[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Thanks Mlmpetert. I honestly don't know exactly how great the tax thing is with marriage - I'll be finding out in the next few months..lol! You pretty much got what I was saying. Allow everyone the right to whatever insurance, estate, and tax (whatever that may be or may not be) rights that married people currently enjoy.

Only extending these "rights" to gay people is still discrimination. So, it's best to do away with state recognized marriages and allow anybody the opportunity to put whoever they want on their health insurance, their estate, their taxes, etc...whatever it is that married people have the benefit for. But, don't force a large amount of Americans, who are both religious and non-religious, to endorse, agree to, or accept in anyway ideology that goes against their core beliefs. Forcing people into accepting gay marriage is wrong. Plain and simple. One can use every word, every sense of hate he/she can think of to get them to change, and it will still be wrong to force a person to agree with a lifestyle that they just do not believe is right.

As far as the divorce courts, you're probably right about that. My thought process was since the state doesn't recognize the marriage, then there is no state issued marriage license, so there would be no need for state recognized divorces. I suppose the couple could still draw up their own contract, just like a business agreement, which could be disputed in a court of law.

I think you're taking it way too far. If I am understanding you, you wish to destroy/obliterate the right of two people to enter into a government sanctioned contract that permits the pooling of resources, promise of mutual lifetime support and the resultant sanctioning of that contract by the State. As with corporations and the laws relating their creation, existence and dissolution, the laws relating to the creation, operation and dissolution of the marriage "contract" are an essential part of our civil society and have evolved over the course of time distinct from the sacramental rite of marriage. To say that this form of contract can no longer exist is far too simplistic. To remove this form of contract creates a legal void contrary to the evolution of our legal system and, further, represents a radical change to our fundamental legal philosophy [In a far, far too simplistic nutshell, Marxism espoused the concept that such contracts were bourgeous creations to be disposed of so that any artificial "familial bonds" would go the way of capitalism].

There is great societal value in allowing two individuals the ability to provide mutual support such that they turn to each other, rather than the govt., for their primary support and for civil society to say what legal rights, liabilities and benefits should govern such contracts. Rules governing the formation, operation and dissolution of such contracts exist b/c, generally and from a societal point of view, the underlying nature of the contract creates a benefit for all members of the society not just the parties entering into the contract.

My point has always been simply that the traditional contract of marriage has, within our civil justice system, diverged from the sacramental rite of marriage and different concepts and principles now govern each. As such, the form of the contract should remain but it should be clearly delinated from the religious sacrament which developed along with it. Such contracts would still require a State sanction (just like the fomation of a corporation) and be appropriately witnessed - just not by a priest/minister.

Also, you say "Only extending these 'rights' to gay people is still discrimination." Sorry, we must mean different things when we say "discrimination". Extending the right to enter into the civil marriage contract and providing benefits based on the contract is only "discriminatory" when some are allowed to do so and others are not. Further, it is only illegal discrimination when the denial is based on race, religion, gender or some other immutable characteristic recognized at law as a "protected class". Thus, it is perfectly constitutional for the law to prohibit polygamous marriage contracts as long as no one is allowed to enter into them. The fact that people who enter into a particular type of contract receive particular benefits, however, is not a form of discrimination against those don't enter into the particualr contract and don't receive the benefits.