Skip to comments.Getting California Out Of Marriage Business Proposed As Answer To Prop. 8 War [Giving Gays Ideas]
Posted on 03/24/2009 10:20:25 PM PDT by Steelfish
Getting California out of marriage business proposed as answer to Prop. 8 war
By Susan Ferriss
Mar. 24, 2009
At California's historic hearing on Proposition 8 earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin briefly imagined a scenario that might solve the legal conflict over a gay marriage ban.
What if the government were to get out of the "marriage business," Ming asked, and issue civil-union licenses to both straight and gay couples?
The justices agreed such a change would have to be handled by the Legislature, and discussion closed.
But outside the court, the question still hung in the air.
On March 10, five days after the court hearing, two California college students got the OK from state election officials to try to put Ming's question before voters.
The students are circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would strike the word "marriage" from state laws and substitute "domestic partnership."
The change would keep all the rights of marriage now on the books. But it would nullify Proposition 8 and make the new partnership category applicable to both gay and straight.
"We want to take marriage out of the battlefield," said Ali Shams, a University of California, San Diego, student who co-authored the language.
Many people say their religion tells them marriage is between a man and a woman, Shams said. But many also believe gay people have a right to equal treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Sounds good to me. It’s not as though Prop 8 is going to stand up much longer if it keeps getting put up for a vote anyway.
They just don’t get it do they? They couldn’t get gay marriage so now they want to get rid of marriage as we know it. That is not as much an idea as seemingly a desire to be defeated even by greater numbers at the polls.
It is staggeringly unbelievable that a state Supreme Court justice will suggest how to circumvent a peoples’ proposition! Not a peep of outrage from the MSM!
It will stand don’t worry. The sexual activists have overstepped more than they realize. Have faith. They don’t have the support to repeal it and they know it and the more they are in the face of the voters the more they will sour the public even those who might otherwise support them. This is not just about gay marriage it is about forced public acceptance, it is about teaching homosexuality in schools, it is about putting parents in jail if they don’t want their kids indoctrinated. This is so much bigger than “gay marriage” though that alone is big enough.
I thought prop8 was a Constitutional amendment?? How does a court call a part of the Constitution unconstitutional??
Way overdue. Government has no business defining/regulating/licensing personal relationships between adults or religious practices of adults. Dump the “civil unions” too. It’s none of government’s business. People can have contracts covering their personal relationships if they want to, and the contracts can say what the FREE CITIZENS who enter into them, want them to say.
I welcome them wasting their money. The gay community has made a nuisance of itself and overplayed its hand. Most people I believe just want them to shut up and go away and do whatever they want but leave marriage, our schools, and the minds of our children alone. They are defective, they have the problem. They get over it and quit trying to force their beliefs and their behavior on the rest of us.
“I thought prop8 was a Constitutional amendment?? How does a court call a part of the Constitution unconstitutional??”
If more than 50% of the court is Democrat.
I wish your optimism is correct. That’s what we were told about B. Hussein O as well. The last opinion polls showed a neck and neck contest. The indoctrination is almost complete of our high school and college voters. Besides, contributors to the pro-traditional marriage will be running scared of negative blowback.
If cessation of government definition/regulation/licensing of marriage will “end marriage as you know it”, your concept of marriage is pretty pathetic. The sorts of marriages that make a positive contribution to society aren’t the ones that rely on government approval to endure and thrive.
This proves the lie that they aren’t trying to change other people’s marriages. Give liberals enough time and they continually prove they live in a world of lies and deceit.
marriage should be defined by religion, not the govt. I know at least the Jewish wedding contract, the ketubah, has real meat to it.
Homosexuality is obviously a biological perversion. It should be tolerated but never celebrated. Nor should they receive special rights because of a behavior that happens to cost our medical establishment and taxpayers billions of dollars. Government should discourage the behavior.
The behavior is sexist....it separates the sexes. It is evil because homosexuals deny children the right to have a biological mother and father and try to promote the lie that any combo of family is fine. Facts prove otherwise. It is the most selfish lifestyle. Love is about sacrifice for people you love. Their relationship is all about narcissism and lust. Since the relationships are sexist, the government should not be able to promote it at all. They actually should list it as a hate crime against women or men....whichever the "couple" is discriminating against. The portrayal of them "playing house" in children's books (Heather has two mommies) should also be classified as a crime--because of the biological lie that is obvious in the title and that they are subverting the religion of the majority of people in this country. The books should be banned for their propaganda directed at children, so that they can be seduced into a destructive lifestyle. It would be the same as the tobacco company writing books for children on the glories of smoking cigarettes and promoting that behavior as good and decent and that only bigots would not engage in the behavior.
Sounds like an excellent plan. Honest people on both sides should want to de-escalate this conflict. Marriage should not depend upon government recognition to sanctify it. All government should do is enforce civil contracts involving voluntary living relationships (wills, trusts, financial arrangements, etc.).
Then gays who wish to get "married" can do so in a church of their choosing which accommodates such marriages. In their eyes they are married, and they can simply ignore anyone who disagrees. Conversely, people who object to gay marriage can deny that the gay couple is truly married and simply ignore such claims of marriage. Each side goes its own way, and ignores the other side. Live and let live.
Of course that won't satisfy the radicals on either end of the spectrum. Those who see the gay marriage issue as an organizational tool for legitimatizing homosexuality will not be happy with the reduction in polarization. Those who see homosexuality as the Devil's tool for promoting sin and damnation and the destruction of civilization will despise a "live and let live" approach.
But the rest of us will welcome an end to this battle.
Just privatize marriages & divorces, then, to make them more efficient just like FedEx. [/sarc]
If the homosexuals had proposed abolishing civil marriage 20 years ago, they’d have been tarred and feathered.
Now even a bunch of conservatives on FR think it would be the most reasonable thing to do.
This has ALWAYS been an attack on marriage and the traditional family. Always.
The government does indeed have such business and it has since the founding of this nation. Now whether it is correct or not is another matter. If the government can license businesses, license cars, it most certainly can license marriages. It also has an interest in licensing marriages such as age restrictions, and defining legal obligations between a man and women in relationship to themselves and any children. Most don’t have any problem with marriage as it is. It provides a bit of stability. Nothing prevents people who do not wish to get such a license from cohabiting, most of those laws have disappeared or are not enforced.
The problem with your idealistic approach which I would support in a perfect world (one without liberals) but I assure you that getting rid of a legally defined marriage would only empower those who wish to redefine the culture concerning marriage. I think it would also have a generally negative effect on the concept of an intact family especially among young people which are already suffering because of increasing lack of definition on what are healthy relationships and on how to form relationships geared towards forming healthy families.
What you are doing is surrendering. No one is taking anything away from Homosexuals by licensing marriages no more than a person who can not meet the requirements to receive a drivers license has anything taken away by the government licensing those who do meet the requirements. These requirements and licensing did not just come about on a whim passed in the dead of night without being read like legislation often does today. It was drafted by elected officials who have an authority within both the state and federal constitution to define such licensing and regulation.
I know in today’s modern emotion driven world people do not think rationally and tend to be child-like with these things thinking they are entitled to have their every whim indulged regardless of whether they meet the requirements. Do we cancel a college course because some can not make the grade to get in? This is typical liberalism, when you can’t win based on merit of argument then you like a child try to break or destroy that which is not yours to have.
There is absolutely no reason for marriage licensing to be removed just to please the childish whims of a group of people who choose not to participate in normal sexual and marital relationships. Nothing stops them, they choose to lead a life that incompatible with the natural and legal definition of marriage. That is their problem not ours and it is their job to make the political case to change it if that is their desire. They have not made that case convincingly as demonstrated by the fact they have failed in every case where it has been put before the voters and that is the only empirical objective test that should be accepted. That is the way free representative democracy works. Sometimes it is wrong but those who make such eventual reap results if given enough time.
Anarchy is not democracy, nor is childish “if I can’t have my whatever I desire endorsed by the government than we have to get rid of marriage licenses to be fair” theory of government. It is low minded drivel masquerading under the guise of liberty. Your idea of a Free Citizen would make all variety of crimes and misdeeds acceptable as long as a contract had been agreed upon beforehand. I prefer Democracy by the People for the People as our founders envisioned not a childish anarchist’s or liberals pipe dream.
I’m all for taking the government out of the equation, but for very different reasons.
Don’t bet on it. They aren’t even close to what they need for repeal and though some will be intimidated most of us won’t be. The latest Field poll I saw is showing them under 50% which means they are much lower than that. Right before the last election the same poll in OCT 2008 showed prop 8 losing at 44% to 49%. It passed with 52% of the vote. The previous law which was voided by the courts and wasn’t a constitutional amendment and was far easier to understand defining marriage as between a man and a woman passed with 62%. I’m not worried. If we stand and fight, we win and we fight. Enough of us will.
Very well put. Inheritance laws and estate and life decisions are another legal reason. Next of kin obligations.
The primary social benefit is in the creation and rearing of children. Screw up enough parents in one generation and your society is gone.
Great societies can not exist without strong families. Strong families can not exist without marriage.
But the commies already know that.
At least this approach is logically consistent, unlike the nutty “I have a right to special government privileges” argument.
“Now even a bunch of conservatives on FR think it would be the most reasonable thing to do.”
Enlightened people know that state-sponsored marriage came from a time when women were second-class citizens. It was a means of passing on property legally, and ensuring paternity. We no longer need government to do either, and women are perfectly capable of entering into their own freely contracted relationships.
There is plenty of literature, more than 20 years old, from writers conservatives generally approve that repeat this point.
“Your idea of a Free Citizen would make all variety of crimes and misdeeds acceptable as long as a contract had been agreed upon beforehand”
No one can take you seriously after this comment.
“Great societies can not exist without strong families. Strong families can not exist without marriage.”
Both can prosper without special government status.
I’ve been reconstructing and investigating the genealogy of our various family branches. Glaringly obvious is the connection that marriage plays in the progression and succession of families.
What are we to become... like dogs and cats, mating at will with no thought of who you are and what you came from?
This is like a bad sci-fi movie.
Governmental licensing of marriage being abolished is acceptable. Replacing it with some ‘domestic partnership’ law, however, is just putting lipstick on the cow - might be good for one date, but you can only milk that so long...
For all intents and purposes, the singular objective would be to circumvent through creative reasoning a constitutional amendment passed by the citizens of the state. The problem is not marriage - it never was the problem, the problem are those who try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us (IE: gay activists.)
Legislating acceptance won’t really make people accept them, and these contortions to reach ever further has done nothing but backfire on these same activists.
If an honest proposition was placed before the voters, to no longer have the state recognize /any/ form of marriage, I’d be fine with that.
“So you won’t let me play with your toys? Here I’ll show you!”
“There. Now nobody gets to play!
Grow up folks.
I wish Abortion was given the same rights as gay marriage. States could decide whether to have abortion legal or not. Now 50 states are forced to have abortion facilities available. State should have the right to vote to get rid of abortion like they do gay marriage (We currently only have 3 states that legalized gay marriage and 50 states that are baby killers. Stupid Supreme Court. lol.
Conservatives are for smaller government Marie. Don’t you get it? Why have the government dictate civil marriages when the churches can do it. You make no sense as a conservative. Perhaps you are a big Republican Government type...I don’t know.
Why is there any reason for anything to be ceased? Licensing marriage doesn’t take anything from anyone who wishing to get married that fits the definition that can be licensed. What do you not understand and why do you care if the government licenses marriage or not? Gays under your definition can have the added benefit of not being interfered with by the government. Yeah for them. If they can not make a convincing political case to change the definition of marriage then why should the rest of us give up anything? There is absolutely nothing oppressive by having a licensed legal marriage. You don’t have to do it. Most who don’t it refuse to largely to assuage commitment and maintain wiggle room so not to say they are “married”.
I’ve seen very few that remain cohabiting without formal marriage for the sake of romance, laziness, lack of commitment, fear, those things come to mind.
I still haven’t figured our why you as an individual are so hostile towards the concept of marriage. So what homosexuals do not fit the natural or legal definition of marriage. They choose not to and they have every right to do that just as we the public and our representative have every right to choose not to endorse their chosen arrangement. Nothing stops them from drawing up legal documents inferring legal responsibilities to whomever they wish sexual or nonsexual. Do you believe the government should rescind drivers license requirements because some wish to drive but do not meet the requirements under the law? I hardly think so.
As for my concept of marriage I think it is pretty robust. I’ve been married since I was 21 which makes it 14 years and my wife and I have 4 kids. My wife stays at home and I provide for them. It is her choice. I didn’t tell her she had to, it just made sense for the best interest of our children. What other definition of marriage do you have in mind because the marriage license was just a formality, a necessary one but I never dated anyone without the hope of marriage. The document didn’t make my marriage a success but it did show a commitment that I took very seriously and I believe if a man and woman really desire to make a family they will desire to be married legally. Why not? My parents are still married, my grandparents were married till they died, my great grandparents were married till they died both sides of the family divorce was nonexistent. Divorce is the plague of the current generation that accepts no standards and demonstrates the same childishness you display. None of my grandparents were born into riches they were poor one spent time in foster care but it didn’t seem to stop them from building good families.
I can’t blame you for your faithlessness it hasn’t always been easy to do what is right in the face of a popular culture that has become increasingly hostile to natural families. Natural is only good when it involves grocery produce and trail mix. That said I don’t know why people believe that if they can’t get their whims catered to that somehow others who are just fine should have to give up something to make them feel better when they have lost a political argument.
I think we have given up enough to people who should feel lucky we tolerate them at all for all their whining and demanding of things that are due to them. Marriage licenses take nothing away from anyone it merely casts into law the definition on which people have agreed upon since the nation was founded and approximates the natural family arrangement and is generally beneficial. The law has marriage right and there are things of far greater urgency to remove than marriage licensing. The fact that it is the number one thing on sexual activist’s list when they are not alarmed at the degree of confiscation of wealth, and the real abuses of government power where things are taken away from them and others suggests a lack priorities on their part. The only reason I’m concerned at all is because they want to foist their fiction on all of us, by redefining marriage, by indoctrinating our children, by intimidating their ideological opponents by making fringe disease ridden sexual behaviors acceptable. They decided to fight this battle. We just are responding. We didn’t ask for this and we are in no obligated to change ANYTHING to suit them.
Thanks. You are right about those other considerations. The generation of kids raised in the aftermath of broken families and families that never were are is costing us dearly and those children are forever disadvantaged. I was just talking to my wife and she was marveling that out of all the grand kids of her grandmother’s that our children are the only ones that were all conceived after marriage. Most were born outside of marriage and the cost has been huge. Most of the grand kids still behave like children and now they are parents and it is largely their parents who are raising their kids.
Who says it can’t be both? Not everything the government endorses is bad it primarily runs amok when it goes outside the will of the people. The licensing of marriage does not run against the will of the people. Most are completely satisfied with the current arranged licensing that was arrived at through the free democratic process and has not changed markedly for hundreds of years. Now of course the religious and natural definition goes back thousands but I’m not going to split hairs. It is not an either or situation. People can be married through religious ceremony without a marriage license. The legal weight might be in question but I do know that the people I encounter who choose not to be legally married are usually trying to wiggle out of some type of responsibility because I can not think of one reason not to be legally married. You may choose not to and that is your right but don’t expect the law to change just to please people who have some kind of radical minimalist idea of government. I’ll start worrying about removing marriage licensing when we have succeeded in shutting the IRS down.lol It is simply a matter if it isn’t broke why fit it? The government has plenty of other things that merit fixing. The last thing it should be doing is changing the game on marriage.
I’m for a discussion about how the govt, by getting involved, detracts from the sanctity of marriage. I say this as a conservative, not a libertarian. But you’re right in that we shouldn’t push the govt to get out of it and certainly not in response to the prop 8 issue.
Unfortunately, it's most 'zackly like reality for more than half the population.
The few taboos still in place regarding relations between consenting adults-- incest, f'r'instance-- will last precisely as long as there are social and medical consequences-- and the latter are just about out. A vascectomized father might have relations with his consenting adult daughter, on the grounds that no genetically risky pregnancy could result; all that needs happen is to make that their "civil right"!
“Conservatives are for smaller government Marie.”
conservatives are also very concerned about any attack against traditional values. If getting rid of civil marriage helps the gay agenda then it is a bad idea. It certainly would be if it is presented as a ‘fix’ for prop 8.
It is about destroying that which is not them. Religious peoples have generally been tolerant. There has never been rampant violent against homosexuals in this country. There is no evidence of rampant discrimination in employment either. It is all a trumped up game and the cost has been huge in the number of lives broken and thousands ended in disease. Young men especially suffer a huge cost when they come out at young ages which increases the chances they will contract AIDs and other horrible diseases like Syphilis and Hepatitis but it isn’t nice to talk about those things.
"Gay Marriage" is the "Trojan horse" method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups in the effort to legitimize the perverse behavior of homosexuality in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school children by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a "safe" and "normal" alternative "sexual lifestyle" choice and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and acceptance, kowtow or be hauled up in front of a "diversity" tribunal and be charged/convicted for hate crimes..
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I wholeheartedly agree with your entire post.
Government has no authority to require someone to get it's permission to marry....and that's exactly what the word license means in legalese.
It is a contract between two People, and government doesn't get to decide who may or may not enter into such a contract.
As you said, though- Of course that won't satisfy the radicals on either end of the spectrum. is quite true. Those of us who find homosexuality rather disgusting must realize this dividing line between government and the People, and understand that by being publicly civil to homosexuals who identify themselves as 'married' also keeps government out of our own marriages.
Oh, good grief!
That's like saying we would all be animals if it wasn't for government paperwork.
Families recorded marriages [performed at a church], births and deaths for GENERATIONS in the family Bible. Do you think our forefathers behaved like dogs and cats, mating at will with no thought of who they were or what they came from?
Keeping track of such things is the responsibility of individual people, NOT the government.
They're free to move to those other countries. :^
Seriously, this article illustrates the problem of basing the marriage issue on religion or even tradition. The issue is really a matter of biology, common sense, logic, and reality: The purpose of marriage law is and always has been about procreation/human reproduction. The purpose is to encourage biological family units to remain intact. Society benefits when biological family units tend to remain intact (with some exceptions).
Marriage law also is not based on an emotion, like "love", either. Emotion cannot be legislated.
Marriage isn't even about "rights". It's about responsibilities. It's purely an agreement between a man and a woman that they will unite in this legal agreement, that they will have responsibilities for each other, and that children produced by their union will be entitled to inheritance, etc.
they don’t understand that if homo’s got married legally then all kinds of marriages can be legal.
The fact is that the majority do not want homo’s to get married and the more they try and force us to accept them the norm the people are getting pissed off with them.
If it is their private business as they say it is then stop telling us about your perverted sexual tendencies, stop with the freak shows and stop segregating yourselves.
Some of us were discussing that very issue on a thread recently.
We were talking about how society has reached this point where so-called "same sex" marriage is even being considered and how married heterosexual couples led us down this road. The problem began with test tube babies, sperm donors, and surrogacy. Once society accepted couples going outside their marriage to produce children, the original purpose of marriage (human reproduction) was taken out of the equation. And, because those married couples would have their own names (not the names of the surrogate or anonymous donor) placed on the birth certificates, "same sex" couples in some states have won legal cases to have their names placed on a birth certificate, based on what married heterosexual couples do.
I can understand the plight of those married couples. But, the reality is, that's how we ended up in the situation we have today. Now, we're headed into the type of society where, as you pointed out, it's not considered important to know who your biological parents and siblings are. Eventually, marriage law will have to require a medical test to ensure the couple isn't related to each other.
correct again , one only has to look at MA and see how their agenda is going.
it was marriage, then adoption and now teaching it in public schools.
I wish a group of polygamists would move to that state and get their marriage into the courts and lets see what the voters there then say and see what the homosexuals say about their rights to marry.
What’s the betting that the homo’s would not be so tolerant of that group and their agenda.
Every argument homo’s use the polygamists can use and so the courts would have to accept it and why doesn’t straight normal couples sue to get civil unions too along with the perks of it?