Marriage didn't start out as a religious practice. That came later. Again, if it were just a religious practice, non-religious people wouldn't be getting married and that's certainly not the case.

Uh, the Declaration of Independence is not a document that is used by courts to determine what legal rights that U.S. residents possess.

I thought that they prey in Congress ... prey on the people's money, prey on the people's rights, etc.

When you think about it, neither the state nor the church should be parties to the marriage contract. I guess nobody ever gives it a second thought that you "have to get" a marriage license (permission from the state), or sign the "marriage register" (to surrender the "fruits" of the marriage to church/state by giving them legal title)

In old Scotland, they had the "Proclamation of the Banns" and in China, the happy couple just drank from the same cup...I think they had the right idea, after all, why involve more parties in a 2-party contract?

If we'd been doing stuff that way in this day & age, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue at all because there'd be no concerns about adoption rights, whether or not "G-d approves", tax deductions, etc...None of that stuff would be anybody else's business.

Truth, although you'd probably still get some flak from religious people in cases where it was known outright in an area who was a homosexual couple, but very good comment just the same.

doubled

contracts area legally binding with legal repurcussions,, by definition they will involve an authority of LAW to oversee/maintain/resolve,,,

if one has to go to someone to resolve an issue (ownership, custody, et,,,) that someone is a party of the contract,,

well that is exactly why there is a state sanctioned marriage.

but I do think there could be a vehicle for marriage to be recognized even if not state sanctioned so that partners can have the advantages of marriage legally when they have been together long term in a loving partnership. (Common Law might cover this , but I am not sure). It would be easiest if the state simply sanctioned gay marriage.

I think there do have to be some sanctions tho' such as age limit and monogamy. That is why I think, in my opinion, the state deos have a stake in the sanctity of marraige.

We told Utah they had to give up polygamy in order to join the union. If we change the definition of marriage as between a man and a women to allow gays to marry. Will you then support people that wish to be married to multiple people? I have seen some pro gay marriage say that gays have a right but polygamist don’t. If I wanted to return to the belief that a man can have more then one wife would you be supportive of that?

The Shadow asks a good question.

If a man in a Arabic nation has four wives, and if he and his four wives visit the USA, then wouldn't the U.S. government recognize the man as having four wives?

they should suspend any teacher that says anything about gay/being gay... not their place to talk about it, for either side...

Of course they are…The law itself IS the authority, not necessarily the state, which may only be a party to the contract (under what is called "public law")

A private contract between private parties is again legally binding on the parties, only the public (state) is not involved. The only difference between private law and public law is whether or not one or more of the parties contracting is the public (as represented by the recognized government of the public, like the state).

I often tell people who are pissed at their government that if they didn't like it, they shouldn't have contracted with it, to which they inevitably reply that they never contracted with it, to which I reply with "Yes you did…whether you know it or not, you did."

It is a principle of law that the contract between the parties IS the law between the parties, private or public. In either case, it is the court's job to adjudicate (play fair referee to) all contract disputes brought to its attention, so even a private contract between two people can be brought before any competent court for adjudication, just as a contract dispute between a citizen and his nation can.



Not exactly. The judge can have no interest in the case before him and therefore cannot be a party to the contract. What needs to happen for litigation of a case is that at least one of the contracting parties MUST attorn to the court. The other party(s) can be brought in in leg irons (criminal cases) if necessary, and need not attorn to the court.



It does. A common law marriage is simply a de facto marriage



On the age thing, there are limits in law…Anyone not competent to contract cannot make a binding contract, and children under a certain age are not considered competent and must have parental permission (or a marriage license for children of the state of any age). Under an even lower age (say 8years old) the idea that little kids can get married is not reasonable, so even with parental permission, the "marriage" is not binding on the parties and would probably be frowned on by practically everyone (except in some cultures).

On the monogamy thing, we have no right to dictate our moral values to ANYONE. As I see it, so long as all parties agree, we can have lawful polygamous, or even communal/community marriages which could easily incorporate gay and straight couples in a single marriage contract.



Why not? If I recall correctly, Muhammed Ali claimed the right to have four wives. I don't know if he married that many, and I'm pretty sure he only registered one "legal" marriage (if he bothered to register any). (I loved Ali sice his Cassius Clay days with the Liston Fight…Still remember listening to it on the radio with my dad…That man was no foreigner, but a 1st rate American who lived his conscience and stood for what he believed…That's what made him "The Greatest" in my eyes.)



I'm inclined to agree. People have enough crap to deal with without having alternate lifestyles stuffed down their gullets at an early age…Kids should be taught tolerance & understanding for others (including gay people) without (figuratively) sticking them in the bedroom to watch.

As Pierre Trudeau once said, "The Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."…To that I would add, "neither do schools."

Keep in mind, with same sex marriages, you still have two unrelated consenting adults, just as with opposite sex marriages. Polygamy is a totally different issue and has nothing to do with same sex marriages.

no, your infringing on his rights to have 4 wives... pure discrimination at it's highest level...and if he wanted to marry his cousin or sister, you shouldn't be taking his rights to that away... so who has rights and who doesn't in this country? why should gays have extra rights, where the polygamist and others do not?

I'm just stating that same sex marriages are similar to opposite sex marriages for the reasons I listed. If you want polygamy to be legal, right for the laws to change, just like gay people have. If you want incest to be legal, push for the law to change.

And gay people don't have extra rights. They're working on getting the same rights as you do.

they have the same rights... i can't marry a guy

You can marry someone you're in love with. They cannot. You're not stupid, so I'm sure you understand this.

There's no law that states you can't have more than one girlfriend.