I agree with this statement.
The only way to do that is to remove government from giving out licenses. Make all marriages under a contract. As it is today many couples go into marriage with the idea: 'well if it doesn't work I can always get a devorce.' Needless to say this is a direct result of the failures of bad law.
Contracts can change this for everyone. So with a contract when you enter a marriage you know exactly what you are getting into. Each contract can be different.
When someone asks you today what school did you goto. People ask you this to know what kind of schooling you actually got. Same should go with marriage. People will ask what institution did you get married under?
Somebody back me up on this, please.
While the social values of marriage - health and safety of the current and next generation are essential to the survival of civilization - I believe the civic laws governing marriage have evolved for the primary purpose of protecting property rights. Before the Industrial Age, wealth was generally in property.
Today we live in an age where every adult is expected to be an income earner, and wealth is often related to pension or other monetary benefits. This is the angle that unisex couples are using to push their agenda. If we can separate the two principles - strength of future generations and transfer of financial assets - we might have a better chance of defeating the cancer that this idea formal recognition of homosexual union is in reality.
Here is an example of what I mean - medical insurance rates are different for families, couples and single individuals. Actuaries could figure the rates for any person who wishes to put any other person on his/her policy. What someone does in the bedroom would not be the deciding factor. An unmarried child could nominate their parent, for example. Two sisters could share one health insurance.
These moral cowards are well represented at FR. Their cowardice and apathy are complicit in the advance of the Socialist/Gramscian agenda.
These so-called "economic conservatives" fix their greedy eye on the golden eggs and ignore the savage beating that is being inflicted on the goose. "The health of the goose is the goose's private and personal problem, not mine," is their attitude.
part of socialism involves context switching and misdefinition of terms to add false validity to invalid arguments.
marriage is ONLY a contract between men and women. if gays wish to be united in a relationship of devotion, they must use a term similar to this in order to be taken seriously.<p.admonish them as intellectual children, in a nice, non threatening way-it really gets under the skin, and never get angry.
"Advocates of gay marriage are fond of comparing those who warn against it to racists who purveyed silly scare stories about the effects of miscegenation. But the real model for gay marriage is the priesthood scandal. Here is a case in which gay sexual culture has not been tamed by, but has instead dramatically subverted, a venerable social institution -- an institution built around an ethic that is a first cousin to marital fidelity itself. Should the connection take root in the public mind, gay marriage may not become a reality after all."
Let's hope the connection takes root before homosexuals dramatically subvert yet another venerable social institution.
Yes, the grownups are busy dealing with real issues, and have no time for schoolyard gibes at the "queers".
It's a "vicious attempt to make the U.S. Constitution explicitly anti-lesbian and gay rights," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.
It is not a 'vicious attempt.'
It cannot 'make the U.S. Constitution explicitly anti-lesbian and [anti-]gay rights.'
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the matter of the homosexual syndrome, and thus the States may or may not choose, State by State, what will be the law regarding the definition of marriage.
The U.S. Constitution is not the appropriate social contract to alter on this matter, because again, such civil matters regarding the relationships known as "civil unions" is a State right, not a federal right.
There is no federal right to marriage, and it is absurd to begin such a Department of Civil Unions; though I am certain that the "tax and spend" knuckle-draggers "on both sides of the isle" will happily conclude such a proposition as they form a union of the political moment so as to create an even bigger addition to our federal leviathan ... under the name of "Anything to Move Forward the Meaning-Less-Ness of Constitutional Foundations."
Gays claim a right to free consumption, including sex, which is fine with me, but why do they then want a gay marriage so as to sue their partners in a divorce if their partners ever wanted to share this free consumption with another partner?
Why would gays moralise their partners who would choose one day to be straight and share life's blessings with a spouse of opposite sex and children in a family unit?
Why gay people allow themselves to tell us we are gay by genetics, yet they forbid us telling them how repulsively consumerist is their behavior?