dagblog - Comments for "I Don't Want Uncle Sam To Be My Best Man"

Federal and most State laws

Thundercloud — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:47:51 +0000

In reply to I Don't Want Uncle Sam To Be My Best Man

Federal and most State laws recognizing and licensing marriage, regardless of the gender, race, national origin, or religion are inherently unconstitutional. The framers claimed ALL rights for the individual, giving up only very limited powers to the government for those purposes enumerated. The protection of persons from other persons, and the limitations on government intrusions into your personal lives and freedoms are the basis for each article and most amendments. Marriage is, by every measure and history, a symbolic and personal issue that may have religious overtones. There is no federal interest in regulating it, recognizing it, punishing or supporting it. Most States constitutions also limit their power for the purpose of keeping state and local agencies out of your personal business.

The original immigrants from Europe who settled here, came to find new places where the King would not dictate their lives and beliefs. Then they forced there beliefs on the indigenous population, demanded laws to enforce those beliefs on anyone who disagreed, and finally did much better than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined as they massacred, enslaved, imprisoned and exterminated anyone who was not just like them. If you want to learn about domestic terrorism, just ask a Navajo.

All of the northeastern

Dan Kervick — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 03:03:14 +0000

In reply to Anyone that brings up

All of the northeastern states with large Catholic populations have low divorce rates.

Anyone that brings up

David in Houston — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:43:02 +0000

In reply to I Don't Want Uncle Sam To Be My Best Man

Anyone that brings up religion to defend "traditional" marriage should be asked to explain why non-religious straight couples are allowed to marry at their city hall.

When they talk about "procreation" as the reason that gay couples should be banned from marrying, they should be asked to explain why senior citizens, barren couples and those that don't want children are allowed to marry; and why procreation has never been a requirement to getting married.

Those that say that marriage is being "redefined" should be asked, "Exactly WHOSE marriage has been redefined because Tom and Steve got married?" If that were true, then every opposite-sex marriage in Massachusetts would have been destroyed 7 years ago; straight couples would have stopped getting married (because they wouldn't know what marriage means anymore); and divorces would have skyrocketed. Of course, none of those things has happened. In fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

Well, as the national media

Oxy Mora — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:24:41 +0000

In reply to I Don't Want Uncle Sam To Be My Best Man

Well, as the national media always says, Vermont is a "quirky" state and is many times not of interest unless it is on the subject of Bernie Sanders. One reason that state is quirky is it's early, if not the first, adoption of a civil union law--which nearly tore the state in half.

Anyway, pause for advertisement. Vermont allows both civil unions and same sex marriages. If ya'll are interested in an 1850's era large two family house at a reasonable price, with the only drawback being it sits on a heavily traveled two lane road so probably not the best place to have kids or dogs but a great place to have a bookstore or possibly a business selling crafts, please contact me.

Just kidding. Good post, mob.

I knew a person in college

Beetlejuice — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:14:57 +0000

In reply to I Don't Want Uncle Sam To Be My Best Man

I knew a person in college that to my surprise was gay ... really shocked me. However, once I knew it , it didn't stop me from lending him some technical assistance with my electronic, radar and telemetry field work to help him with his senior project in electrical engineering. And he gave me credit in the project for specific points of reference were my assistance provided him with insight on how theory conflicts with real world activities. After he graduated, he got a position with an Army R&D center that was going to pay for his masters program.

The trick was that what he did in the privacy of his home was his business and never was a subject to be discussed in the workplace. He was open to me because he knew I had some casual friends who were known lesbians and never hit on them so he didn't think it would be an issue ... which it wasn't once the shock wore off.

As for your marriage rant, isn't it more about the tax incentives a marriage is entitled to as opposed to filing as a single? Perhaps what you should focus on would be a tax code that taxes people as individuals regardless of their marriage status and number of dependents? Marriage is a religious ceremony and belongs in the church and the bridge between the religion and taxes needs to be severed so everyone is on equal footing.

Perhaps you should petition Congress to create a legal partnership status that is equal to marriage in taxes and common law rights between consenting adults? That way you're not stepping on the the religious right's turf, but can enjoy the same perks as they do.

Sometimes it better to devise an end run around the opposition, especially when they're dug in and hunkered down expecting a frontal assault.

Maybe the government

Verified Atheist — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:08:39 +0000

In reply to I Don't Want Uncle Sam To Be My Best Man

Maybe the government shouldn’t recognize any marriages.

In theory, this makes sense. In practice (as many homosexual couples will no doubt attest), marriage recognition goes far beyond tax codes. Sure, many of the other features could be covered by some sort of legal documents, but again that's only a good idea in theory. In practice, you're talking about trading a $50 fee (approximately, it varies by state) for a $500 fee or greater (to a lawyer, no less). OK, maybe someone could come up with a way to simplify that into some sort of $50 process, but in the end what you'd end up with is something an awful lot like a marriage or civil union. In computer science, we have something called "duck typing", so that although you might call that new process something else, in the end it'd still be marriage.