Shump on December 29, 2011 at 5:46 PM

The only thing the state ought to be doing is providing a mechanism for recognizing a relationship between parties ultimately for the division of assets, parental rights and emergency medical directives in the event of death or voiding of the contract(divorce)and unfortunately income tax purposes. (Fair tax would do away with tax liability though ideally)

If 12 people want to assume that contractual relationship for the purposes of asset dispersement in the event of death or disbandment of contract (divorce) what does it matter to you? If 12 people request that the deceased pension and social security benefits be distributed equally amongst them… how does that affect you?

Those 12 people are going to live together and make babies regardless. Civil contract just makes it easier to recognize who gets a stake in assets when the contract is dissolved for whatever reason. It also designates a primary “decision maker” in the event of emergency medical care.

State should not be legislating insurance companies to provide benefits for dependents.

State should not be legislating morality.

I can relate…my husband and I were married in our eyes in a private, unlicensed ceremony (the priestess was a licensed reverend, though). When we moved to Idaho, we were forced to get married on paper (after 11 years of marriage), because his insurance wouldn’t cover me if we weren’t. That annoyed us to no end. It’s nobody’s business but our own if we bothered with the paper thing or not, IMO.

sage0925 on December 29, 2011 at 2:02 PM

That’s not completely accurate. What you did was take advantage of regulations that were forced on the insurance company, in effect legally steeling from them because the government forces them to let you.

Good for her, indeed. I really have nothing against gays…their lifestyle affects the quality of my life, how? I do wish that they would stop trying to ram it down the throats of the general public, however. Seems like all they are managing to do is annoy people.

You answered your own question grasshopper.

I can relate…my husband and I were married in our eyes in a private, unlicensed ceremony (the priestess was a licensed reverend, though). When we moved to Idaho, we were forced to get married on paper (after 11 years of marriage), because his insurance wouldn’t cover me if we weren’t. That annoyed us to no end. It’s nobody’s business but our own if we bothered with the paper thing or not, IMO.

sage0925 on December 29, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Thats your choice. Not only to move, but to either accept the terms of the insurance or not.
When you state “its nobodys business but our own…” your are right..up until you interject your business onto the business of another. i.e. the insurer.
It’s a matter of choice. But not just your choice.

The gay marriage issue -for national politicos- is nothing but a fundraiser.

For the democratic party, no doubt, but certainly not for most gays. For an unlucky few who fall in love across lines of citizenship, bringing their loved one across via marriage is impossible. However, I’m in agreement with the above commenters who would see the state out of the business of marriage altogether. A church congregation should decide who they marry and don’t marry. The state only interferes with religious beliefs when it says who can marry and who can’t. Let marriage remain the sole purview of the church and the state can handle simple legal unions.

The laws against polygamy seem pretty well settled. Nothing I propose would change that. To get a driver’s license you have to be able to see. To form a domestic partnership, two humans must sign.
Let’s be honest; most laws come about because groups of people apply enough pressure to compel Congress to act. While I certainly don’t know for sure, I doubt that the polygamy lobby, unlike others; is powerful enough to get their way. Yet.

Why? You ask? Because it removes their power; it would be like turning over ownership of the company to the union; once you do that, the union has no function and will quickly disband.

The gay marriage issue -for national politicos- is nothing but a fundraiser.

The State should have nothing to do with marriage. If the local government simply issued a license to ANY couple seeking to legalize their partnership, all of this hand wringing would be moot. After all, a Marriage License is really just a legal document binding two people to a contractual relationship.

So why should they limit it to couples? I mean, it’s perfectly legal for three people to enter into a contractual relationship together. Why can’t three people all be married to each other? Or 12? If the government isn’t going to define what marriage is or is not, how can it reasonably give out marriage licenses, short of allowing any arrangement of any number of people to be classified, legally, as a marriage?

Really, it’s a couple of issues.

First is the core psychology; the LGBT community has been led by liberal statists and has incalculated a liberal statist ideology of the government being the all-knowing, all-benevolent arbiter of everything.

Second is the blame-shifting. The LGBT community is adamantly and fundamentally against the concept that you are responsible for your own actions. Lack of marriage and “homophobia” have become a convenient excuse for everything that goes wrong with your life, allowing you to conveniently avoid changing any of your behaviors.

This is why I think the Republican Party is really wasting its efforts in any sort of outreach to gays. One cannot be conservative without confronting and repudiating the two core ideas at the center of the gay and lesbian community’s ideology. Rather, gays and lesbians like myself and this lady who have come to the realization that they have to think beyond their minority status — and have seen how the Obama Party’s “tolerance” extends only to those gays who are absolutely obedient to their Obama masters — have to come to the Republican Party and conservativism, rather than vice versa.

That being said:

I’ve never understood why gay people can’t make powers of attorneys, healthcare proxies and wills that include their loved ones. My husband and I have done just that because the state intrudes too much as it is, and we want the other to have the rights over us like it used to be.

Mommynator on December 29, 2011 at 3:35 PM

This is one area where definite improvement could be made, and I see it as a great wedge point for the Republican Party to use.

The reason the Obama Party tries to encourage and foment the whole “gay marriage” thing is because the Obama Party is adamantly against any type of reform in this area — because it would diminish the power of the state over people and it would reduce tax revenues. Thus, they push the unattainable “gay marriage” as a red herring rather than making the fixes that would benefit gay and straight couples alike.

I’ve never understood why gay people can’t make powers of attorneys, healthcare proxies and wills that include their loved ones. My husband and I have done just that because the state intrudes too much as it is, and we want the other to have the rights over us like it used to be.

About 3 years ago, she took a trip to San Francisco for the Gay Pride parade. She figured that she needed to go once. She came back and said “NEVER AGAIN!”

cmsinaz on December 29, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Good for her, indeed. I really have nothing against gays…their lifestyle affects the quality of my life, how? I do wish that they would stop trying to ram it down the throats of the general public, however. Seems like all they are managing to do is annoy people.

“I care more about my relationship with my girl and my God than I do about my relationship with the state.”

I can relate…my husband and I were married in our eyes in a private, unlicensed ceremony (the priestess was a licensed reverend, though). When we moved to Idaho, we were forced to get married on paper (after 11 years of marriage), because his insurance wouldn’t cover me if we weren’t. That annoyed us to no end. It’s nobody’s business but our own if we bothered with the paper thing or not, IMO.

“None can love freedom but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license.” — John Milton.

In the case of “gay” “marriage,” liberals take this to its literal extreme. It’s no longer enough even to publically flaunt their fetish, and persecute everyone who is annoyed by that. They now demand that society put its official stamp of approval on their fetishistic “lifestyle.”

logis on December 29, 2011 at 1:49 PM

You are the better candidate for having a fetish of sorts.

why would you care if the state “endorsed” your marriage or not? Either it is the state’s business or it isn’t, right?

“None can love freedom but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license.” — John Milton.

In the case of “gay” “marriage,” liberals take this to its literal extreme. It’s no longer enough even to publically flaunt their fetish, and persecute everyone who is annoyed by that. They now demand that society put its official stamp of approval on their fetishistic “lifestyle.”