Crossroads Inc. wrote:I just read the thread and want to apologize if I seemed flippant in that comment. You are defiantly a different type of Libertarian then I am used to and am actually quite refreshing to read how you view things. Also I too was in the camp that thought you meant to get rid of ALL government involvement in marriage. Personally however I think its religious groups that should not be allowed to form marriages, and all couples should get a government marriage license
No need to apologize. I do want the government to get out of marriage - or, rather, want them to scrap it entirely and call it something else, under the rubric of shrinking government.
Basically, I feel marriage should be an "add-on": everyone gets civil unions, and you get 'married' when you want to affirm your relationship under the aegis of a different establishment. That, I think, would be preferable to the way things are handled now. I don't want to deny people their liberty to get a religious marriage license, however stupid I may find it to be.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater
Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
Crossroads Inc. wrote:I just read the thread and want to apologize if I seemed flippant in that comment. You are defiantly a different type of Libertarian then I am used to and am actually quite refreshing to read how you view things. Also I too was in the camp that thought you meant to get rid of ALL government involvement in marriage. Personally however I think its religious groups that should not be allowed to form marriages, and all couples should get a government marriage license
No need to apologize. I do want the government to get out of marriage - or, rather, want them to scrap it entirely and call it something else, under the rubric of shrinking government.
Basically, I feel marriage should be an "add-on": everyone gets civil unions, and you get 'married' when you want to affirm your relationship under the aegis of a different establishment. That, I think, would be preferable to the way things are handled now. I don't want to deny people their liberty to get a religious marriage license, however stupid I may find it to be.
That's just semantics to appease the bigots. Marriage has historically always been the purview of the government rather than the church (especially for things like inheritance). The idea that it's a religious matter is a relatively recent invention and honestly pretty absurd.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Liberty Ferall wrote:
Simple. I suggest that we have the state in charge of issuing "civil unions," which are essentially contractual agreements, to any two adults who want them. This would cover taxes, etc.
I suggest we do that and call it Marriage, and the churches can do what they please on the understanding that they have no weight in law unless the state agrees to grant them license to perform what it legally recognises as marriage.
Liberty Ferall wrote:
Simple. I suggest that we have the state in charge of issuing "civil unions," which are essentially contractual agreements, to any two adults who want them. This would cover taxes, etc.
I suggest we do that and call it Marriage, and the churches can do what they please on the understanding that they have no weight in law unless the state agrees to grant them license to perform what it legally recognises as marriage.
I don't think the state should grant churches licenses to perform marriages. I want to completely separate the state and religious parts. If you want to get "married" in a legal sense, you go to the courthouse and get "married." It's a legal agreement. If you want to mix your religious beliefs into it, then you can have a ceremony of your choosing at your church, but nothing that happens there is legally binding. Separation of church and state, yeah yeah.
Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of. - Benjamin Franklin
Einzige: So, in place of one standard applied regardless of religion, you're proposing we let what would be hundreds if not thousands of standards be formed which must now be monitored by the government to ensure governmental compliance with said standards as well as the application of inheritance, power of attorney, etc., and that those standards not create a harmful situation? And you do this wanting to shrink government?
Liberty: But why let marriage be the word the churches get to use and the government something else? Call it one thing for everyone, marriage (to avoid the separate but equal issues that arise), make the religious ceremony, if any, be symbolic to those participating.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
The Spartan wrote:Liberty: But why let marriage be the word the churches get to use and the government something else? Call it one thing for everyone, marriage (to avoid the separate but equal issues that arise), make the religious ceremony, if any, be symbolic to those participating.
It's merely semantics to appease the religious right. We're seeing the religious right take down health care reform over the issue of abortion, and it's appalling. You're right, there is really no reason to change the term of the government issued license; I'm merely trying to be slightly realistic. If we call it "civil unions" and that's what everyone gets, it will be completely obvious that it's a legal document issued by the government, not something ordained by God. I'm totally open to other suggestions, though.
Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of. - Benjamin Franklin
I think I see where you're coming from. You're taking a more pragmatic approach, rather than talking about where we should be? I presume as a baby step to the full equality that I'm speaking of?
If so, then we're basically in agreement just talking about different things but you're adding in an extra step to the process that I can't say is entirely unnecessary from a practicality standpoint.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
The Spartan wrote:I think I see where you're coming from. You're taking a more pragmatic approach, rather than talking about where we should be? I presume as a baby step to the full equality that I'm speaking of?
If so, then we're basically in agreement just talking about different things but you're adding in an extra step to the process that I can't say is entirely unnecessary from a practicality standpoint.
The obvious problem is, that any small step at progress will be fought all the way. I could see the religious right arguing "But we gave you civil unions! You're just being ungrateful and selfish!" What you need is all or nothing.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
The Spartan wrote:I think I see where you're coming from. You're taking a more pragmatic approach, rather than talking about where we should be? I presume as a baby step to the full equality that I'm speaking of?
If so, then we're basically in agreement just talking about different things but you're adding in an extra step to the process that I can't say is entirely unnecessary from a practicality standpoint.
Yes, we're on the same page. It's just that until those religious nuts realize that marriage is a function of the state and is not religious, we have a problem. If we change the language maybe we can make it obvious that the state issued license is merely a legal agreement, nothing more. But then, maybe I'm being too optimistic.
Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that is the stuff life is made of. - Benjamin Franklin
Though to be honest I tend towards Zod's view of all or nothing. Force it down their collective throat and make them accept it. It might take a generation for it to really take hold, much like the Civil Right's era, but it'll take eventually.
At the same time, as I implied earlier, I can see how taking the baby steps might be a path of least resistance. I'm just not convinced that it wouldn't cause more problems later than simply taking the "bandaid removal" approach.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
With civil rights in the '60s, forcing reform down the dinosaurs' throats worked well.
But... with abortion rights in the '70s, it backfired horribly, and the anti-abortion backlash helped push the modern far-right movement into power. So it's an iffy tactic if you ask me.
True, but it's easy to see that there's no real harm when allowing rights for gays, however, from the point of view of anti-abortion, it's trivially easy to show harm: the unborn child, so the two aren't quite analogous. I probably could have phrased that sentence better, but hopefully the gist of what I'm saying is apparent.
But even if I'm right that isn't to say it wouldn't still backfire...
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
If you look at MA, which have marriage equality laws for almost 7 years now, there is virtually no chance of reversing that law. People there have gotten used to it and it's now a non-issue. If you're looking for evidence that "jamming equal rights down people's throats" will work in the long run, just look at states and countries that have already done it.
Pint0 Xtreme wrote:If you look at MA, which have marriage equality laws for almost 7 years now, there is virtually no chance of reversing that law. People there have gotten used to it and it's now a non-issue. If you're looking for evidence that "jamming equal rights down people's throats" will work in the long run, just look at states and countries that have already done it.
Plus, abortion and equal rights for blacks are different because abortion is a service that has to be provided and so you can shut it down bit by bit. Equality is harder to undermine although that doesn't mean people haven't tried.
