The Battle Over Marriage And Other Matters Between Consenting Adults

yes it is, you can't pick and choose what parts of the bible you decide are right and what is wrong. according to the bible homosexuality is bad and eating shellfish is bad and mixing linen and wool is bad, either accept it or dump it, don't be wishy-washy.

Well said!!

which is my point, the words themselves are creating problems, marriage started as a religious thing then was used as a seccular thing even though it is a DIFFERENT thing.

When a seccular person hears the word marriage they think legal contract based on constitutional law, when a fundementalist hears marriage they hear contract with god or something, two completely different things.

I want everyone too have spousal rights and I'm not dissing Christianity, I'm trying to offer a compromise (call it civil union and take the religious connotations of the word marriage out of it) and see if anyone can help build on this.

First off, how is letting gay people, two consensual adults, get married any sort of "slippery slope". That sounds like the sort of argument people used 30 or 40 years ago to justify their opposition to interracial marriage. That if you just let ANYONE, regardless of race, get married, then alllllllllllllll sorts of crazy starts to happen. Yeah? I mean, people used to use the story of Noah and Ham to justify slavery as being ordained by God, once upon a time...

As for NAMBLA and Pet "lovers": I call straw man on you!! . Kids aren't consenting adults and animals aren't consenting adults. The issue is resolved just as simply as that.

BDSM People: Slavery is forbidden by the Constitution. If two people want to get married, and then the slave wants to sign over power of attorney, and give all their assets away to the Top, let them knock themselves out.

Long story short: Marriage today, at least the part where benefits, and tax write offs, and legal status come into play is a wholely secular creation of The State. And last I heard, the State isn't really allowed to discriminate. I don't care one wit what the CHURCH wants to do, with it's RELIGIOUS cerimonies. It is wrong and appauling to force RELIGIONS to marry gay people, when they don't want to. But there is nothing that can be said to justify keeping two gay people from having a "civil union", and then just let them have whatever froofy little cerimony or ritual they want to mark the occasion with.

Why should the State be interested in keeping polygamists from getting married? Why should the State care who gets married to whom, as long as the two people are consenting adults?

About this time, some yahoo will bring up incest based marriages: I think it could be argued that the State has a compelling interest not to allow siblings to marry, or children to marry their parents. There are reasons why you have to get a blood test in order to get a marriage license. But if you find a crazy religion that will let you get married to your sister, go for it. Just dont expect my tax dollars to cover it.

I consider myself a moderate Libertarian. I would like to see the Government get less and less involved in issues, and let things pretty much run themselves. As Lao Tzu once said, a wise sage rules as if cooking a small fish.

There are those who will complain that the State shouldn't be involved in regulating marriages, and they would have a good point. So I say: Get married by whatever religious means you like. But don't get a marriage license. Don't come crying to me if the State refuses to acknowledge your marriage or give you tax breaks, becuase you didn't play by their rules.

Lastly, why the hell are we acting like letting gay people get married is somehow going to cheapen and destroy marriage? The divorce rates are currently 50%, and people are committing adultary ALL the damn time. Last I checked, straight people were doing a mighty fine job making a mockery of marriage all on their own. How can we as a nation claim that we want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" by forbidding gay people from getting married, while at the same time doing things like passing laws allowing for no-fault divorce, and softball laws on adultary?

Again, I ask you: What compelling reason does the state have to prevent gay people from getting marriage in a completely legal and secular sense?

Watch out for Inga, I hear she's a bitch.

My only concern with polygamy is a logistical concern. With a two person marriage it is easy to define rights and dependencies.

However, if someone came up with a good way to address the responsibilities and rights of multiple partners in a marriage, I would be open to the idea. It's just not something I have given a lot of thought to and I can see potential difficulties.

For instance, one spouse dies and the two remaining spouses disagree on whether or not to donate the body to science. Who has the final word? Can that responsibility be addressed through marriage or would there need to be additional legal agreements?

It sounds as though you are advocating that the legally-recognized contract pairing two individuals (either same-sex or opposite-sex) be called "Civil Union" rather than "marriage", while reserving the term "marriage" for the religious ceremony a couple may or may not wish to engage in as a public display of their affirmation to live by the terms of that contract.

If this is the case, do you think the majority of same-sex marriage opponents would agree with this renaming of the civil contract? Let religious institutions "marry" people according to their doctrine (providing the opportunity for a nice reception and gift-grab, but no legal standing), while the state approves a binding contract ("civil union" between two individuals that grants them a set of legal rights and obligations.

Or, we could all just recognize that two entirely separate things happen to unfortunately share the same name, and allow the state to register same-sex "secular marriages", which simultaneously allowing religious instiution to perform "spiritual marriages" according to their conscience.

Its not? Good maybe we can talk about inter-racial marriage then. Tell me Kiamat - Did this decision START the slippery slope your referring to?

***Fast Foward to Today***
"Hi, my name is Kent Kroker and I was born to an interracial marriage. Fifty years ago, my mother probably would have been stoned to death or ostracized by the community as a whore and my father lynched - That is, until a bit of judicial "activism" protected my family's rights as human beings. In fact, their defense of my lineage was so successful that the intense racial segregation and miscegenation laws of the past are now distant memories. Nonetheless like most Good Americans today I just hate gays. I mean, they are GAY! They do... GAY STUFF! As a Good American I stand tall against any such disgusting behavior with my President and Party!"

Brava! Well said, madame. Why you ask? It's a ruse by which the religionistas hope to covertly foist their own narrowly defined religious idealogies upon the rest of us.

PS: And rest assured, as soon as they have slain the Goliath of gay marriage, it won't be long until they take a look-see at legal code governing divorce, adultery and the like.

I agree that the lifstyle should be allowed, and it is, under law. I was just saying that it shouldn't have other legal ramifications or a need to be written into law that a person can become "property" because that would open things up for abuse of the system. Again, property or "slave" ina legal sense would take away all consent from the said property, after the initial consent. That would open things up to non-consensual abuse, assult, or even killing, as the "property" would no longer have equal rights under the law.

At least i think that's what you are saying/asking.

Actually .. For middle incomes above the ammount to receive the Earned Income Credit, There is an approximate $1400 penalty for being married , per year.

A single person with the same number of dependants would actually fare better, tax wise.

My thought on the "slippery slope" is this: if gay marriage is sanctioned in the US, and if after some time people see that there are no detrimental effects on the institution of marriage or society as a whole, they might be more prone to grant the same legal sanction to my union, which would confer some peace of mind to me.

If a tendency towards greater acceptance and tolerance of relationships between consenting adults is a slippery slope, get me a tobaggan!

We see from parts of the world that allow gay marriage and those that allow plural marriage that straight two-person marriage survives just fine. The arguments against are couched in secular terms, but they have a puritanical base (and not a biblical one, interestingly, as many figures in the Bible had multiple partners).

Puritans make me cranky.

But you see, that is exactly the problem. Church and state should be seperate. If the only reason to not allow gay Marriage is religion, then there should be NO reason to not allow it legally. Remember the freedom of religion part? Why should the bible have any influence on who can legally get married.

They aren't being selfish..they are trying to be equal. If they were saying ONLY gays can get married, similar to christians saying only a man and woman can get married, that would be selfish.

i love how people asking for equality are labeled as selfish by those trying to supress them.

hahahahahaha! Talk about a specious argument! People can't be property so allowing BDSM couples to enter into legally recognized unions would not result in the "slave" becoming the legal property of the "master." Human rights are non-negotiable, though apparently you (and all the others like you) have great difficulty grasping that concept. I see nothing wrong with poly groups entering into marriages or civil unions or whatever. The rights and benefits given to tradtional male/female partners must be extended to include everyone. Until we do that we haven't progressed very far from the days of real slavery.

If gay marriage is such a slippery slope, then I guess male catholic priests being allowed near underage males is a solid ice slope...

I concur with people like Eboni and Rebeccah. I think that the best solution to all of this is to remove any and all State affiliation with the institution of marriage. Strip marriage of it's legal status and any and all "perks" (special legal benefits associated therewith) thereby relegating the terms of individual marriages to the participants. Then gays can marry gays and bisexuals can marry gays and straights can marry bisexuals who are married to gays......

Kiamat Dusk
Communism is bad...mmmkay you shouldn't be a Commie.

First Off, If you get married in a secular ceremony , you are married in the eyes of the law. It is still called MARRIAGE. Sorry but Marriage is ingrained in the STATE, its part of law as well as religeon

There has not been for over 400 years a Solaitary all inclusive CHRISTAIN religeon .. sorry no one owns the Christain faith. And interpretations of the bible dont go to some special board of reveiw.

Additionally, All faiths that are non christain are just as appropriate under the law, or should be. Muslim Marriages consisting of one husband and wife are legal in the US , for example.

Age of the religeon is not an issue either .. many religeons such as the Jewish faith are older.

If someone started a church tommorrow their marriages would be just as religeous as a Roman Catholics as long as they followed the legal process in that State.

Since two Athiests can get married , as long as they are Hetero .. why is it unacceptable for two homosexuals, reguardless of their religeon?

brilliantly written, lucid, passionate and I agree. Thank you.

Welp, it's pretty simple to me. If our tax dollars, which, lets face it, are extracted from pretty much all of us at the point of a virtual gun, are being used to fund secular "civil union" benefits, then anyone who is a consenting adult, but is not allowed to take advantage of these benefits they are being forced to fund is suffering from "taxation without representation".

Either let gay people get married in the same secular, legal way that everyone else can, or give them a break on their taxes. Besides, can you imagine the boost to local economies if gay people could get married like everyone else?

If two parents disagree about the care of a child, the law expects them to work it out amongst themselves, mediating or rendering judgement only as a last resort. I suspect the same principles of family law would hold sway if one member of a triad were deceased or incapacitated.

First off...hi sweetie. Kiss kiss

Second, someone who is "anti-gay marrige" tried to explain to me the purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation. And since gay people can't procreate (I hestitated to explain turkey basting to him they shouldn't get married.

He didn't have an answer for me, past sputtering and flusterment, when I asked if this means we shouldn't let sterile people, or people past the age of childbearing get married.

that's what I'm saying, the WORD itself causes problems as different people interpret the word differently.

hehe i have to agree with Rebeccah on gay marriage too ... or else id end up sleepin on the couch.


Okay .. i have an idea .. if you want gay people to accept the word Civil Union... then Staight people do also.


In other words .. legally, Straight people will only be Civily Unionized Also

Snarky comments addressed to posts here and there:

-To some uber-conservatives, we're already far down the slippery slope, aren't we? "First Jews wanted to be able to marry Christians. Then blacks wanted to marry whites! And now two men or two women!?"

-I don't see a problem with polyamory in and of itself. It however would carry with it a great deal of legal complication, and as I am also of the opinion that government should be as uncomplicated and unintrusive as possible, I'd rather we didn't have to get into it. One trouble is, it traditionally carries with it practices I very much object to: child marriage and treating women as property. Having a legally recognized structure for a man to marry half a dozen wives would aid and abet these practices. Marriage carries with it certain correllaries from the legal standpoint, especially divorce. Picture scenarios such as a married man marrying a previously married woman, but the other man and woman involved don't want to be married to each other. Which marriage takes precedence? Or how about when three people are married, and one woman has a child but then the other two want to divorce her. Who is going to win the custody battle?

-Perhaps a new version of a Family LLLP is in order for people who want to be involved in a polyamourous relationship. It would allow for property and counsel rights without forcing the issue onto a system that serves the vast majority of the people just fine.

Oh foo. If we didn't already agree naturally dear, the couch would be the least of our problems.