The Trouble with the Government in our Bedrooms »
Posted By Shana4Liberty 1 year ago in Political NewsSocial conservatives have been eager to pass government initiatives to “preserve traditional marriage.” Gay rights activists have been motivated, honorably, by the desire for equality before the law. But their framing of the issue is flawed, and the nature of each side’s efforts on the issue works against their respective interests.
Read Full Story at unitedliberty.org »
942 Views Share Story 33 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Shana4Liberty
I'm a stay-at-homeschooling mom of 4 living in central Alabama, but a native of south Texas. Feel free to friend me and send me ...
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 122 (view all)
-
89%
berkeley1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
short version: have the word "marriage" removed from the domain of the state. allow churches to witness/bless/promote "marriage" in any way they choose, but with no legal consequences. add the traditional economic benefits of marriage to normal contract law, since people may already enter into any contract they choose.
Reply-
tchefComment removed: Spam
-
14%
protoham1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Government should not be involved, no marriage license, no tax deduction, no automatic transfer of property. Then you could marry your brother or sister or dog, or multiple wives or husbands, maybe some want to marry their cow.
Reply
-
-
31%
socialexpert1 year ago
-
94%
tchef1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are many practical reasons to allow same sex marriage. Spousal rights, visitation, property rights, etc. How would you feel if your partner was in a hospital dying and their family was able to keep you from seeing them? Or you and your partner spent a whole life together building your dreams in business and property only to have it taken away when they die by their family who doesn't approve? Gay couples deserve the same protections that straight one have.
Reply
I'm straight, married and have 3 children. Gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage at all. -
100%
rimbaud1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Practice changes over time... Laws against miscegenation and integration are no longer considered practical.
Reply
Morals are not something you can legislate, but something you hope converts come to by belief in them, not by compulsion or fear of inquisition. -
100%
hamy1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not demanding acceptance from anyone. I am demanding that my relationship is no less than a heterosexual relationship in the eyes of the law. If I am paying the same taxes then I deserve the same rights. That's it. I don't require nor desire the acceptance of churches or the public at large. I just demand equality.
Reply -
-
-
-
100%
Poulenc1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gay marriage harms no one and promotes the institution of marriage.
Reply
As long as marriage, as word, as concept, carries the social-emotional-symbolic weight it does, it must remain as the "gold standard" for the commitment of two people of whatever sex.
Thus other contractual arrangements such as civil unions, though they get the job done technically, fall short.
Churches should have the right not to sanctify unions that don't jibe with their dogma, but this should have no bearing whatsoever on the legal right for two people of whichever sex to get married. -
100%
Poulenc1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And socialexpert, above, just what are the "practical reasons" you mention?
Reply
Do you mean, to obtain practical advantages? And if so, why can't people demand to be married to have advantages bestowed on others simply because they represent a union of the two sexes?
Remember: marriage is a human-made institution that has evolved over the years to accommodate a changing sense of what marriage should be.
It can, has been, and and will be redefined again. -
100%
ETproductions1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole idea of Constitutional Law is to have a foundational document setting up legislative law, and to use that foundation to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. If rights can be decided by simple majority vote amending the constitution, then why not pick off one small minority at a time and deprive them of all property rights, sharing what they used to own with the majority who voted away such rights. Very slippery slope California is on.
Reply-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive12 Replies
-
-
-
33%
JimP31 year ago
-
100%
NoWayMan1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you couldn't be more WRONG.
Reply
in this country, marriage has NOTHING to do with any church or religion. marriage is a function of the state. that's why you MUST go to the courthouse to do the REAL paperwork and have it notarized by someone who has the state-granted legal authority to do so.
and...you don't need a person of faith to sanctify your marriage. it can be done by your best friend or your boss if you want.
so, religion plays absolutely NO REQUIRED ROLE in marriage in America.
church weddings are merely for show or for "tradition" but no one has to get married in a church. period.
and lets get real, historically and cross-culturally, marriage has been more of a business deal than a religious affair. that's why much of the world still marries within their same socio-economic group, and in come cultures (like India for example) arranged marriages are still the norm.
-
78%
rimbaud1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gay's are a very small percentage of our population, and those that want to get married a small percentage of of gays. We spend too much time fearing what impact such a small population can have on the rest of us. What kind of an impact do we as a larger population have on such a small minority? I would not fear my child being taught that there is such a thing as a "union" between same-sex couples, because if my child turned out to be gay, I would want them to know that they will be accepted as equal, under the law, if not by societal norms and opinions.
Reply
If the government gets out of the "marriage" game altogether and provides "civil unions" in it's place to all, we can have equal protection under the law, and marriage can become something blessed solely by churches and other social clubs.-
100%
david_nwpa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nice try, rimbaud, but removing government from the marriage business will not work. First, we would need to change the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution for that to work. Something tells me our nation would be hard-pressed, because you see, a man cannot be made to testify against his wife. Such outdated language would have to be addressed in some legal capacity. The term "marriage" is a portable word. Its meaning carries value and understand among those who wed. Consider telling a bride to be she will not be getting married, rather she will be having her civil union day. Some churches accept gay marriage while others do not. Which would be recognized as married, and which would not? Could it legally matter at some point? Definitely, both at the federal and at the state levels in all 50 states.
Reply
-
-
-
75%
maj1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"For if we change the definition for one-- we must do it for all.
Reply
What if someone really loves 2 people? 3 or 4?
What if someone really loves their dog?"
--Uh...No. Marriage is the union of TWO consenting adult human beings. Not three or four human beings. Not a child and an adult. Not a dog and a woman or a man and a pony. Two consenting adult human beings.
----------------
I think the point he was trying to make is that if you can change the definition of marriage now, in the future it "could" be changed based on culture, as in: those who would want to marry more than one person.-
-
100%
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I think the point he was trying to make is that if you can change the definition of marriage now, in the future it "could" be changed based on culture, as in: those who would want to marry more than one person."
Reply
--But the definition of marriage never disqualified two people of the same sex from marrying so technically it's not being changed. Prop 8 actually *does* change the definition by narrowing it to include only two people of the opposite sex. Adding a third person to the equation would radically change the definition of a "couple" because a couple can only consist of two.
-
-
100%
Poulenc1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't hold with most slippery slope arguments, and especially with the one that posits that if gay people are allowed to marry, people will soon be allowed to marry their siblings, pets, etc.
Reply
They could, if the institution of marriage is redefined to include unions like the ones I've just mentioned. But it's unlikely that it will be, not only because consent will always be a prerequisite for marriage, thus elimininating the possibility in inter-species nuptials, but because unions with close relatives, say, can be shown to be harmful/anti-social.
I repeat: gay marriage harms no one. -
100%
pokydoke1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Society evolves just as plants and animals evolve. We must acknowledge and embrace this evolution because we can not stop it. Same sex marriage was unheard of twenty years ago, homosexual lifestyles were just beginning to be brought out from behind closed doors. We have had same sex marriage here in Mass for several years now to the detriment of no one.Locky's assertions about marriage are pure crappola.
Reply-
100%
lvrofwolves1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Even tho it's not legal (yet) in most states, there are many homosexual couples having 'wedding' ceremonies all the time, living as a couple for decades, doing everything together that other couples do (except making babies with each other), they have families, children they are raising, like I said just about everything any other couple does. The world has not ended, nor has any heterosexual marriages ended because Mr.+ Mr. got married. If someone's marriage changes, best look in the mirror for the reason, not at someone else's relationship.
Reply
-
-
100%
NoWayMan1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Qs for people who are against gay marriage:
Reply
why do you even care?
when you walk down the street, are you concerned about who is married and who is not? even when you see a hetero couple, are you actually concerned whether or not they are married or simply dating?
and...besides weddings you actually attend, how many weddings do you see taking place as you're going about your daily business each year? two maybe? and of those, you probably only see one aspect, like the wedding party on their way to the reception.
point is, gay marriage will most likely have ZERO impact on your life.
if you're a republican, don't you want govt out of your business? then why is this an exception?
if you're trying a religious take on this (like the mormons) then relax, don't worry about it. if gays are going to hell, they're going to hell. let god sort it out. and the bible says way more bad things about divorce than it does about any kind of gay marriage.
lastly, remember: this is America. we worship the bill of rights, not the ten commandments. in this country, the idea of "separate but equal" simply isn't good enough. we're all equal. period. end of story.
this issue is not a social issue or a religious issue. its a civil rights issue. -
0%
Harbeas1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage is not between two consenting adults. It is between a concenting female and a consenting male. It is funny how many people condemn governments interference in "marriage but they are not averse in using it to disallow a vote by the people on the issue.
Reply -
-
100%
Ciera-Marie1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reasons I support gay marriage are many. I support if they decide not to have children or have adopted children.
Reply
Some here mentioned we have to protect the children. How are you protecting the children that a Gay or Lesbian couple have adopted by denying their parents the right to marry? They are not protected.
How are the children of a Gay and Lesbian couple protected when one parent dies? Who gets the children then? The parent who is left and who has raised them? Or the family of the deceased? It's bad enough that when their partner is sick and dying they have little to no rights in the say of the treatment and course of action, but then they lose their home, money AND CHILDREN? How is that right? We don't do this to heterosexual families. Enough is enough. -
60%
prater56001 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm one of those who oppose because of the precedent predicament.
Reply
I think the argument about people marrying animals is stupid as can be, but I see no legal reason why three or more people could be prevented from marrying if prop 8 is overturned. The proponents who are arguing that marriage is between TWO consenting adults (versus man and woman) are simply redrawing the line where they want it to be. I don't see how marriage could not be redefined further if prop 8 is overturned. Any group of consenting adults - no matter what size - would have legal justification to get married.-
100%
ADAGUY1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and ask, why should I not be allowed to have several wives, if all of them have no objection to it?
Reply
(I, for one, think a man would have to be nuts to want more than one wife, but why should it be a legal issue?) -
100%
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The proponents who are arguing that marriage is between TWO consenting adults (versus man and woman) are simply redrawing the line where they want it to be."
Reply
--I don't know what other people are arguing but in order for a marriage between two people to be valid neither one of them can be already married to someone else. Case closed. People can have one marriage. They can even have multiple marriages. But they cannot have multiple simultaneous "marriages".
-
-
0%
beavith11 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RedRiverJ posted this a week ago. watch it.
Reply
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid18...
ok. its a prop 8 propaganda piece, and the outcome is a clearly unintended consequence.
quick story: a first grade kid was given material that amounts to gay education. when the parents complained that first graders didn't need that kind of 'educating', the teacher's response? well, its legal marriage. you can't make us stop." when the irate father complained further, he was arrested.
in a different thread, i moaned about boy scouts having their arms twisted to accept gay scout leaders. my uncomfortableness is with 'educating' children about this lifestyle choice. is there sucha thing as a lifestyle firewall? if someone could dream one up, i'd be out protesting prop8 myself.
does this make me a bad person? does this make the gay lifestyle second class?-
100%
david_nwpa1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is such a thing called a firewall. Gays and lesbians, as well as other minorities use it to protect our rights. In particular, we rely on the courts for fairness and equality. When the legislature or the executive in office is compelled to trample the rights of the people, the courts must intercede. In the cases you describe, the teacher was right. The father in your first example is simply a bigot. No further explanation is needed. In the second of your hypothetical examples, the concept of choice as to being gay or straight tells me that you clearly do not have a clue.
Reply
Let me ask you beavith, at what point did you CHOOSE to be straight? I doubt you can pinpoint a time or place when you chose that. -
100%
lvrofwolves1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes beavith1 I'd be uncomfortable with any educator saying it was a lifestyle choice as well. It's not a choice, so they would be teaching a falsehood.
Reply
Oh I also don't believe a story saying a first grader was given material that amounts to gay education, either. what's a gay education in your opinion?
-
-
0%
moxxxxxxxxxx1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lock12
Reply
"We owe the success of this nation to the institution of marriage and the health of the family and the definition does not need to be changed."
You are correct marriage is part of our society's culture. Marriage is a historical and cultural value that pertains to marriage between heteroes. I find it interesting that gays want to take a hetero concept and apply it to their own unions. Heteroes define and apply social standards and expectations of marriage differently from gays and changing the defintion changes the historical meaning for heteroes. I ask why gays will not respect what marriage means to heteros and come up with their own term for marriage. The issue is that gays want heteroes to respect alternative and different lifestyles but they want these lifestyles to be reflective of hetero values and beliefs related to marriage. There are similarites and differences between hetero and gay marriage, but when it comes to the sam sex marriage debate gays focus only on the similarites and heteros focus on the differences. Gays have always been critical of heteros , their behaviors and lifestyles but those issues never come up in the debate. And those are the issues and beliefs that have the potential to directly change the historical meaning of marriage.-
100%
mesodude1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Marriage is a historical and cultural value that pertains to marriage between heteroes."
Reply
--According to you it is. Just because something has been done only a certain way for a long time doesn't mean that's the way it should be, should have been, or always will be. There's lots of things that are or once were considered to be the domain of one particular group. Look at religion and education. Look at politics and government. Look at Hollywood and Pro Sports. It was once a man's world (even though, in many of these arenas, women were not specifically forbidden entrance based on the letter of any laws).
We now have women holding positions in the clergy they never held before. We thought we might have the first female President at one point this year (though, how cool is it that we got the first African-American one, instead?). Women are directing and producing movies like never before and holding more powerful positions in government. We can now have a female sportscaster report as we watch two hot, nubile, athletic women get into a boxing ring and punch each other silly and get all hot and sweaty...with their firm, taut pulsing, muscles and sensuous heaving bosoms that...I don't know...heave or whatever...The point is, women are doing "guy stuff" like never before and no one is running around screaming that they shouldn't be allowed to "re-define" anything and no one is trying to re-write the Constitution to discriminate against women on the basis that they're ruining all the fun for guys. Cons need to stop being party poopers. It's going to destroy your own party. ;-(
-
More News
Politics Daily
The Huffington Post
Huff TV: Arianna, Jesse Ventura And Ben Stein Discuss Afghanistan On Larry King Live (VIDEO)
Bill Roedy: Despite Huge Successes In HIV Prevention And Treatment, We Must Not Rest On Our Laurels
Eve Ensler: The Other Face Of Pakistan
Elayne Boosler: Getting Into The White House
Bryan Monroe: Why New Media Looks A Whole Lot Like Old Media
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.