@Drlee
This is pretty obviously untrue. Before you read on tell me what they are?
Already stated here;
What should be done is increasing awarness and education about raising families and relationships, and allowing birth control and abortions for those who are not ready to have children so they're not trapped in such scenario.
There already are classes for couples starting families on how to raise a family, and there are many private firms for helping couples solving any problems they have in their relations and consulting them on how to improve it.
We don't need to start anything new, just promote the already existing ones.
And these things spans all corners of a relationship and a family from helping with communications to even how to improve the sex-life of the couple.
But most people are usually hesitant to take these type of educational materials or seek consultancy.
Promoting them and making people more open to such things to improve their relationships and lives would help greatly in improving the quality of their relations and the quality of marriage they're in, and i would argue would reduce the rates of divorce and separation.
Do you realize that a lawsuit has very specific costs to the government. Any dissolution of property without divorce laws could easily and almost always result in an expensive trial. Would you charge the participants for this? So let me get this straight.
Well, considering that people already do sign special contracts for these things even when marriage is state organized, thats pretty much a void point since you're going to have it either way.
Suppose you have a poor man and women who entered into a civil contract for marriage like you propose. The relationship becomes abusive. A divorce is necessary. Absent government divorce laws each case would have to be individually adjudicated. You may say that their marriage contract should solve for these potentialities.
So, domestic abuse, a crime that already has laws regarding it in the justice system should be looked on in contracts ? Those aren't even in the current marriage laws.
Again, not a point since thats a different set of laws and not really related to marriage. Domestic abuse if you were wondering also happens with couples whom are not married, and the process is still the same.
Void point again.
It could never do that and even if every i was dotted and every t crossed there is still the case of special circumstances that either could claim which would require a judge and maybe even a jury deciding. Very very expensive. Beyond what poor people could afford so what is your solution for them? Take away their recourse to the courts? That will never happen in the US.
This is on the scenario of domestic abuse which these things would happen whether in a state organized marriage or between non married couples and even in socialized marriage. Since its a crime and victims of the crime don't pay for the costs of trailing the person who victimized them.
Anther void point.
Note that these are strawman points since you're bringing irrelevant premises to the topic since the discussion is about the institution of marriage in law and those are not included in these laws but rather a different set of laws.
So perhaps you imagine a set of laws governing these civil unions, published in advance, with specific instructions for the dividing of property, disposition of children and limits on appeal? That what you have in mind? Well we already have that. It is called "marriage".
For dividing properties, its actually already bad and unjust laws which is the reason why people make their own contracts when getting married to set their terms.
For children, that is also not included in marriage laws since >
Parental rights are not part of marriage laws. People can be parents without being married, and their rights as a parent for their biological or adopted children are not attached to their marriage.
There is not a single state in the United States that has religious marriage. All marriages performed in the US are civil unions just as you describe. The only specific caveats are that they are between people and that those people are not already married. What other requirements do YOU have? Do you want the law to write in the possibility of a woman marrying her cat? (She can already leave all of her money to her cat, can sleep with the cat and has absolute right to do pretty much with her cat as she will as long as she does not brutalize her cat.) Do you personally want plural marriage to be written into law? Do you favor polygamy? I don't care to hear a "logical" argument. They are almost always facile and tedious.
As said, people should be able to do whatever they wish to do. I don't deny its stupid for people to marry animals, but if they wish to do so, let them.
For polygamy, actually yes i do support allowing it.
Its in the first statement i made in this thread, here you go;
I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I support full freedom in the marriage topic for people including homosexual marriage, polygamy for both genders and to all genders.
Its in the very first page of the thread.
I do stand by it.
I think you need to resolve within yourself how you feel about constitutional representative democracy. If you want to play the anarchist card then I have no desire to follow you down that rabbit hole. If you were an American who believe that there is merit to allow a person to enter into a domestic partnership contract with a newt I would caution you to consider the following?
Who pays for the newt to be represented in court in the case of the breach of that contract?
Do the police protect the newt if the person in the contract contrives to step on the newt rather than pay newt support?
If the person and the newt adopt a child, who gets custody? But wait. What if the child is another newt?
Can the newt draw social security payments based upon the person's work history just like a spouse?
What constitutes newt abuse? Is swearing at and belittling the newt considered abusive within the context of a contract or do we have to specify that in advance?
To answer all the above, if people want to do it, let them.
And no there wont be any court cases or anything, first because animals cant do such thing and second because the rights of the person will always trump the rights of the animal.
Thats why i said this earlier;
Yes i do stand by one of the former comments that if someone wants to do it, let them do it, why not ?
Its not like its harming any body.
If its not harming anyone, and its just their desire in their own life, and no one is paying anything for it.
Why should anyone interfere with it ?
Its funny you're making this argument because earlier you said this;
So I am still waiting for someone to tell me how they are negatively affected by same sex marriage.
Well, you're also not affected by someone doing this, so why are you against people doing what they want when they're not harming anyone or affecting anyone in any negative way ?
Are you triggered by people doing things you don't like ?
Same sex couples looked to the equal protection clause in the constitution for their right to marry.
And how exactly does my proposal deny them the right to get married ?
By opening the right for everyone to get married, somehow this translates in your mind that gay people are restricted from this right ?
For the rest of your post. more bullshit, no real substance.
So far you have not made a single valid point. And the only point you're angry about is contradictory to your own previously stated opinion.
@Prosthetic Conscience
all you've found is some moron saying "well, if I say you're married to your pet, then you are". That is not "official". That she is a "priest" because someone else online says she's a "priest" doesn't count either; in no way does it make her an "official". Yes, it's stupid; but you brought it up, and when Drlee said we should drop discussion of it, you said "too late, it's already legal in the USA". You have been repeatedly bringing up "marriage to animals" in this thread, claiming it's legal and relevant to a discussion of gay marriage. It's your strawman, but you falsely accused Drlee of mentioning it first.
Read the above answer to the same thing.
Parental rights are a part of marriage laws; yes, you get rights outside marriage too, but being married does have effects.
What if the marriage ended ? do these laws change ? the answer is no, because parental rights are a different set of laws.
Inheritance by a spouse is part of inheritance law, so why try to pretend it isn't? And whether someone is married will, in the UK for instance, affect how much their children get if they die without a will.
Didn't claim it isn't. And i already answered this part, twice.
Inheritance rights are same as above, not connected to marriage. The only part that is connected is inheritance of the spouse, which as stated above, can be easily organized by national censuses data collection agencies and departments in most countries being the department of planning doing these things and also by will.
Hospital visitation and in case of incapacity, both same as above.
Basically, same laws, same everything, but without having to hire an extra set of people to apply them.
You quote Wikipedia on what constituted a valid medieval European marriage - it could be a common-law marriage, but it could also happen under the church rules - canon law. And it was " a matter of the state" - the state had many laws about what married people could do. And the point is that states have had such rules for thousand of years, not just a century - eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome . This is, for instance, why children born outside a marriage were called 'illegitimate'.
Actually i quoted the part that directly conveys my point. Marriage is done by the people. they declare it. Governments or governing bodies when gathering data and information they include it.
Here is my first response to this point before you even got into the argument;
If we made it just a social construct that can be done between any two people or even more if you'd like. Then its much easier, and you can register it in censuses and already existing government forms handling the recording of information about the population.
Government departments already gather these info all around, and already register it in their sets.
So the registration problem is solved, because the info is going to be gather either way by other departments. So that would solve both the inheritance dilemma both of you are proposing, simply by using already existing departments and keeping them as they are.
And for the quote, note the highlighted part. Marriage, although had restriction mainly by religion, was already socialized. 'm proposing to socialize it simply without the restrictions.
Basically, all the points so far given by you two are either irrelevant by being not connected to marriage laws. Or some imagined dilemma although the solution already exist and its not a problem to begin with.
EDIT: BTW, for the part about the collection of Data for things like inheritance and all related topics.
You can easily take a look at central Asia, some parts of India, and the middle east where there are clans and tribes and they do get marriages but not done by the state. And everything still works pretty much in the given order of the country for inheritance including the spouse since the governments have departments gathering these information and others about the population constantly.
In most its the department of planning. In the US, you have the census bureau which conducts both a major census every 10 years and on the other several censuses and information gathering about the population, economy, demographics, etc independently of all other departments. And it does it constantly not on a periodic timeline, only the major ones are done periodically.
So this problem you're making already have a solution really.