Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Group Calls for De-Legalization of Marriage
FoxNews.com ^ | October 9, 2003

Posted on 10/09/2003 7:56:46 AM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Marriage has its advantages but some think the nation’s laws give married couples too much favorable treatment and the only way to even the playing field is to de-legalize the institution.

A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: culturewar; homosexualagenda; houston; marriagelaws; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; tempertantrum; uofh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

1 posted on 10/09/2003 7:56:46 AM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
And in related news, unemployment advocates today requested that all jobs be outlawed in order for there to be equity between the employed and unemployed.
2 posted on 10/09/2003 7:59:57 AM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office. (Recall Davis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


God Bless Those
who Protect our Liberty

---

Past, Present
and Future.


Please visit the FR Fundraiser



3 posted on 10/09/2003 8:00:26 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
"The goal is equality between married and unmarried persons,” said David Blankenhorn at the Institute for American Values

Oh, puke....here we go......the actual DESTRUCTION of MARRIAGE as something of VALUE....how can this group call themselves the "Institute for American Values"....what do they stand for? ME...ME...ME...ME????

4 posted on 10/09/2003 8:01:16 AM PDT by goodnesswins (I'm a Happy Monthly Donor....ARE YOU? It's easy; just do it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
INTREP - SODOMITE AGENDA
5 posted on 10/09/2003 8:02:46 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
So if gays can't get married nobody can?
6 posted on 10/09/2003 8:03:05 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
They are absolutely right. The law should be neutral on the issue of marriage. It is simply none of the government's business.

If there are to be special priviledges for married people, the government will be unable to avoid making them available to non-traditional couples by expanding the definition of marriage. This is only the latest of an unbroken string of about a thousand examples of how government destroys what it seeks to promote. We should realize that government is destructive to the institution of marriage and keep it as far away from marriage as possible.

Shared property, child custody, power of attorney, and the like can be handled through other legally binding agreements between individuals. There is no need to have government mucking around in the definition of who is and who is not married. Because the government will come down on the side of inclusivity, every single time.

The FMA will never happen.
7 posted on 10/09/2003 8:03:36 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
ARE THESE IDIOTS ON CRACK!!!!!?
8 posted on 10/09/2003 8:04:25 AM PDT by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservative America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
"There's no lengths to which they won't go,” said Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America. “And of course it undermines traditional marriage and we cannot allow them to do that."

Fine. Too bad she has no intention of working to repaal no fault divorce laws, which is what have weakend traditional marriage to the point where it is actually endangered by the other side. This is like someone decrying the weeds in the front yard while the foundation of the house is caving in.

9 posted on 10/09/2003 8:05:15 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Shared property, child custody, power of attorney, and the like can be handled through other legally binding agreements between individuals.

Out of curiosity, where would these "legally binding agreements" be enforced if one party violates them?

10 posted on 10/09/2003 8:07:29 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
"A group of legal scholars and gay advocacy groups are calling for marriage to be de-legalized in order to make the distribution of benefits more fair for people who aren’t married, including gay couples."

The whole idea of a government "distributing benefits" is counter to the American tradition of individual freedom.

Bearing in mind that marriage is the foundation of society.

11 posted on 10/09/2003 8:08:04 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29

"Victor Flatt is an advisor to several environmental organizations. He is on the National Board of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, is an officer in the legal education section of the AALS, and serves on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered sub-committee of the Law School Admissions Council."

12 posted on 10/09/2003 8:11:55 AM PDT by dighton (Nasty Little Clique™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe
The same kind of crack that killed Rock Hudson...
13 posted on 10/09/2003 8:18:09 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Out of curiosity, where would these "legally binding agreements" be enforced if one party violates them?

In court, just like divorces are handled today, every day of the week.

14 posted on 10/09/2003 8:24:22 AM PDT by gridlock (Remember: PC Kills!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
Just from a pragmatic standpoint, this suggestion flies in the face of all human history.
15 posted on 10/09/2003 8:30:50 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Would a widow who has never worked be able to draw off her late husband's social security?
16 posted on 10/09/2003 8:33:38 AM PDT by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
always part of the homosexual agenda. Now that some states have civil unions, eliminate marriage and ONLY recognize civil unions.

Most people do not realize that states only recognize your executed marriage license not your religious ceremony.

That marriage amendment is looking better and better.
17 posted on 10/09/2003 8:38:49 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
"The goal is equality between married and unmarried persons,”

Defining deviancy downwards. Bring everyone DOWN to the same level.

If "de-criminalizing" means "to legalize", does "de-legalizing" mean "to criminalize"???

18 posted on 10/09/2003 8:44:01 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
Oh brother.
19 posted on 10/09/2003 8:45:39 AM PDT by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe
ARE THESE IDIOTS ON CRACK!!!!!?

Just wait around few years and this will be a hot item. There are laws and court decisions on the books now that sounded just as outrageous fifty years ago,

20 posted on 10/09/2003 8:46:07 AM PDT by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson