Comments
I guess I'm confused. I havent been married long (5 years) but what unconstitutional ex-post-facto revisions has the government made to a marriage?
#1 Jason on 2009-11-03 11:14
Ask someone married in the 1950s what they think of the idea of "no-fault" divorce - an ex-post-facto change made to their marriage agreement.
#1.1 Karl on 2009-11-03 11:17
Contracts can always be broken, and the remedy is almost always money. The government is not changing the marriage contract with 'no-fault', it's changing the default burden of proof and default damage calculations in a lawsuit relating to a breach of said contract. If you're arguing that 1950's marriage contracts should not be allowed to be broken, then you're talking about specific performance for personal services, which courts analogize to involuntary servitude, generally don't like, and replace with cash as a less-slavery-feeling remedy. You can contract around those state-written default provisions if you want: a prenup that gives 100% of personal and marital assets to the party that isn't at fault as defined by the terms of the prenup. I don't see your argument as much different than laws regarding estate inheritances. States promulgate default rules for inheritances that apply if you die intestate, but you can supercede those rules with wills and trusts. If a state changes the rules on how it, by default, allocates intestate property going forward, would that be a fraud on a previously-potential inheritor who now isn't in the default line of inheritance?
#1.1.1 Steve Hamlin (Homepage) on 2009-11-03 12:12
Again, you didn't read the posting, did you? Nobody is talking about suing for specific performance. A change in the penalty for violating a contract is still an ex-post-facto change. If I got married in the 50s as a woman and my husband slept around, leading me to divorce, I got everything and he walked out of court in his underwear. Likewise, if I as a woman did the same sleeping around I walked out in MY underwear and he got everything. Since you see no problem with this I'm sure you also won't mind if the bank decides to get a law passed that if you miss a payment on your mortgage by one hour the rate will instantly reset to 35% and you cannot discharge the debt in bankruptcy. After all, there's no problem with changing the terms of an agreement after it's entered into, right?
#1.1.1.1 Karl on 2009-11-03 12:15
"A change in the penalty for violating a contract is still an ex-post-facto change." Not if the contract doesn't specify the penalty, but instead depends on the law in effect when the contract is broken. Vows probably aren't part of the marriage contract (statute of frauds), so the contract is "be married until you're not, then damages are assessed by the laws in effect at that time." That's not ex-post-facto. And if it is, then (for ex.) a legislated change in the rules of evidence enacted in 2010 can only apply to contracts which occur after 2010, and all contracts prior to 2010 have to be litigated in the future under the laws in effect when the contract was signed? That's not workable.
#1.1.1.1.1 Steve Hamlin (Homepage) on 2009-11-03 13:42
Sure it is and in fact it is done literally every day. The four corners of the pages upon which are written your mortgage or purchase contract for a car, the former of which envisions performance over longer than the majority of marriages last, is the body of law under which a default must be litigated two decades later. That's a horseshit argument.
#1.1.1.1.1.1 Karl on 2009-11-03 14:05
"The four corners of the pages (of a contract)...is the body of law under which a default must be litigated two decades later" The 4 corners define the agreement at issue, but the default is litigated under as-current law. Think bankruptcy - your secured contract language from 20 years ago is the four corners, but the current 2009 bankruptcy code is the platform for the litigation and for remedies not covered by the language in the contract. Current law, not the law in effect when you signed the contract, determines claim priority, cramdowns, haircuts, creditors committees, etc.
#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Steve Hamlin (Homepage) on 2009-11-03 14:45
for instance, well your wife can sleep with other men (or women) give you diseases, obligate you financially, parentally then split and leave you with liability for your health and her health and the bastard she slept with's health and the bastards she created all while violating your marriage contract and the state will still enforce its liabilities upon you.
#1.2 Smitty on 2009-11-03 13:36
Karl I believe we are related. Probably second cousin, three times removed. This issue along with the other wdge issues have wedged us to the point that we can't agree on anything. Just exactly where politicians want us. By dividing us we cannot unite to throw the dad gum bums out. Until our economic national security is secure ... wedge issues need to be tabled for another day. We can spend money/capital right after we've earned some.
#2 ArkansasAngie (Homepage) on 2009-11-03 11:18
What about those of us who: 1) Understand that "God" is a mythical construct; 2) Understand that Amendment 1 to the US Constitution renders any consideration of "God" in a legal question completely irrelevant? I'm gay and more-or-less single, and I note that the same religious freaks who want to vote me into permanent Judeo-Christian tax/regulatory dhimmitude don't mind later reaching into my wallet to support their no-fault divorces, big fancy overleveraged houses, childrens' educations (because they're too busy buying stuff instead of taking care of their kids), etc. So let's be honest. The whole debate over "marriage" isn't about sanctity, or contacts, or personal responsibility. It's about the lazy, corpulent mass of the American body politic -- which happens to be heterosexual -- continuing to search for reasons why it's "superior." It's not superior because it works harder, or honors its marriage vows, or takes care of its own children. No, it's superior because it rocketed a jet of sperm into a vagina, goddamnit! It's comical, really.
#3 Brian Miller on 2009-11-03 11:32
Who cares if God is mythical or not? As usual, those who won't debate the point turn their argument into the absurd. If you actually READ the entry you would have seen that I addressed this - pick your God, or pick none at all (a JP); the fact remains that an ex-post-facto modification of a Contract is unconstitutional. So either call it what it is - an institution designed to allow the state to fuck you over at will, at any time in the future, if you're dumb enough to consent, or fix the problem so that what people buy into is what they get.
#3.1 Karl on 2009-11-03 12:06
Government modifies contracts ex-post-facto all the time. One of the most common ways it does so is called "bankruptcy law."
#3.1.1 Brian Miller on 2009-11-03 13:34
Karl, Sounds like you might be in favor of http://rescuemarriage.org Just a CA state proposition now, but you know how what comes out of CA rolls across the nation. I will be collecting signatures for it.
#4 Jimmy James on 2009-11-03 11:46
Why don't we just get the government's hands out of the definition of marriage entirely? The states should just enact a secular framework for handling property inheritance and child custody and leave the word "marriage" out of it. Let the people decide for themselves what that word means. In the end you'd still have the same problems to solve (should a civil union be limited to two persons?) but if you take the word "marriage" out of the debate then people might be able to talk about it rationally.
#5 Jack on 2009-11-03 11:58
Jack shares my view for the most part. The government should never have involved itself with 'marriage' in the first place.
#5.1 Brett on 2009-11-03 12:15
The Government originally got involved in marriage as a means of enforcing institutional racism - that is, preventing the marriage of white and black people to each other. Go look it up; prior to that (for several thousand years!) banns of marriage were posted on the church door and the state had nothing to do with it.
#5.1.1 Karl on 2009-11-03 12:17
Amen. Why anyone, left or right, thinks gov't should license human relationships is beyond me.
#5.2 Lloyd on 2009-11-03 20:16
Why the other team wants to join the divorce bandwagon when they can't even pump out kids, I'll never know! Religion aside, I don't see the point of marriage unless you create new children, personally. And no, adoption doesn't count as creation.
#6 Anon on 2009-11-03 12:12
There are a plethora of legal protections that marriage (and civil unions in some states) provides to couples. Insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, the ability to make important healthcare decisions for the spouse, pension and retirement benefits, not to mention the tax benefits that marriage provides at the federal level (that cannot be replicated by civil unions at the state level). None of the protections I mentioned have anything to do with having and raising children. Same sex couples, and many many straight couples just want to get married to have their committment recognized and guarantee the many legal protections that it provides.
#6.1 Brett on 2009-11-03 12:27
Study after study has demonstrated the healthiest and most stable method of raising children is with a man as a husband and a woman as a wife. It is not in the best interests of the nation and our children to promote homosexual marriage. Personally, I don't care what a person does in private, but some things shouldn't be promoted by government. The homosexual lifestyle is strongly correlated with the bar scene, age discrimination, the pickup scene, group sex, the search for new sexual highs, drugs, etc. It's a psychologically depressing lifestyle with the winners being the pretty boys. Then the pretty boys get old and find themselves ostracized by their own community. In general, this lifestyle should not be promoted as a viable alternative. As most every psychologist knows, and it is a most unfortunate fact, most homosexuals are victims of childhood abuse; either sexual, mental or violence. 73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110- 111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker). David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison conducted a non-random study of 156 stable committed male homosexual couples. They found that none of the over 100 couple that had been together for more than 5 years had been sexually monogamous or exclusive. The authors, themselves a gay couple, argued that for male couples, sexual monogamy is a passing stage of homophobia and that many homosexuals separate emotional fidelity and sexual exclusivity. What matters for male couples is emotional not physical faithfulness.D McWhirter and A Mattison, “The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop”, (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall). In a national health care survey 75% of the nearly 2000 lesbian respondents reported they had pursued psychological counselling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness. J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81 Homosexual men are 6 times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men. Study by Bell and Weinberg, “Homosexualities…”, Table 21.12 Studies show that between 25% and 33% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics. Study by Robert J. Kus, “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men”, Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 14, Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners.Bell and Weinberg p 308. The same study revealed that homosexual men have to a great extent separated sexuality from relationship. The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309. With legalized same sex marriage, the lifestyle has been and will be promoted as a healthy alternative, which is quite simply ridiculous. If a person speaks out against same queer marriage, they are or will be ridiculed and sometimes punished by the school system. The point being, it is wrong to impose the homosexual lifestyle and marriage as a legitimate alternative by the state. Homosexuality is a choice; i.e., it is not genetic in most all cases. But political correctness will not tolerate the idea of a lifestyle choice. Let's begin with a very simple fact. Adopted non-biological children raised by homosexuals are seven times most likely to become homosexual than those raised by heterosexuals. Kind of kills any idea of homosexuality being genetic. Bailey and Pillard (1991) examined family patterns of adult males with homosexual orientation who had either a MZ twin, DZ twin, or adopted brother. These researchers found a concordance rate (if one twin was homosexual, the other was as well) of 52% among the male MZ twins who were reared together in the study. The figure for female MZ twins was 48%. Likewise, male DZ twins reared together showed a concordance rate of 22% (16% for women) but this was not significantly different from the rate for adoptive brothers (Bailey & Pillard, 1991). What this study shows is that there may be a genetic component to homosexuality, but there appear to be substantial environmental factors as well. However, the samples of twins included in these studies were recruited through advertising in gay and lesbian publications. This created the possibility of ascertainment bias. In other words, twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate. (Bailey et al., 2000, p. 533). This non-random sampling, of course, would result in biased data. Bailey, Dunne, and Martin (2000) used a large sample (N=4901) of adult twins recruited from the Australian Twin Registry. In that study, the researchers identified 27 pairs of male twins in which at least one of the men was homosexual. However, only 3 of these pairs were concordant (both twins were homosexual). Thus, 3 of 27 pairs of male twins (approximately 11%) were concordant on homosexuality in this systematic study. Likewise, only 3 of 22 pairs of female twins (approximately 14%) were concordant These researchers conclude, These rates are significantly lower than the respective rates for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation. This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias. (Bailey, et al., 2000, p. 533). They go on to state, Consistent with several studies of siblings, we found that sexual orientation is familial (comes from the family). (p. 534). Though the Bailey study authors went on to say there was the possibly a genetic factor in homosexuality, the empirical evidence brought forth in this study does not in any way support that conclusion. The most important point about all of this is if homosexuality was genetic, then virtually all identical twins would be concordant (or at least 90% to claim any significant genetic predisposition. Even in the highly biased 1991 Bailey and Pillard study with samples recruited through advertising in gay and lesbian publications; they were only able to find less than a 50% concordance. The point being, homosexuality is a choice defined by our environment and the familial environment. In general, it is an unhealthy and depressingly hedonistic lifestyle that should not be promoted by the state for the health of our children and our future.
#6.2 Mike Fury on 2009-11-03 12:44
Your view of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" is horribly skewed. One of my best friends (and a person I both respect and admire greatly) is a homosexual, who has been in a monogamous relationship with his partner for 30 years. He's a man's man; does outdoors stuff; he's a pilot and personally maintains his plane; he has a PhD in Physics; holds a high-level management position in a large company; maintains a nice household. Only problem is, he and his partner get no tax or other special treatment or rights, and his life-long relationship is not only unrecognized by any law, but openly scoffed at and demeaned on a regular basis by ignorant idiots such as yourself. Oh, and I guess his other problem is that all his life he kept on falling for boys and men. Blame the "environment" all you want, but there is no "choice" when it comes to who you're going to have a crush on (or not.)
#6.2.1 Boris on 2009-11-03 16:04
I appreciated your thoroughly correct description of the gay life. When I lved in a highly gay area of Houston in the late seventies and early nineties - I had many close gay men friends and everyone of them told me they thought they were gay due to homosexual experiences as children usually with an adult. But, in public they were supposed to say they were born gay because it is more politically effective. I think much of the attraction for men living the gay life is definately the excitment of such a highly active sexual likestyle.
#6.2.2 Dawn on 2009-11-03 17:11
I do believe it has more to do with benefits more than anything that married couples receive from the government.
#6.3 Sean on 2009-11-03 13:01
How about the 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
#6.4 Betty Pawsheifer on 2009-11-03 13:21
You don't fix over 1,000 bad laws with another bad law.
#6.4.1 Karl on 2009-11-03 14:07
So much is wrong with this I don't know where to start... Contracts between people are fine. Contracts of union whereby the state has the final say (especially when it is a moral question-since when has the state exhibited moral supremacy?) are unnecessarily Orweilian and heavy handed. Government got invoilved in marriage for health reasons and have incrementally taken more and more control of the whole process. The agreements that people enter into, if they do not infringe on the rights of others, are none of the state's business. There should be no rewards for marriage nor penalty for non-marriage. There should be no "policy" that favors one state of matrimony over the other. PERIOD. As for the whole "God" thing. Good lord. Was it not you who proclaimed in regards to global warming, that outlandish claims require overwhelming evidence? There is ZERO evidence of any sentient being capble of earning the "god" title. There is ZERO evidence that any human has knowledge of a sentient being earning the "God" title. There IS, however, BUCKET LOADS of evidence to suggest that humans make up dieties in place of knowledge. Therefore, a rational person can only conclude that any ideation of "God" is simply a made-up construct. No made-up construct should ever be used by rational people in the formation of agreements or contracts. PERIOD.
#7 Scott from Oregon (Homepage) on 2009-11-03 12:30
No problem wih gay union at all and would encourage it. But marriage with out the altereded definition is oppisite sex and should be separate as it is indeed different. Gay couples should be entitled to all the rights and priviliges of a marriage but why give it the same work.
#8 Anon on 2009-11-03 12:56
Why would you say that adopted kids don't count? Once the process is complete, legally speaking they are no different from biological kids. Also, gay couples, especially lesbians can pump out kids fairly easily, by using a sperm donor. Yes, marriage may be a flawed institution for the reasons Karl has pointed out, but what right does the state have to exclude gay couples from this institition if that is the couple's choice?
#9 Sharp-Blond on 2009-11-03 13:08
Karl, if you happen to read the book, "The Family", by Jeff Sharlet, you'll find that quite a few people running our government and military do indeed God designates "little people", versus his chosen "Key Men". Another reason they get away with just about anything.
#10 Rick on 2009-11-03 13:13
Ok, here's a plan for the government to get the deficit under control and do some real social engineering. We've heard of a marriage tax now its time for the DIVORCE tax. That's right... the Feds will just come in and take 40% of your income as a fine for breach of contract. Another 40% can go to the religious instution for the same. That should help solve the dead beat mom/dad problem also. The plan is self funding! If its a no fault divorce the filing partner pays! Of course the lawyers will be moan about their losses. That should put a damper on the divorce rate as well as the 'gay marriage' debate. Who needs to tax the rich when you can tax the immoral!
#11 Vernon on 2009-11-03 13:29
Lets get real. What this is about, what it's always been about is legitimizing something that can ever be legitimate. A couple of freaks cornholing each other runs about as contrary to nature as whales with wings. End of story and leave God out of it. Contract law covers all the bases for a civil union with the exception that it does not put the homosexual union on par with the marriage of one man to one woman and it shouldn't. The churches shouldn't get involved unless they want to and they shouldn't be forced to. The same goes for the public at large. If you want to live together as man and man or woman and woman that's sure as hell fine with me. If you want to go to lawyers and get your commitments to each bound by a contract all means do it. But, for myself, I've heard both sides and have decided that this is no business of the state and it's no business of the church. Live how you want to live but don't try to shove your lifestyle down the public's throat. Homosexuality is the exception not the norm and I'm sorry but freakish behavior is not deserving of special protections nor of tolerance outside the confines of personal private living space. We have centuries of precedence that defines what marriage is and I for one am content to leave it just where it is. Call it what you will. Get as many laws passed as you can. It won't matter. Since time began there has never been a time when homosexuality was viewed as normal and in a thousand years it still won't be seen as normal. It may be tolerated but it won't embraced as anything but what it is- nonsense.
#12 TheEarleOfCrankcase on 2009-11-03 14:19
Bah. I don't give a shit what any group of people (of legal age, all consenting) do behind their bedroom door. It's none of my damn business. I object mightily to expanding bogus, fraud-laced "institutions" to ever larger constituencies, no matter who they are. This is a primary tool of those in government who see the expansion of these "power bases" as a means of further putting people under their thumbs, in that they manage to obtain consent to that which they could never obtain without force or fraud. My view on this matter has been reflected repeatedly through this blog, and I am updating the post to include a letter that I sent to the Pensacola Archdiocese - in 2002.
#12.1 Karl on 2009-11-03 14:42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior The fact is that non-hetrosexual behavior has been documented in over 1,500 species in the wild. If you don't agree with homosexual behavior in humans then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, however your case will be more persuasive if you avoid relying on demonstrably false premises.
#12.2 Jack on 2009-11-03 14:56
"Contrary to nature" eh? Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
#12.3 Tony on 2009-11-03 14:57
Wait. Forget about the "should" / "should not" argument for a second and let's talk about culture. Marriage is in a nutshell, a belief system. A cultural concept which differs extensively from culture to culture. There are societies which practice polygamy. There are societies which consider a wife to be 'property'. (For anyone to quote the Judeo / Christian faith here, is somewhat hilarious considering the Bible supports both of those practices). Furthermore, to claim that you know what marriage is, or isn't -- it to claim one of two things: 1) Ignorance of other cultures. or 2) That your culture is right, and its existence should be exclusive of all others. I know, I know.. but this is your country, and why is it so wrong to want your neighbors to be just like you? (1939 is calling and wants its propaganda back.) I think most of the people expressing strong views here are essentially admitting that they have trouble living in multicultural societies. They're the same people that one generation ago had a hard time having black (or Catholic) neighbors. Personally, I have absolutely no problem if some guy wants to put his pecker in another guys hairy ass. Frankly, that makes more women for the rest of us. (Actually two extra women, for every gay male couple... so from that perspective, I may actually encourage the practice. You go, gay fellas! And thank you from the bottom of my heart). And about this whole "God" thing: What does a mythical creature invented by a desert cult 5,000 years ago have to do with this? Let's leave that 'god' thing out of educated discussions. He, she or it, (whatever it is exactly) doesn't mean sh*t to me. I certainly never agreed to do anything to meet the approval of any mythical entity, and neither did my (happily married) parents or (happily married) grandparents. I come from smart, scientist folk. We explain things by proof not some crazy system that ignores it. Karl, this topic sucks IMHO, and doesn't belong on TF. But you open the door, and I will speak.
#13 popo on 2009-11-03 14:47
That's why its not on Tickerforum :-) BTW, go back and read the top post. I have linked a document I sent out in 2002 to the Catholic Archdiocese of Pensacola that should put the lie to any claim that this is somehow "cooked up" because it happens to include people who are gay.
#13.1 Karl on 2009-11-03 14:51
My two cents Think about the origins of the concept first. Marriage has nothing to do with the adults, it is all about the Children. Two reasons, religious and practical. Religious being, God is the only entity that can create matter and energy (time), and living specie creates life or "new life". Marriage is a contract that insures two people remain together until that child can fend for itself. As this may take some time and birth control is a relatively new addition, there will most likely be additional children to raise before that original child can become an adult. So until death do us part or at least infertility is a good measure, given that life expectancy was not too good back then. The 2nd item is lineage or line. The old fathers day joke 'who's your daddy?' comes to mind. Marriage or unions were not always recorded and this is why a bastard child was looked down upon. No one could be assured of their lineage. So marriage is and has always been a contract of life, not sex. It has very little to do with that or material possessions. It's about the kids... Civil unions are all about material possessions and all a person requires for legal purposes. As same sex partners cannot produce life, marriage is not appropriate for them. For same sex couples it has more to do with an appearance of normalcy than about the Rite of marriage. They feel the need for a complete acceptance, and I understand and appreciate that, but... the idea is not biologically normal to begin with. It's not their fault it's a psychological condition, but that does not make it normal as other more unacceptable conditions exist. Should they be normal too? There are basic reasons why this is wrong. We can accept all sorts of abnormality's in society, we can accommodate them to a degree. But we should not water down what traditionally has been the foundation of society... the Family. Which is what happens when a pair produces life. My two cents and change.
#14 James Sexton on 2009-11-03 14:51
"Lets get real. What this is about, what it's always been about is legitimizing something that can (n)ever be legitimate. A couple of freaks cornholing each other runs about as contrary to nature as whales with wings."********************** "As same sex partners cannot produce life, marriage is not appropriate for them. For same sex couples it has more to do with an appearance of normalcy than about the Rite of marriage. They feel the need for a complete acceptance, and I understand and appreciate that, but... the idea is not biologically normal to begin with."*********************** Whooboy!! Underneath the curtain of all of this, is of course, a personal moral expression, which, despite all of the protestations and disclaimers, leaks out around the very edges of many an argument. To paraphrase the position-- """Being gay does not produce children and is not a dominant social expression, therefore (keeping it real) we need laws and stuff to keep those bastards and bitches down...""" Personally, I think bigots shouldn't be allowed to HAVE children, as they are far more denigrating to society than gays of most stripes... So perhaps we'll use "the state" to castrate bigots? Since "homosexuality" was featured in books written 4,000 years ago, it is safe to assume that it is a common and long standing human trait. That very fact alone should remove the "not normal" label, as it is clearly a normal subset of the human tapestry. It isn't "normal" for a woman to like Scotch, but should we ban women from drinking Scotch when clearly there are women who break with the norm? The "normal" claim becomes ludicrous when applied to just about every human "lifestyle" choice, so why apply it here? And Karl, it looks like your "Bah!" comment clarified some things and precludes you from the castration list... also, this is where I fully agree with you-- Keep the state (and the tyranny of the masses) out of marriage altogether!
#15 Scott from Oregon on 2009-11-03 16:48
First of all marriage is a covenant, not a contract. Second, the Government (at any level) has no business in marriage: Marriage is a religious element and should be protected by the 1st Ammendment (which, contrary to the way things are going now, was intended to keep the Government out of churches/religions and not the other way around). If the Gov't wants to define a legal contract establishing a legal side to the covenant of marriage then so be it. But leave marriages to the churches/religions to define.
#16 Mike on 2009-11-03 16:51
Huh...What the heck does marriage have to do with God? There was marriage before religion, and there will be marriage after religion finally disappears. In most civilized countries (US seemingly excluded) religion is a private matter. The US attitude to religion is an great example of what is wrong with America - "facts" don't matter, its all about faith. Well guess what the church used to say the world was flat ... and they were wrong. Reality bites!
#17 billwilson on 2009-11-03 21:35
The only reason this is an issue is that the government distributes benefits based on marital status. I figure if you can't balance your checkbook, you can't define what a valid marriage is. It's up to the people involved, church, community, etc. A standard civil contract should serve as the basis for any distribution of state benefits. For those that claim issues of legitimacy - if you need the government to legitimize your religious faith - well mine certainly does not.
#18 PE Bird on 2009-11-03 22:05
I understand marriage as an institution between the betrothed woman and man. I would respect another institution built of the union between gays and lesbians. I simply ask that they respect the retention of the institution I joined and the expectations of family that our institution embodies.
#19 Ciao on 2009-11-03 22:14
Agree with you Karl. This isn't really about "gay rights" at all - it's about contractual agreements among the parties involved. The contracts should be written in a way that can be truly enforced and can hold up in the courts, including custody issues. If the people involved want a third-party house of worship involved in the contract so be it. If only with the State, fine. I know a woman who lives with two men. Should they be able to "get married?" I say sure. Just have the contract written up among all parties involved. There are areas that muddle up what "marriage" is about. One is taxes. Fix it by getting rid of income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Eliminates the issue of married vs. single and who is or is not a dependent. Another is health care. Eliminate employee sponsored health care. My company doesn't provide for my auto insurance, why should they provide health care insurance? Everyone should go buy health care insurance just like they do auto insurance if they want it, and then everyone can buy insurance for whoever they want to. Hospital visitation rights? Refer to the marriage contract. Inheritance? Refer to the contract. Why is it so hard for people to come to a logical solution? I don't get it. That's my two cents.
#20 Markytom on 2009-11-03 22:48
I agree with you Karl, that who is involved in a marriage is none of my damn business. The idea of making gay marriage a political issue is simply, more smoke and mirrors. We cannot be divided against one another anymore. The Constitution states we are all entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". That means everyone, no exceptions. The issue of gay marriage has led people to ignore the far more heinous issues that get passed while they are arguing about who hates fags.....what ever happened to the seperation of church and state, or the universality and autonomy of individuals?
#21 Melissa on 2009-11-03 22:51
Melissa- That is the point. They're distracting us with emotional "hot button issues" so we don't notice they're robbing us and selling the next couple of generations into debt peonage. Convince people that their neighbors are more dangerous than the parasites in Wall Street or DC. Divide and rule.
#21.1 Lloyd on 2009-11-04 06:04
I agree 100%...What happened if we refuse to be divided along such petty lines??? Head up, eyes open, brain working, and a commitment to our fellows to look, act together and stop the bullshit!
#21.1.1 Melissa on 2009-11-04 13:40
Damn, Karl, Thank You for making me feel better about my non-praciticing as well. I have been strongly disillusioned by anullments of convenience being peddled by The Church for Decades.
#22 TW on 2009-11-03 23:43
want a good one? Have a child out of wedlock. As a man you are LEGALLY BOUND to provide for the child's "lifestyle" (in MA) and that WITHOUT EVEN ENTERING INTO ANY KIND OF ARRANGEMENT LIKE MARRIAGE! NO MARRIAGE, NO WEDDING, NO WIFE, BUT YOU HAVE A CHILD - CORRECTION, SOMEONE ELSE HAS YOUR CHILD WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT AND YOU MUST SUPPORT HIM AND HER UNDER THE LAW TO THE TUNE OF 40% OF YOUR SALARY UNDER THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT FOR 18-22 YEARS. LOOK IT UP. CAN THE STATE BECOME ANYMORE TWISTED!?!?!?!?!
#23 jason (Homepage) on 2009-11-04 00:45
I find it fascinating that someone who spends so much of his time ranting against fraud, especially as it pertains to powerful, controlling organizations committing it against the helpless masses, cannot see that religion itself is the greatest fraud ever to be perpetrated on mankind. How does the man who mines mountains of data to justify every opinion on finance believe in a mythology with no evidence whatsoever to support it? Gay marriage is a completely simple issue, if you just free your mind from the nonsense of religion. After that's out of the way, it's patently obvious that there's no legal justification for having laws apply differently based on the gender of the person you're in love with.
#24 Nate on 2009-11-04 01:37
You don't fix bad laws with more bad laws. You have completely missed the point of this entry... like so many others who are blinded by the intentional division that government uses. My reason for posting your comment was to illustrate how absolutely fucking idiotic that line of reasoning is. Wake the fuck up. Or not. That choice is yours, but so are the consequences of being diverted by this line of bullshit. Enjoy the depression.
#24.1 Karl on 2009-11-04 08:29
Marriage, as a controlled institution by the state, shows itself for what it really is-- a scam. People in the 50s swore a solemn oath before God and country to form a union. So how is it possible that our government can revise that solemn oath and marriage contract? The marriage license is a tax upon the common man and invites a 3rd party into the private (commercial) interests of the union. Thus, the couple becomes subject to the statutes regulating children, IRS filing status, and dissolution. Child Protection Services, Divorce courts, judges, and lawyers make a lot of money in this business. They can't wait to get new customers with the passage of the same-sex marriage legislation!
#25 kayl on 2009-11-04 06:15
If the church were to endorse the solutions you put forth in your letter, would you resume giving it money? I live in Arizona, a state on the Mexican border, and I have evidence off the website of the local diocese proving the church's involvement in keeping the border open. Would you be willing to boycott the church's fundraising efforts over its efforts to debase our country?
#26 Ronduck on 2009-11-05 13:10
I already have.
#26.1 Karl on 2009-11-05 13:11
Karl, I have to say that your reasons for leaving the Church are weak. Leave the Church if you no longer believe it's the church that was founded by Christ and whose authority was handed over to St. Peter and the Apostles. Leave the Church because you no longer believe in the Sacraments, especially Our Savior's Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Leave the Church because you no longer believe that each Mass is the continuation of Christ's eternal sacrifice in Calvary. Leave the Church because you no longer believe the Church is God's instrument for forgiveness and salvation. Leave the Church if you no longer believe in Jesus Christ as God's Son. The above are valid reasons why one would leave the Church. Your reasons for leaving the Church are not valid. To me, it shows that you had little or no faith in the Church and her Sacraments to begin with. Do you think St. Francis stopped practicing his faith considering the widespread corruption inside the Church back in his day? Of course not, because he still held on to the faith taught by the Church...not the faith in man. I can understand how you could be upset with your diocese, your bishop, and the American Church in general. I can also understand why you would no longer financially contribute to your parish/diocese and other Catholic charities. But why stop going to Mass? Why stop receiving the Eucharist? Why stop going to confession?
#27 Joe P. on 2009-11-05 15:27
You don't believe that knowingly taking a Sacrament from someone who you know is performing them with fraudulent intent is a sin. I do, and in fact believe it is an extremely serious sin for which one may not (at God's discretion, of course) be forgiven.
#27.1 Karl on 2009-11-05 15:33
And for the record, I actually agree with your criticisms regarding (and solutions for) the Church's entanglement with the state regarding marriage. I think it would be best if the marriage sacrament and state contract be completely separate from each other, as you proposed in your 2002 letter. However, that doesn't mean that I also think that marriages conducted by the Church (especially mine) were performed with "fraudulent intent", nor are our criticisms any grounds to completely abandon the faith.
#27.1.1 Joe P. on 2009-11-05 16:39
Add Comment

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA 1CAPTCHA 2CAPTCHA 3CAPTCHA 4CAPTCHA 5
 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.