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.

Kingbee, you make some decent points. Yes, parental rights can be established without marriage, but with marriage they are automatic. Even without marriage, who do people turn to to establish those rights? Their church? No, the courts (i.e, the government).

True, one doesn't need authority from the government to perform a marriage, but guess what, the marriage ritual isn't what makes couple married in the eyes of the law. That piece of paper, signed by someone given the authority to do so makes them married. All the ministers in the country can say "Dearly Beloved", "Til Death Do Us Part" and "I now pronounce you man and wife" all day long, but until that marriage license is signed, it's only words (from a practical standpoint).

Rights in general are a result of a We The People, The Community and The Government working together. Each have a role to play. If either part silences the role of the other too much, rights are threatened. Well, in the case of redefining marriage, if the government is silenced, rights are lost... just as if the government silenced the people, rights would be lost.

"That piece of paper, signed by someone given the authority to do so makes them married."

True, you can be married without a ceremony, but you can't be married without a license, at least legally.

Does any one else realize that if passed, this will be the only amendment that takes rights away?

" Does any one else realize that if passed, this will be the only amendment that takes rights away?"

Marriage is a managed, regulated license, not a right. No one prevents gay people from cohabitating, living monogomously for life, willing their inheritance to their partner,etc. THAT is a right. The government has the responsibility to regulate licenses, and marriage is one of them.