Con_Alma;1033200 wrote:"...Permission from the State in the form of a license is nothing more than government control/intervention along with small revenue generation.”
That would seem to be from your view a limit on a right...."

I did not include the invasion of personal rights at all with this sentiment. It does, however, has every thing to do with controlling and intervening. I don't know how to make it more clear.

"...As to the benefits accruing to couples in state sanctioned marriage, many will be much more difficult to acquire. Nowhere near as easy as you stated earlier,..."

It doesn't have to be. It canbe exactly the same as today. "X" benefits made availableto those who have signed an affidavte of marriage.

"...It's been my experience that the right thing (in your opinion) to do is often the difficult thing.”
You see a struggle for basic rights by millions and you dismiss its goal as insignificant. ..."

Insignificant? Not at all but rather sad we feel the need for States to sanction our actions in this manner.

"If you been around in 1860 I can hear you, the fight to end slavery is unimportant as long as any of us have to work."

Unimportant? That's just silly. ...more like those things that are worthwhile are often very difficult to attain.

I Wear Pants;1031474 wrote:Really, you're seriously going to equate two dudes consenting to getting married to murder?

isadore;1031484 wrote:No, you are misquoting me.

isadore;1033239 wrote:No your explanation as to government sanctioned marriage is rather murky to say the least.
Government by sanctioning marriage with a license is an example of “control/intervention”
Controlling and intervening would seem to limit personal rights but then you write:
“I did not include the invasion of personal rights at all with this sentiment. It does, however, has every thing to do with controlling and intervening. I don't know how to make it more clear.” Really....

isadore;1033239 wrote:...Informed opinion is that many benefits will be lost, if government sanctioned marriage is done away with.
“more like those things that are worthwhile are often very difficult to attain. “
That is very true the fight to end slavery, to win suffrage for blacks and women, to win the right to government sanctioned marriage for gays. Each took an effort to defeat the declared opponent and those who would lead the fight down blind alleys.

Con_Alma wrote:That may be what it seems but the reality of my view is that it's about the lack of need for State sanctioning to provide the things that people should be able to choose to have. A murky explanation doesn't detract from the opinion being true within me.

Con_Alma wrote:That may be the "informed opinion" but it doesn't have to happen that way. The benefits need be no different than they presently are today is States do not sanction marriage.

isadore;1034079 wrote:That hardly explains the seeming contradictions of your comments. It is more an exercise in some form of [/SIZE]solipsism. Government sanctioned marriage is a basic human right according not just to what I see as truth, but what the view of the United States Supreme Court. A basic right, just like suffrage.
And possibly in your private world that transfer of benefits would be complete, but according to others with a greater knowledge of the subject than and even possibly you that is very unlikely.

Con_Alma;1034295 wrote:???

I have never stated that benefits being available would be unlikely. You might read my above statements again. In fact, it's my opinion that they would be more readily available to all people who are married.

There are no contradictions in my statements at all. It's your assumptions that create such contradictions.

There is no legal reason for State's to sanction marriage. Anyone should be able to marry that can enter into a lawful contract....yes, I said anyone. A simple affidavidt of marriage can attest to the marriage making available the benefits we know of even today.

Your use of unlikely doesn't equate to not existing. Likelihood or unlikelihood doesn't determine what is right .

Con_Alma wrote:Anyone should be able to marry that can enter into a lawful contract....yes, I said anyone.

isadore;1034377 wrote:That you Now say that all will have their benefits does not make it a fact. Do you have any particular expertise that would show why your opinion on extension of benefits should be accepted above those of cited informed sources.
No contradiction?
(No your explanation as to government sanctioned marriage is rather murky to say the least. Government by sanctioning marriage with a license is an example of “control/intervention”
Controlling and intervening would seem to limit personal rights but then you write:
“I did not include the invasion of personal rights at all with this sentiment. It does, however, has every thing to do with controlling and intervening. I don't know how to make it more clear.” Really.&#8230

I can see how enthusiastic you are to widen your potential mate pool to members of the immediate family. Sorry but I disapprove.
Your guarantee of benefits is not reassuring. I have noticed in the states where gays have recently won the right to marry there is no movement of any significance among them to abolish state sanctioned marriage. No they continue their support for the institution you so strongly denigrate. Your is a movement that is not moving, rejected in a democratic society that chooses by massive numbers to want government sanctioned marriage. While a small group of fanatics try to undermine a basic right and deny it to all those straight and gay who want government sanctioned marriage, a basic right as defined by the Supreme Court.

isadore;1034377 wrote:... While a small group of fanatics try to undermine a basic right and deny it to all those straight and gay who want government sanctioned marriage, a basic right as defined by the Supreme Court.

isadore;1034377 wrote:...
I can see how enthusiastic you are to widen your potential mate pool to members of the immediate family. Sorry but I disapprove.
....

Con_Alma;1034471 wrote:Your use of enthusiastic is exaggeration for effect. How you could see enthusiasm is quite curious to me.

It is not your approval that I seek with regards to this issue.

Con_Alma wrote:Anyone should be able to marry that can enter into a lawful contract....yes, I said anyone.

Con_Alma;1034470 wrote:The requirement of State sanctioned marriage is not mandated by, nor required by, nor ruled on by the Supreme Court. To suggest it is the only means that people should be deemed as married is ridiculous and closed minded.

Con_Alma;1034462 wrote:I have no more "guarantee of benefits" that I can guarantee that the current benefits provided married couples will be forever....more importantly I have never guaranteed such.

If we left it up to the "masses" to make decisions on rights then we would still have slavery. The masses don't choose rights.



I do not denigrate the institution of marriage. I denigrate the requirement that States sanction it.

"..Your is a movement that is not moving..."

What makes you think I have a movement? It's not a movement. It's a belief that there is no reason to have States sanction personal relationships.

isadore wrote:“In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. “

[URL="file://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=0684ce2837c054d34aab4a7a8850c3ac&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohiochatter.com%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3F28262-Discharged-for-being-gay-veterans-face-problems-in-re-enlisting%2Fpage8&v=1&libid=1325477977592&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustolerance.org%2Fmar_bene.htm&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohiochatter.com%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3F28262-Discharged-for-being-gay-veterans-face-problems-in-re-enlisting%2Fpage7&title=Discharged%20for%20being%20gay%2C%20veterans%20face%20problems%20in%20re-enlisting&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustolerance.org%2Fmar_bene.htm&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13254781692693"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm[/URL]

Con_Alma wrote:These concerns can easily be solved by the State not sanction marriage.

DeyDurkie5;1032234 wrote:you are the exception..congrats

isadore;1034514 wrote:It was stated in the Loving case by the Supreme Court that state sanctioned marriage was a basic right that should be not be denied to the couple.

isadore;1034506 wrote:The way you reinterate the point definitely shows enthusiasm. In this case it not be my approval you would be seeking, but that of family member. For me, I was voicing an negative opinion on the subject.

isadore wrote: We did leave the creation of all our basic rights to the masses. Bill of Rights, Abolition of Slavery, equal protection under the law, black suffrage, women’s suffrage, 18 year old suffrage all proposed by the elected Congress and ratified by legislatures elected by the masses. The masses choosing rights.
Your belief only serves the purpose of undermining the effort to give millions of Americans the basic right to marriage.　[/QUOTE]

Lol. The masses don't vote on our basic rights. Are you suggesting we can vote to overturn or add basic, unalienable rights?

Representatives propsing legislation is not the masses voting on rights.

isadore;1034514 wrote:It was stated in the Loving case by the Supreme Court that state sanctioned marriage was a basic right that should be not be denied to the couple.

Con_Alma;1034597 wrote:The reiteration is only due to the questioning of point and continuation of the subject. nothing more. It is done so in a calm, matter of fact manner. Hardly enthusiastic.

I seek the approval of no one for this view. Not even family members.

Con_Alma;1034598 wrote:

isadore wrote: We did leave the creation of all our basic rights to the masses. Bill of Rights, Abolition of Slavery, equal protection under the law, black suffrage, women’s suffrage, 18 year old suffrage all proposed by the elected Congress and ratified by legislatures elected by the masses. The masses choosing rights.
Your belief only serves the purpose of undermining the effort to give millions of Americans the basic right to marriage.　[/QUOTE]

Lol. The masses don't vote on our basic rights. Are you suggesting we can vote to overturn or add basic, unalienable rights?

Representatives propsing legislation is not the masses voting on rights.

The representatives of the masses, chosen from among them and put in office to carry out their will. And we have seen examples of the masses voting directly on basic right in 1868 a direct vote on black suffrage. In 1912 a direct vote on black suffrage in local elections and in women's suffrage. And of course we have seen direct votes on the basic right of gays to marry in various states.

Con_Alma;1034599 wrote:Lol. I just read the ruling. STate Sanctioning is not ruled on nor even mentioned in the case.

The closest thing relates to the powers of the State as it relates to marriages.

"...While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment. . ..."

There is no mandate of the Supreme court that requires States to sanction marriages. It has the ability to but not the requirement to....and in my opinion no reason to.

If there were such a requirement for the State to sanction it, common-law marriages wouldn't exist because they would not have a license to be married. If we don't require common-law marriages to ave a license there's no reason to require others to obtain a license.

Con_Alma;1034615 wrote:Interesting points from a contributor on an NYU blog.

http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/what-should-be-the-state’s-role-in-marriage/

"...
The most important fact, however, is that we are in the process of rapid cultural and moral evolution. People are engaging in what J.S. Mill called “experiments in living.” Many do not find that traditional structures suit their needs or aspirations. Is it better to give them no alternatives in law with the consequence of driving them into a form whose real meaning is gone and about which they make a mockery? Or to deprive them of the ability to give legal protection to their de facto relationships?
Institutions serve specific functions at specific times and in specific places. It is not the role of the State to determine and enforce some universal divine plan in our lives. Its role is to stand aside as individuals work out their purposes and fulfill their potential as they see it. Anything more is playing God."