Voters in Tx: Marriage should be a union between a Man&Woman

gay unions

I have no problem with gay unions either.  I do have a problem with gay marriages.  Actually, I have a problem with legal marriages.  My problem is that the government, once it legalizes gay marriages, will then start prosecuting churches for not honoring them.  Dont believe me?  Check out what California is trying to do about abortions and Catholic Hospitals.

The government should be in the business of legal unions, not marriages.  Marriages are a religious institution.

I am with you. I think this was an unnecessary piece of legislation just to allow the politicians to say how they stand for family values. I have known a gay couple that was more loving and loyal than any other couple I have ever known. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.

They may as well have written an amendment as to what defines love.

you got an insightful for that!

The government should be in the business of legal unions, not marriages. Marriages are a religious institution.

I now no longer have to write my comment. Thank you.

*gives the good Doctor a cookie*

~~My problem is that the government, once it legalizes gay marriages, will then start prosecuting churches for not honoring them. Dont believe me? Check out what California is trying to do about abortions and Catholic Hospitals.~~

Hmmm...hadn't thought about it from that vantage point...interesting.

~~I have known a gay couple that was more loving and loyal than any other couple I have ever known. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married.~~

I have gay relatives...It's just disappointing to think that they will not have the same opportunities we do as far as formalizing a union goes.

~you got an insightful for that!~

Thanks...again, to me, it's just sticking their noses into peoples' personal choices...

I'm Texan and a voter and a member of the 25% minority that voted on this issue. A tough job but somebody's gotta do it! I agree with your take on it Inbloom- that and I wanted it to reflect in my stale, uptight town's newspaper that not everybody always goes with the flow of the status quo...

I disagree with Dr. Guy and Psuedo... And I disagree fundamentally with you, InBloom. Governmental recognition of marriage is not a neutral act. It is promotion. The government has a vested interest in actively supporting traditional marriage. A husband and wife are uniquely suited to bringing about the next generation of well adjusted tax-payers! Link
A homosexual union is barren at best, and serves not the greater good of the community, but only the participants' desires. Why should we use the power of government to promote that?

Arquonzo wrote -

A homosexual union is barren at best, and serves not the greater good of the community, but only the participants' desires. Why should we use the power of government to promote that?

So does this mean that hetero couples who cannot have children or who are past childbearing age should not marry? What about couples who just choose not to have a family?

Locamama,

You're begging the question of whether there is a difference between homosexual unions and 'hetero couples who cannot have children or who are past childbearing age'. Government has a vested interest, as I said, in promoting traditional marriage. Henry and Mildred can make a traditional marriage, even if their marriage does not produce children. Traditional marriages are NOT formed by two men, a man and his dog, a woman and her mother, or any other imaginable combination, even if the participants are very very loving.

For those who want to re-define marriage, at what point do you draw the line? Two men? How about 3? How about two brothers? A brother and sister? The same arguments people use to push for government to recognize marriages between same sex couples can be used for a multitude of other loving relationhships, yet common sense tells us that those are NOT marriages.

While I would be dead set against any laws banning homosexual acts in the privacy of one's home, I would vote for Constitutional amendments defining marriage.

All state laws and Constitutional ammendments which would refuse to recognize legal marriages in other states will end up in the Supreme Court. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution (the Full Faith & Credit clause) makes the definition of marriage a Constitutional issue (instead of a state or local issue). So, the people of Texas has spoken, The State of Texas has spoken, it will be interesting to see how those voices stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

People have to remember that (from a legal standpoint) marriage has nothing to do with love. Legally, marriage is a contract between a man, a woman and the state. Like all contracts, each entity is given privileges and responsibilites.

The people of Texas merely voted on something that most of them probably never figured would have to be defined. However, since the societal status quo has been challenged, a definition is now required.

They are not telling anyone who they can and can't love, since the word (or even the concept of) "love" is not a legal term. Any man and any woman are free to marry as long as both agree to the marriage (and niether happen to be married at the time). Do we really want to push the legal issue to the point where adults have to justify to the state why they want to marry?

We are living in a time of societal change. Sometimes change is a good thing, some times it isn't. Change for the sake of change (or merely to please the whims of the day) is rarely good. If we are to change the societal norm of marriage, let's not create a situation where we look back with "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" style regrets.

Arquonzo and Ted..thanks for the input. All the legal facts and technicalities are very informative...but this is such a personal issue...

I assume most people seeking marriage are doing it to solidify a loving relationship...what is so wrong with a gay couple wanting to solidify their loving relationship?

People can list all the technicalities involved with this all they want, but it still will not change my stance. Look, call me ignorant if you want. I am not a technical type of person...I am not familar with all the legalities concerning marriage...I just know that to me, the choice to marry, whether it is a straight couple or a gay couple, should be no one's business but theirs.

People can list all the technicalities involved with this all they want, but it still will not change my stance. Look, call me ignorant if you want. I am not a technical type of person...I am not familar with all the legalities concerning marriage...I just know that to me, the choice to marry, whether it is a straight couple or a gay couple, should be no one's business but theirs.

Nah, Inbloom, I'd never call you ignorant for your opinion on the matter. As I said myself, I would be against any laws banning homosexual (or pretty much any other consensual) acts between adults. However, you can't insist the government enter into the marriage contract, but then tell the government it has no right being involved in the contract.

There are many legal privileges and responsibilities that come with marriage. The only reason those exist is because the government is part of the contract. Without the government involvement, we wouldn't have child support laws, parental rights, insurance benefits, co-ownership of property, tax benefits.. etc.

In fact, if the government were not involved in the marriage contract, then we would have no right to act in behalf of our children at all. We would have no more claim to act on their behalf as anyone else. Why? Because the only reason we have the authority to act in our children's behalf is... it was part of the agreement signed by a man, a woman... and a government official with the authority to do so.

Before we start demanding change to satify the political whims of the day, let's make sure we aren't losing more than we are gaining.

Maybe it's just my way of thinking...that I don't consider a marriage a "contract"....to me, it's just such an intimate thing...something I don't even relate to government.

The problem with that is marriage brings about certain obligations and benifits as a state of being, so the government has to define it. If they kept their nost out of it entirely, it would be kind of difficult to give people marriage exemptions, different tax rates for families, etc.

If they define a civil union as being just two people, there will be people who claim they can't specify just two. Others will complain about something else. In the end there has to be a definition, or marriage has to have no bearing on government function at all. It would be a massive undertaking to cut out all the ways government changes their relationship with a citizen based upon their marital state.

the choice to marry, whether it is a straight couple or a gay couple, should be no one's business but theirs.

And the churches.  It should not be the government's.  Civil Unions.

Maybe it's just my way of thinking...that I don't consider a marriage a "contract"....to me, it's just such an intimate thing...something I don't even relate to government.

I agree! And the unitarian church does as well, as do others.  There is nothing stopping them from getting married there.  But I suspect you object to the fact it is not legally recognized, and that is a whole nother kettle of fish.

The problem with that is marriage brings about certain obligations and benifits as a state of being, so the government has to define it.

No, the government has to define the legal limits of a civil union.  They have no business poking their noses into religious institutions.

You miss the point. Call it marriage, call it civil union, but it still has to be defined, and the benefits gay people are pissed about not having will still be determined by that definition. If you limit civil unions to two adults, then people are going to ask why two. You differentiate between the term marriage and the term civil union, but in reality it will be no different when the government starts mailing out the checks.

The whole marriage-as-a-word thing is silly, frankly. I agree that the government shouldn't be defining it at all, and that marriage should be a religious thing, but the roots of this issue for gay people isn't the word "marriage", it is the billions in benefits, services, inheritance, and exemptions that they are unable to recieve.

As a conservative, I would look toward a government that didn't really need to know if I was married or not, since they wouldn't have a whole lot to interact with me about. Since we live in the socialistic wasteland created by big government idiots on both sides, we have to have every little detail of our life defined and managed.

The State of Texas has spoken

So had the state of California back in 2000, and Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, took it upon himself to issue marriage licenses at city courthouses.

The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage

Yes, an amendment is necessary, in order to prevent social activism.

I have a question for everyone who feels that the government has no business being involved in marriage.

Are you willing to give up all the privileges and responsibilities that come with government involvment?

This would mean:

No parental rights, since judges, schools, health departments and other government entities would be under no obligation to recognize your claim to any authority to act in the name of your kids. In fact the whole concept of "your" kids only exists because society respects the role of parents... and backs it up with laws.

No court involvement in divorce. You want the government out of marriage, then don't turn to lawyers and judges to force the other one to pay up, split property, or anything else you can't agree on.

You're spouse dies, forget any automatic transfer of property. Without government involvement, what "right" do you have to it. If you and the kids want to go to war over it, go for it, but don't bring the courts into it...

You didn't want the government involved... remember?

~~~~~~~

We are at a crossroads of defining marriage. The last time the question came up as a major issue was the mid 1800s. It ended with laws making it legal to kill Mormons in Missouri and Federal Troops being deployed to the Utah territory.

~~So had the state of California back in 2000, and Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, took it upon himself to issue marriage licenses at city courthouses. ~~

This was all over the media for quite a while...definitely remember it.

BS~~ I agree that the government shouldn't be defining it at all, and that marriage should be a religious thing, but the roots of this issue for gay people isn't the word "marriage", it is the billions in benefits, services, inheritance, and exemptions that they are unable to recieve.~~

PT~~No court involvement in divorce. You want the government out of marriage, then don't turn to lawyers and judges to force the other one to pay up, split property, or anything else you can't agree on.

You're spouse dies, forget any automatic transfer of property. Without government involvement, what "right" do you have to it. If you and the kids want to go to war over it, go for it, but don't bring the courts into it... ~~

Thank you for giving me a clearer insight into this. It does not change my mind about things; however, it does give me an idea of how this all ties into government dealings.

Shovel~I'm Texan and a voter and a member of the 25% minority that voted on this issue. A tough job but somebody's gotta do it! I agree with your take on it Inbloom- that and I wanted it to reflect in my stale, uptight town's newspaper that not everybody always goes with the flow of the status quo...~

25% minority here as well...the vote here in our town was 68% for...and I can see how that is, since we do have a large devoutly Catholic population.

Dr.G~~But I suspect you object to the fact it is not legally recognized, and that is a whole nother kettle of fish.~~

Yep, it sure is.

Without the government involvement, we wouldn't have child support laws, parental rights

child support laws and parental rights exist totally independently of marriage.

Because the only reason we have the authority to act in our children's behalf is... it was part of the agreement signed by a man, a woman... and a government official with the authority to do so.

no marriage license i've ever seen grants authority to act on behalf of anyone other than one or both parties. same goes for a marriage certificate. even if there are locations where such authority is granted, there is no place in america where authority to act on behalf on one's children is limited solely to married couples.

In fact, if the government were not involved in the marriage contract, then we would have no right to act in behalf of our children at all.

a lotta unmarried parents--and a lotta government officials--are gonna be surprised as hell to learn about this.

No court involvement in divorce. You want the government out of marriage, then don't turn to lawyers and judges to force the other one to pay up, split property, or anything else you can't agree on.

you're right about this--only sorta in reverse. one doesn't need to be a government official to perform a marriage. in most states, one need not have any religious training. the only requirement in 40+ states is that one be ordained (which one can easily accomplish by filling out a form). as far as the government is concerned, the cleric must do only a few things: inspect the license to be sure it's valid...perform the ceremony...collect the fee and forward it to the county.

please tell me which of you would call upon a 'legal counsel'--who filled outta form to attain that status--and pay him or her a few bucks to draw up a lease or officiate at the purchase of an appliace worth more than $100?

when you wish to dissolve the contract, suddenly it's the state's business? where's the cleric who officiated at the execution of your marriage contract?

marriage is a sacred ritual binding the participants in spiritual union that's conducted by a a religous official. it is important solely to the religious community and the participants.

as such, the government has no reason to get involved.

Again, kingbee, it isn't a private contract, it is a licensed state of being; a burocratic definition. Sure, you make an agreement with the other person, but the big end of it is the contract you make with the government. You can't enter into it without the government's permission, and you need their leave to dissolve it.

While in that state you are granted the protection it affords, you are taxed differently, drafted differently, you get mandatory family leave from work, without a will the inheritance is scheduled in a particular way, when you die, your benefits pass on to your spouse, the list goes on and on.

I'd like to see how it would go with no government recognition of marriage for a couple of months. I'd LOVE to see how divorces and dividing property worked, especially among the wealthy. Without marriage defined, gay people aren't going to be any better off than they are now. The family of the dead "spouse" will still claim the "friend" doesn't have any inheritance rights, and without legal standing as a "spouse" he or she won't.

SO, we'll be defining marriage, one way or another, as much as I dislike the idea. The chaos without it would be too much and people would be even more victimized than they are now. It's honestly short sighted to say that homosexual marraige isn't any of the government's business. In reality they are the ones that are going to have to deal with the influx of "new" marriages and the conflics and demands made.