Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Options
Replies
-
I'm out. Anyone else want to try and explain that legal contracts can still deal with the government and law?0
-
This does not remove any agency from having to approve marriages, this steps it sideways and has the lawyers fill out a form that gets approved by several different government agencies in a very *kitten* backwards manner.
what's *kitten* backwards here? No government agencies would be in the position to "approve" the marriage, they would simply be informed that it took place. Much as SS had to take a look at my documents to change my name, but they had no authority to approve/deny my marriage from taking place.
My contention is the issuing of licenses gives the idea that the government agency that issues them is endorsing or approving of this union, because if they don't (you're gay,you're related too closely, etc.) then you can't have one.
Under my proposed idea, there is no need for that endorsement/approval/consent, because the contract you entered into with the help of a private lawyer has parameters that only the partners of the marriage have to agree to. No outside entity would have the power to deny any marriage, since the terms of the contract would be applicable only to the parties who agreed to them.
So are you saying any consenting adult could enter into the contract even if they are not in a romantic relationship? Cause i am ok with that!
Yes I am. It would be up to you who you wish to partner up with. Almost like you would be the one in charge of your own life.0 -
I'm surprised that the churches grciously allow civil ceremonies. Y'know, like the ones a lot of my friends have had down at the courthouse. The are curiously lacking in the ministerial department. I am pretty sure the Elvis impersonator who performed a number of other friends Vegas marriages was also not a minister of any kind, but was licensed to perform weddings. Perhaps the churches don't know that these things that are happening?
I disagree with the idea that you will be able to take the gov't out of the licensing business here which is why my proposal was to change the name of the license and the union to which it applies in the legal term. That way there IS no marriage so to speak. Everyone gets a domestic partnership license that can be certified by anyone who is qualified to do so - i.e. the same people who are now certified to perform weddings.
The rights afforded to such a partnership would be equal across the board. It would require some re-writing of legislation, to re-name the institution, plus there would be a huge fight that gov't was trying to "kill" marriage, but in the end, I think the benefits of such a change would become apparent to a veto-proof majority.
There are too many rights tied up in all of this federally, over a thousand, to try to unentangle the gov't from the process. Plus, once that sick vampiric entity known as the Fed gets its fangs in something it's almost impossible to get them out. My proposal allows all of the things that currentkly exist to continue, it just evens the pklaying field for everyione and makes this institution that is being sanctioned by the goveernment a more legalistc entity.0 -
I'm out. Anyone else want to try and explain that legal contracts can still deal with the government and law?
No need for tizzy. Seems like semantics. tomato, tomatoe, potatoe, potato
approve vs inform
get APPROVAL/license then get married vs get married/joined by contract, then INFORM that you are.
either way just a debate. seems as if you both agree that the church/religion is not required and that the government can be only inlovled in a limited fashion.0 -
This does not remove any agency from having to approve marriages, this steps it sideways and has the lawyers fill out a form that gets approved by several different government agencies in a very *kitten* backwards manner.
what's *kitten* backwards here? No government agencies would be in the position to "approve" the marriage, they would simply be informed that it took place. Much as SS had to take a look at my documents to change my name, but they had no authority to approve/deny my marriage from taking place.
My contention is the issuing of licenses gives the idea that the government agency that issues them is endorsing or approving of this union, because if they don't (you're gay,you're related too closely, etc.) then you can't have one.
Under my proposed idea, there is no need for that endorsement/approval/consent, because the contract you entered into with the help of a private lawyer has parameters that only the partners of the marriage have to agree to. No outside entity would have the power to deny any marriage, since the terms of the contract would be applicable only to the parties who agreed to them.
So are you saying any consenting adult could enter into the contract even if they are not in a romantic relationship? Cause i am ok with that!
Yes I am. It would be up to you who you wish to partner up with. Almost like you would be the one in charge of your own life.
That is certainly the approach we take at our fitness center. A "couple" membership is defined as "two people, one bill". Can be any two people: males females, married, unmarried, living together, casual friends, whatever. Makes everything simple.0 -
This does not remove any agency from having to approve marriages, this steps it sideways and has the lawyers fill out a form that gets approved by several different government agencies in a very *kitten* backwards manner.
what's *kitten* backwards here? No government agencies would be in the position to "approve" the marriage, they would simply be informed that it took place. Much as SS had to take a look at my documents to change my name, but they had no authority to approve/deny my marriage from taking place.
My contention is the issuing of licenses gives the idea that the government agency that issues them is endorsing or approving of this union, because if they don't (you're gay,you're related too closely, etc.) then you can't have one.
Under my proposed idea, there is no need for that endorsement/approval/consent, because the contract you entered into with the help of a private lawyer has parameters that only the partners of the marriage have to agree to. No outside entity would have the power to deny any marriage, since the terms of the contract would be applicable only to the parties who agreed to them.
So are you saying any consenting adult could enter into the contract even if they are not in a romantic relationship? Cause i am ok with that!
Yes I am. It would be up to you who you wish to partner up with. Almost like you would be the one in charge of your own life.
That is certainly the approach we take at our fitness center. A "couple" membership is defined as "two people, one bill". Can be any two people: males females, married, unmarried, living together, casual friends, whatever. Makes everything simple.
:happy: I did this at a new years party. it was one price for singles and another for couples. They didn't specify a couple of what, so we said we wanted the couple price. they gave it no question asked, a wry knowing smile, but no question... then again it was in Atlanta.
0 -
That is certainly the approach we take at our fitness center. A "couple" membership is defined as "two people, one bill". Can be any two people: males females, married, unmarried, living together, casual friends, whatever. Makes everything simple.
simple, elegant, love it.0 -
simple, elegant, love it.That is certainly the approach we take at our fitness center. A "couple" membership is defined as "two people, one bill". Can be any two people: males females, married, unmarried, living together, casual friends, whatever. Makes everything simple.
Ditto! I think the issue before *may* have been an uncertainty of the legal protection and benefits of marriage (from the government) remaining in a scenario where a lawyer files a boilerplate contract on a couple's behalf. Just to be clear - this baseline contract would include all of the current benefits and protections of the current license and would *only* be altered (added to) in the case of prenuptial agreement-type things?
Also, I suppose gay couples might have to shop around for friendly lawyers in some places!0 -
Just to be clear - this baseline contract would include all of the current benefits and protections of the current license and would *only* be altered (added to) in the case of prenuptial agreement-type things?
exactly. The boiler-plate contract would define the rights/benefits/priveleges of marriage as they currently stand. Any alterations/additions would be up to the couple, and could be negotiated by them as they create their contract with the help of their lawyer. Just like now, you would not be able to contract for anything that violates anyone's civil rights or is illegal on other bases.
Violations of the contract could be responded to by filing for divorce, as the terms of the contract had been broken.0 -
The boiler-plate contract would define the rights/benefits/priveleges of marriage as they currently stand. Any alterations/additions would be up to the couple, and could be negotiated by them as they create their contract with the help of their lawyer. Just like now, you would not be able to contract for anything that violates anyone's civil rights or is illegal on other bases.
Violations of the contract could be responded to by filing for divorce, as the terms of the contract had been broken.
I have to try this one more time. You are scaring the crap out of me because you cannot draw a direct line between getting a contract filed with the government through a lawyer and giving a contract to those government agencies yourself.
So...
If your broiler plate form still provides the benefits of a legal marriage, it:
Allows people to file taxes jointly with the government
Allows spouses to see each other in the hospital and make medical decisions for each other when incapacitated as backed up by government legislation
Makes sure spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other in a court of law because they are protected by the government.
How in the hell can you say that you are taking the government out of marriage? You are just giving money to lawyers to file each couple together as married with the government so that people can receive government protection.
And should your "legal contracts" be violated, the offenders have to file for divorce in a court of law.0 -
Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
We've already done this. That's the way things are currently. You need a marriage certificate, issued by the state. But you need no religious ceremony to be considered married. I can't see the church getting that upset over something that is current policy.
Example: People getting married at the courthouse or in Vegas. No church involvement. Still recognized as a legally married couple.
Yes, but saying Elvis can legally marry you isn't the same thing as saying Reverand Bob can't legally marry you. None of the gay marriage legislation is forcing churches to marry gay couples, it just says that gay couples can be married. Do you really expect religion to be anything other than petty with that as the starting point?
Ok... Reverand Bob CAN'T legally marry you. A church wedding, of any denomination, is meaningless without a marriage license issued by the state.
I simply do not understand why you think "the church" (any and all of them) are going to be upset by something that is currently law and common accepted practice.
Wow, my brain was protecting me from this one.
It goes both ways: without Reverand Bob or a secular authority signing the marriage license, the license is completely useless. The church is still marrying you. They have the power to cement your marriage in the eyes of the law.0 -
Yup. And that power to have the authority to sign a marriage license and make it valid is issued by ... the government.Cutting churches out of the legal process of marriage entirely will lead to more religious outrage than the thought that consenting adults can have a life with whoever they want.
We've already done this. That's the way things are currently. You need a marriage certificate, issued by the state. But you need no religious ceremony to be considered married. I can't see the church getting that upset over something that is current policy.
Example: People getting married at the courthouse or in Vegas. No church involvement. Still recognized as a legally married couple.
Yes, but saying Elvis can legally marry you isn't the same thing as saying Reverand Bob can't legally marry you. None of the gay marriage legislation is forcing churches to marry gay couples, it just says that gay couples can be married. Do you really expect religion to be anything other than petty with that as the starting point?
Ok... Reverand Bob CAN'T legally marry you. A church wedding, of any denomination, is meaningless without a marriage license issued by the state.
I simply do not understand why you think "the church" (any and all of them) are going to be upset by something that is currently law and common accepted practice.
Wow, my brain was protecting me from this one.
It goes both ways: without Reverand Bob or a secular authority signing the marriage license, the license is completely useless. The church is still marrying you. They have the power to cement your marriage in the eyes of the law.
You can take religion out of marriage but you cannot take the government out of marriage. Marriage is a legal contract issued and authorized by the government. If someone wants it to be religious as well then they can be "religiously unioned" if they so choose. But marriage should be for everyone. Even now, it's not owned by any one religion or country. 2 Hindus who get married in India and emmigrate to the US are just as married as 2 people from Ohio who get married in a Catholic church. The Hindus don't have to get remarried when they emmigrate here. Their marriage, as recognized by the Indian government, is just as recognized here.0 -
You can take religion out of marriage but you cannot take the government out of marriage. Marriage is a legal contract issued and authorized by the government. If someone wants it to be religious as well then they can be "religiously unioned" if they so choose. But marriage should be for everyone. Even now, it's not owned by any one religion or country. 2 Hindus who get married in India and emmigrate to the US are just as married as 2 people from Ohio who get married in a Catholic church. The Hindus don't have to get remarried when they emmigrate here. Their marriage, as recognized by the Indian government, is just as recognized here.
Look, I haven't even gotten a chance to argue for or against gay marriage. Somehow, the people in the last few posts are completely ignorant about who has the power to form a marriage and what a marriage is. How can you argue for or against gay marriage if you don't have a clue what legal marriage is about for anyone?0 -
The key is the "file the necessary paperwork" part. When you "File the paperwork", you don't file it in your sock drawer, you file it with the court. The court's part of the government. I can't "file the paperwork" to marry my guitar,,, the court won't take it, it's not a legal marriage. They'll only accept and recognize paperwork and contracts that are legal.I guess the word sanctioned isn't right. How about: a legal contract that isn't issued by the government.
Just like a corporation, or an LLC. You don't need the government's blessing to incorporate, you just go to a lawyer, make sure the name is available, and file the necessary paperwork. Then, poof! You have a corporation.
Similarly, in a religious marriage ceremony, you are still filing the paperwork - the legally-required, government issued paperwork - with the church, which is acting, for the civil elements of the process, as an agent for the government. Church marriage records are lodged with the state, churches cannot legally marry two people without the state's approval (license), churches are officially RECOGNISED by the state as entities certified to perform legal marriages, provided they adhere to certain civil requirements, just as a JP, or an Elvis-impersonator/Joey-from-'Friends' for that matter, may be. Legally-speaking, the church/religious ceremony does not and cannot convey the status of marriage, except in that it acts as an agent for the state.
Inasmuch as the church alone cannot marry you in the eyes of the law - the civil component: license/register/certificate is still a legal necessity - you cannot entirely separate the state from the church in the marriage rite ie. the church may recognise the marriage, but legally, unless civil agency has been duly observed and carried out, you are not married. It does however work the other way around, because the state can recognise a marriage, even if the church does not. Whether for heterosexual or homosexual couples, married in a church, a mosque, a submarine, a garden or whilst sky-diving, it is the CIVIL and not the religious aspects of marriage that dictate legal status.
I can't make my computer do bold or italic text or underline when posting, hence the capitals - my apologies for appearing to shout!0 -
This is why the preacher says ""By the authority vested in me by G-d (Vishnu, Buddha, The Flying Spaghetti Monster - whatever) AND the state of Ohio (Utah, confusion, whatever) I now pronounce"".
It's 2 deals. Most of us do 'em both at once to save time, but it is 2 separate issues.0 -
Exactly. Why can't, for example, two sisters who live together end up raising their nephew get the same legal "benefits" that a married couple get? We wouldn't call their relationship a marriage, but they have decided to spend their lives together and are raising a child.That is certainly the approach we take at our fitness center. A "couple" membership is defined as "two people, one bill". Can be any two people: males females, married, unmarried, living together, casual friends, whatever. Makes everything simple.0 -
It comes down to religious people and homophobes NOT WANTING people of same sex who want to be together to have the same type of "marriage" as they do.
So glad that our kids of today are starting to get more resistant to religion and discrimination.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
It comes down to religious people and homophobes NOT WANTING people of same sex who want to be together to have the same type of "marriage" as they do.
So glad that our kids of today are starting to get more resistant to religion and discrimination.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If we could leave out the 'religious people' and 'religion' generalisations (Hello, I'm a Christian who supports Gay Marriage), so that your sentences read:
"It comes down to homophobes NOT WANTING people of same sex who want to be together to have the same type of "marriage" as they do. So glad that our kids of today are starting to get more resistant to discrimination."
I'd be in complete agreement with you.
0 -
You would be hard pressed to find other "hardcore" christians agreeing with you. There are exceptions from people who "follow" religion, but religious organizations overall are anti gay marriage.It comes down to religious people and homophobes NOT WANTING people of same sex who want to be together to have the same type of "marriage" as they do.
So glad that our kids of today are starting to get more resistant to religion and discrimination.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If we could leave out the 'religious people' and 'religion' generalisations (Hello, I'm a Christian who supports Gay Marriage), so that your sentences read:
"It comes down to homophobes NOT WANTING people of same sex who want to be together to have the same type of "marriage" as they do. So glad that our kids of today are starting to get more resistant to discrimination."
I'd be in complete agreement with you.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
You would be hard pressed to find other "hardcore" christians agreeing with you. There are exceptions from people who "follow" religion, but religious organizations overall are anti gay marriage.It comes down to religious people and homophobes NOT WANTING people of same sex who want to be together to have the same type of "marriage" as they do.
So glad that our kids of today are starting to get more resistant to religion and discrimination.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If we could leave out the 'religious people' and 'religion' generalisations (Hello, I'm a Christian who supports Gay Marriage), so that your sentences read:
"It comes down to homophobes NOT WANTING people of same sex who want to be together to have the same type of "marriage" as they do. So glad that our kids of today are starting to get more resistant to discrimination."
I'd be in complete agreement with you.
Many are, but there are also many of all faiths who resist discrimination, hatred and bigotry as a central tenet of their beliefs. They may not be as loud, or as well-publicised as those organisations who proclaim their opposition, but they exist nonetheless. This is why I object to the generalisation that assumes all religious people are homophobes.0 -
You can take religion out of marriage but you cannot take the government out of marriage. Marriage is a legal contract issued and authorized by the government. If someone wants it to be religious as well then they can be "religiously unioned" if they so choose. But marriage should be for everyone. Even now, it's not owned by any one religion or country. 2 Hindus who get married in India and emmigrate to the US are just as married as 2 people from Ohio who get married in a Catholic church. The Hindus don't have to get remarried when they emmigrate here. Their marriage, as recognized by the Indian government, is just as recognized here.
Look, I haven't even gotten a chance to argue for or against gay marriage. Somehow, the people in the last few posts are completely ignorant about who has the power to form a marriage and what a marriage is. How can you argue for or against gay marriage if you don't have a clue what legal marriage is about for anyone?
oh wow.
I never said my proposed idea was intended to take government out of marriage. Obviously, all matters which can be heard in a court of law are protected by and overseen by our government. That's a great big NO DUH.
I think (correct me if you think I'm wrong) that by placing the government in the position of granting or denying a license to do anything, you have given them the authority to define that thing. I don't have to ask the government's permission to go get a tattoo, for example. I can just decide what I want to do with my own skin, and go do it. I don't have to get a license to go for a walk. I don't have to get a license to go on a date with someone. These are all examples of personal liberties I can choose without the government having the ability to issue or deny a license. The moment we decide a thing has to be licensed, then there is automatically a board/group/entity who has the choice to deny or approve requests for the license.
I'm suggesting that creating a legal marriage should be more similar to creating a corporation. Maybe the distinction is irrelevant, but if the government is in the position of granting the licenses, then "it" (read:politicians) has to have an "opinion" on the matter. But if it is a matter of personal choice, and the government is NOT in the position of granting the licenses, then there is no reason for politicians to debate over it any longer. People will do what they're gonna do, churches can still rest easy in the knowledge that they are totally allowed to discriminate when deciding who is allowed to wed in a church, and we all go along our merry way.
Am I making sense to anyone except myself?0 -
You can take religion out of marriage but you cannot take the government out of marriage. Marriage is a legal contract issued and authorized by the government. If someone wants it to be religious as well then they can be "religiously unioned" if they so choose. But marriage should be for everyone. Even now, it's not owned by any one religion or country. 2 Hindus who get married in India and emmigrate to the US are just as married as 2 people from Ohio who get married in a Catholic church. The Hindus don't have to get remarried when they emmigrate here. Their marriage, as recognized by the Indian government, is just as recognized here.
Look, I haven't even gotten a chance to argue for or against gay marriage. Somehow, the people in the last few posts are completely ignorant about who has the power to form a marriage and what a marriage is. How can you argue for or against gay marriage if you don't have a clue what legal marriage is about for anyone?
oh wow.
I never said my proposed idea was intended to take government out of marriage. Obviously, all matters which can be heard in a court of law are protected by and overseen by our government. That's a great big NO DUH.
I think (correct me if you think I'm wrong) that by placing the government in the position of granting or denying a license to do anything, you have given them the authority to define that thing. I don't have to ask the government's permission to go get a tattoo, for example. I can just decide what I want to do with my own skin, and go do it. I don't have to get a license to go for a walk. I don't have to get a license to go on a date with someone. These are all examples of personal liberties I can choose without the government having the ability to issue or deny a license. The moment we decide a thing has to be licensed, then there is automatically a board/group/entity who has the choice to deny or approve requests for the license.
I'm suggesting that creating a legal marriage should be more similar to creating a corporation. Maybe the distinction is irrelevant, but if the government is in the position of granting the licenses, then "it" (read:politicians) has to have an "opinion" on the matter. But if it is a matter of personal choice, and the government is NOT in the position of granting the licenses, then there is no reason for politicians to debate over it any longer. People will do what they're gonna do, churches can still rest easy in the knowledge that they are totally allowed to discriminate when deciding who is allowed to wed in a church, and we all go along our merry way.
Am I making sense to anyone except myself?
Makes perfect sense! That is how I understood your proposal to be.0 -
I understood you!Am I making sense to anyone except myself?0 -
Really, really quick answer to LuckyLeprechan...
The government approves applications to become a corporation. The government legally defines what a corporation is, so with your proposed "legal contract" idea the government would still be defining what a marriage is and approving married couples. You'd just have the applicants going to the government through a lawyer.
I'm sorry this is so hard for you.0 -
I'm pretty sure she has already granted this. Why is this so hard for YOU to understand what she is saying?The government approves applications to become a corporation. The government legally defines what a corporation is, so with your proposed "legal contract" idea the government would still be defining what a marriage is and approving married couples. You'd just have the applicants going to the government through a lawyer.
I'm sorry this is so hard for you.0 -
I'm sorry this is so hard for you.
I have enjoyed debating with you. You always bring up such reasonable arguments and defend your point so well. Your insightful replies have added so much to our debate group.
:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: a whole DOZEN for you.0 -
with your proposed "legal contract" idea the government would still be defining what a marriage is and approving married couples. You'd just have the applicants going to the government through a lawyer.
They wouldn't be applicants. They would be informing the government what they had done, not asking permission to do so. Therein lies the distinction.
Good day to you.0 -
I think the issue is that the lawyer is a paid middleman. The best option imo - government undoes the discrimination against gay folks - then no gay couple would have to ask for permission. Cut the middleman (lawyer) out of the way and file directly with the government as always.0
-
What do you think about a compromise, of sorts? Say the government grants all unions of people living together/raising children the same benefits as a man/woman marriage, would that be enough to satisfy people? Or is the bigger issue wanting approval from society and wanting to be considered "married" as a man and woman are? Thoughts?I think the issue is that the lawyer is a paid middleman. The best option imo - government undoes the discrimination against gay folks - then no gay couple would have to ask for permission. Cut the middleman (lawyer) out of the way and file directly with the government as always.0 -
They wouldn't be applicants. They would be informing the government what they had done, not asking permission to do so. Therein lies the distinction.
Good day to you.
So the government provides all of the benefits and protections of marriage and is not defining the marriage, nor saying when it starts?
Yeah, got that the first time. That'll never happen. You're talking on something that touches on tax law, medical liability, retirement... and you want the government to give up any ability to approve the couples qualifying. It really, truly is easier to change one line of marriage law to include the definition of "man and man" than it is to change every law involving marriage to cover non-government approved contracts.
I understand you're trying to come up with a third option to make marriage more inclusive. I can respect that. Still, it is incredibly naive of politics and law to think that this will work.
In a very convoluted way it's insulting to gay marriage rights. People are lobbying and fighting for a marriage, not a loophole. It'll take time to change each state law, but it is a fight worth fighting.0
This discussion has been closed.