I heard on the news this morning that the lawyer that got gay marriages recognized in Massachusetts is bringing suit against the federal government to recognize legal marriage by the states and provide equal benefits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html?ref=us)

I support the suit.

Over the past six years I've had the honor of officiating five weddings in Texas.  I firmly believe that the ceremonies I performed had very little to do with the state.  Each was a social or religious agreement between two people to be together forever.  The state had no place there.

Where I believe the state has a place is in a separate, legal situation recognizing a contract between these same two people for the purpose of maintaining property, securing benefits, and situations dealing with children.  The state should be there to record that a contract exists between these people.  The state should *not* call it marriage.

In my magic world, the two events would be made separate.  If your faith allowed gay marriages; great!  If it didn't; great too!  Same for your state governments.  And the federal government . .  their job is to interfere with the states as little as possible.  If a state says that a legal contract exists . . then that is that.  Recognize baby!


The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

Powers reserved to the states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

 

The act itself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104

 

 


Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 03, 2009

I agree.  I believe people should be able to have a contract, civil union, that is recognized in the same legal manner as a marriage but marriage should not be re-defined.

on Mar 03, 2009

I agree.  I believe people should be able to have a contract, civil union, that is recognized in the same legal manner as a marriage but marriage should not be re-defined.

Precisely what I am thinking.

Government should recognise civil unions of any type or form (between two people) and possibly allow anyone to be a member of more than one such union and "marriage" should mean what it always meant.

That way everyone gets what they want and we conservatives get to keep our world too.

 

on Mar 03, 2009

So basically, what you are saying is you believe that the Gov't should only be part of the situation of a marriage when the situation is similar to that of a contract between, say, a person with another person, a person with a business or a business with a business, but that when it comes to the concept of marriage itself, the Gov't should have no say what so ever?

If so, then I agree.

on Mar 03, 2009

what you are saying is you believe that the Gov't should only be part of the situation of a marriage when the situation is similar to that of a contract between, say, a person with another person, a person with a business or a business with a business, but that when it comes to the concept of marriage itself, the Gov't should have no say what so ever?

Yes.

"Marriage" is a matter of linguistics, not law; I think. The word means something.

 

 

on Mar 03, 2009

Marraige - No

Civil Union - Sure why not. Also let people claim their pets on taxes (have you seen the vet bills?)

It won't be long before some crack pot is arguing for spousal rights for human/annimal relationships. Their arguement will be gays are allowed, who's right is it to stand in the way of love.

on Mar 03, 2009

It won't be long before some crack pot is arguing for spousal rights for human/annimal relationships. Their arguement will be gays are allowed, who's right is it to stand in the way of love.
I'm ok with that too (as long as both parties go into the contract aware of the risks and benefits . . the same as a contract with people.) 

on Mar 03, 2009

A married couple is family and they should have all the rights and benefits that being a family deserves.

on Mar 03, 2009

I hate to spoil the vast right-wing conspiracy alarmist view of JU  . . shouldn't someone be speaking out about the desecration of America? 

on Mar 04, 2009

I think the government should refuse to grant marriages, and instead grant only civil unions. If marriage is a social institution incorporating a clear and historically based discrimination, even if that is somehow considered to be a good thing, the government should have no part in it.

on Mar 04, 2009

Was there a marriage license and/or certificate involved?  Do you have authority by the state to officiate in weddings?  Does the marriages you performed require the state to recognize the marriage in official activities? 

 

If so then how can you say the state had nothing to do with them?

 

You say that the state has nothing to do with the marriages you perform, yet you insist the Federal government should?

 

Holy double talk Batman!

 

 

on Mar 04, 2009

Parated2k . . I should have been more clear.

  1. I had to register at the local courthouse
  2. I had to sign a marriage certificate for each couple
  3. I meant to say that the government had no value add to what I did.  They weren't central to the ceremony.
  4. I believe even that much is too much and I believe that they should not be involved in marriages at all.  They should record the "civil union" contract for the reasons stated above.

Thanks for pointing out my gaps.

You didn't tell us what you thought of the whole thing.   ???

on Mar 04, 2009

So what you're saying is, you want to be able to create a contract between two people and the government, but you don't want the government to have any say at all in their part of that contract?

It's simple, if you take the government out of it then you have to remove any government guarentees or benefits that go with it.

In other words, no filing taxes jointly, no family income levels, no community property, no automatic custody of or right to make decisions for children...

 

If you don't want government recognition of marriage, you don't want the family unit at all.

 

What do I think about it?  I think Stalin and Lenin had the same idea.

 

 

on Mar 04, 2009

How is this any different than any other attack on the family institution?   Satan would love it!

on Mar 04, 2009

and loves you for championing his cause.

on Mar 04, 2009

but other than that, I have no feelings either way. :~D