are no less married than those doing it in a church. It's also got to stay that way otherwise how are you going to sort out divorce? It is, after all, only a branch of government (courts) that can dissolve a marriage.

IanKennedy wrote:and what about married persons tax allowance?

Given that the government no longer would have any legal status of "married," it sort of solves itself. There is no more credit.

The state controls marriage just as it does divorce. It's been that way here since Henry VIII, given there was no USA prior to that it's been that way since your country existed, we gave it to you and I don't think you've ever changed it.

And since we're no longer part of England and haven't been for oh... 200+ years I think its safe to say there's nothing stopping us from changing it. The state should have nothing to do with marriage or divorce.

Given there's always been a way of getting married without the church then I think I'm more correct.

You're either correct or your not, there is no such thing as "more" correct. What you're describing is a difference of opinion. In my opinion marriage is a concept that predates any currently existing government and therefore its governments involving themselves in it.

People married by a registrar (or justice of the piece) are no less married than those doing it in a church.

And again, what I'm proposing doesn't make any group any more or less married than anyone else. Its entirely up to the individual how they want to handle it. If a couple wants a ceremony great, if they don't whatever. Wanna just hangout and call yourselves married? Go for it. It's up to the individuals to decide it for themselves.

It's also got to stay that way otherwise how are you going to sort out divorce? It is, after all, only a branch of government (courts) that can dissolve a marriage.

And when the government gets out of marriage it will also be out of the divorce game. Since the government no longer affords any legal weight to the status of "married," getting divorced no longer matters to the government either. If a couple doesn't want to be married any longer guess what, they aren't. It's up to them to decide if they are still married or not.