Active Users:429 Time:18/09/2025 09:40:31 PM
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement. Joel Send a noteboard - 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
Nobody should be bound to define their mutually consensual relationships with other adults of sound mind unless the state has a undeniably clear reason to butt their noses in, like a legal contract for custody or cohabitation or shared assets, etc. Now religion or personal? Different story, plural marriage is immoral in my opinion and nobody has a right to make me personally recognize it as valid.

That is kind of the problem: The law confers, via marriage, privileges (and obligations) in those areas, and the Equal Protection Clause constitutionally prohibits doing so for some but not others.

We're seeing a generational shift toward the idea that the government shouldn't be dictating personal relationships, and from my perspective people need to be viewing this not as good/bad or better/ok but my business vs not my business and gov't business vs not something state should be involved in.

So I agree as long as we follow through to the logical conclusion, not just stopping at name changes. The Windsor case is a good example: A widow paid $300,000+ inheritance tax—instead of NOTHING—solely because she married a woman instead of a man. Simply recognizing name changes cannot fix that.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy? - 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM 1488 Views
Legal rights. - 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM 882 Views
It almost sounds like you are saying... - 20/10/2012 12:31:40 AM 860 Views
That is what I'm saying it. - 20/10/2012 01:07:50 AM 845 Views
Technically, privileges, not rights. - 20/10/2012 04:16:45 AM 844 Views
Sure - 20/10/2012 12:35:53 AM 771 Views
All for it... For adults over the age of 18. *NM* - 20/10/2012 01:18:04 AM 522 Views
What about it? - 20/10/2012 01:21:17 AM 829 Views
+1 *NM* - 20/10/2012 01:51:25 AM 558 Views
+2 *NM* - 20/10/2012 11:18:39 AM 427 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM* - 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM 428 Views
poly people? - 20/10/2012 12:44:01 PM 876 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM* - 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM 415 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does. - 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM 820 Views
That's not what I'm saying - 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM 833 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard! - 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM 778 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence.. - 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM 855 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid. - 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM 773 Views
The more fool you. - 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM 874 Views
Ha! Point. *NM* - 20/10/2012 05:40:34 AM 697 Views
Marriage is always a choice, whatever the motive(s.) - 22/10/2012 04:00:40 PM 810 Views
I got no opinion on it. - 20/10/2012 12:51:43 PM 900 Views
The idea of a group marriage makes me uncomfortable - 20/10/2012 04:19:48 PM 782 Views
As long as it is equitable - 20/10/2012 05:55:57 PM 778 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway - 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM 846 Views
Indeed - 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM 914 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business. - 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM 1186 Views
And so? - 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM 808 Views
Re: And so? - 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM 993 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change. - 22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM 780 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle - 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM 711 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement. - 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM 753 Views
None of which need hinge on marriage - 23/10/2012 05:54:07 AM 712 Views
In the legal sense of marriage, yeah, they kinda do. - 23/10/2012 07:20:38 AM 752 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none. - 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM 867 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed. - 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM 790 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government. - 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM 720 Views
Much less force, yes. - 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM 727 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." - 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM 798 Views
+1 *NM* - 23/10/2012 07:36:46 PM 361 Views
No the analogy is not exact, nor legally the same... - 23/10/2012 07:33:25 PM 694 Views
Analogy is not equality, only similarity. - 24/10/2012 04:37:29 PM 901 Views
We aren't asking for something better or different. - 23/10/2012 04:27:04 PM 784 Views
yeah, it is very circular. - 23/10/2012 07:44:33 PM 833 Views

Reply to Message