Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

The deep South isn't, though...

Yeah well, one step at a time.

Also the AFA is wanting Judge Walker impeached. Because he's gay and dared to rule on this issue. Source

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Loving vs. Virginia was a correct decision and a relatively easy one to make in hindsight. This was more about race and not a definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman. It did not address gay marriage nor was it considered to have done such.

While in hindsight, Loving v. Virginia does seem like a perfectly reasonable and correct decision, it was NOT popular at all. I believe something like 70% of the country was against interracial marriage when the decision was written. Sounds familiar...

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yes but the far more important part to me is that the anti-gay marriage people are dying off

I read somewhere that there is a majority of those under 40 in favor of Gay Marriage in 20 of the 50 states and a majority of those under 40 in favor of some form of Civil Union in 45 of the 50 states...

Yes, I've seen something fairly similar for Abortion and the percentages by age don't really go in one direction or another. From what I understand, other than the women who were in child bearing years when RvW was decided who tend toward supporting it more than other age groups, there isn't a significant amount of difference by age or gender. I think you still don't have a majority on either end of the spectrum if you take just those born since RvW.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by naraht

I read somewhere that there is a majority of those under 40 in favor of Gay Marriage in 20 of the 50 states and a majority of those under 40 in favor of some form of Civil Union in 45 of the 50 states...

Yes, I've seen something fairly similar for Abortion and the percentages by age don't really go in one direction or another. From what I understand, other than the women who were in child bearing years when RvW was decided who tend toward supporting it more than other age groups, there isn't a significant amount of difference by age or gender. I think you still don't have a majority on either end of the spectrum if you take just those born since RvW.

If you look at the image I posted, it supports that.

And the thing about abortion rights is that once it's legal it's harder to get "support" for rights unless they're threatened, meanwhile it's really easy to wage war against it. That's purely on political grounds.

[Elephant Walk]

Hopefully the government will simply get out of the business of marriage altogether.

[Psi U MC Vito]

^^ While that would be ideal, it will never happen because of all the legal aspects of marriage.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

^^ While that would be ideal, it will never happen because of all the legal aspects of marriage.

Those would be removed as well.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Hopefully the government will simply get out of the business of marriage altogether.

What would it be then? Currently it is solely a legal union.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

What would it be then? Currently it is solely a legal union.

It would mean nothing.

I mean, it would mean everything to those who are married (because they love each other yadda yadda), but no more Justice of the Peace marriages and what not.

If you get married, you get married by whatever entity decides to marry people (shoot, in this theory, your local McDonalds could choose to marry people if it so chose). The government needs no place in it. It's not the government's business. No more worrying about gay marriage/straight marriage, because there would be no need. The government doesn't need to prop up an institution, let society do it.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

It would mean nothing.

I mean, it would mean everything to those who are married (because they love each other yadda yadda), but no more Justice of the Peace marriages and what not.

If you get married, you get married by whatever entity decides to marry people (shoot, in this theory, your local McDonalds could choose to marry people if it so chose). The government needs no place in it. It's not the government's business. No more worrying about gay marriage/straight marriage, because there would be no need. The government doesn't need to prop up an institution, let society do it.

So what about divorce? Community property? Child support? Parental visitation? Death benefits? Distribution of property on death?

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

So what about divorce? Community property? Child support? Parental visitation? Death benefits? Distribution of property on death?

All these things can be settled through the courts (and already are, nearly all of them).

You may say, well sure but how do you define who is in the right or not. That's the definition of what the court's job is, regardless if the marriage is "legalized" or not.

[pshsx1]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

All these things can be settled through the courts (and already are, nearly all of them).

You may say, well sure but how do you define who is in the right or not. That's the definition of what the court's job is, regardless if the marriage is "legalized" or not.

Why would that go through the courts if the government has nothing to do with marriage?

If anything, the Facebook gods would have some say over it. Marriage would be just like saying 'in a relationship.' You don't need any documents; it's just a status that you, your spouse, and other people acknowledge.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

Why would that go through the courts if the government has nothing to do with marriage?

If anything, the Facebook gods would have some say over it. Marriage would be just like saying 'in a relationship.' You don't need any documents; it's just a status that you, your spouse, and other people acknowledge.

I believe he's talking about the other matters. Issues like child support are handled in the courts and distribution of property after death are handled by (correct me if I'm wrong) probate courts.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I believe he's talking about the other matters. Issues like child support are handled in the courts and distribution of property after death are handled by (correct me if I'm wrong) probate courts.

While true, the status of marriage automatically grants all of those rights and benefits onto the spouses. Though they could all be negotiated legally and separately it would create a rather heavy burden on the courts. Which then would be alleviated by creating some sort of status that couples could sign up for... which would essentially be marriage.

It would be nearly impossible to do it at this point. (And it's one of the reason that civil unions are often not effective solutions, the rights granted by marriage are not necessarily granted via civil union and particularly not if the couple moves to another state. )

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

Why would that go through the courts if the government has nothing to do with marriage?

If anything, the Facebook gods would have some say over it. Marriage would be just like saying 'in a relationship.' You don't need any documents; it's just a status that you, your spouse, and other people acknowledge.

And that's why the government can't get out of marriage. To do so would cause too much chaos for a true society to operate appropriately.

What those in government and people need to realize that marriage is just another form of a legal entity partnership...like a business.

When the government decides to look at all marriages as a civil union instead of marriage here, civil union there, that will stop the issue entirely.

And when the government starts treating marriage like a civil union legal entity partnership...it should come with all the advantages, and penalties of being in that partnership.

And the penalties for the dissolution of that partnership should come with tough enough penalties to make people think twice about having a government recognized civil union.