Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

BumbleBeeBoogie




Have you ever gotten a service from government free of charge. They would charge you for the air you breath if they could find a way to do it.

As for the issue of marriage. I feel that a legal and binding contract can be made between two parties which would be as binding as marriage and have all of it's benefits and encumbrances . However, I object to it being called a conventional marriage only because of what marriage has connoted through time immemorial.

True "Marriage" is spiritual and between you and your higher power or what you consider to be final action. Governmental "Marriage" is the act of the government going where it doesn't belong - into the lives of people!

This is only one the thousands of neocon fallacies (actually lies) - getting government out of peoples lives. The truth is they want to control everything.

In every adversity, there is opportunity. If a ban on gay "marriage" is enacted, it will certainly be worked around. The social forces around non-traditional marriages are constantly increasing and won't sit still.

The times they are a'changin, no matter what any politician does.
Some leaders get in front of where the crowd is going, while others go to the rear! (hairy or not)

Two ideas:

1) Some enterprising young lawyer will create a package of documents that any two people can sign -- covering life and health insurance, power of attorney, trust funds, inheritance, etc -- to duplicate the institution of marriage without using the word "marriage" anywhere in it.

Seems like it could be a tremendously popular product. The government's institution of marriage would then be useless. The public facility would be privatized.


2) On this other thread we're discussing corporations:
"the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech."

Yeah? So, I would like to marry the legal entity known as Microsoft Inc. Can it be done?
Sure it's non-traditional but so is everything else around us these days! I'm sure the Board of Directors could afford to hire an egg donor and a surrogate mother for the pregnancy. For the right dowry I promise to love and cherish our bond til death do us part. I'll even change my last name to Microsoft and split our mutual earning power 50-50 for the duration of the marriage. It's just a contract.

The point: How far can marriage be stretched, until it's usefulness dissipates, or it is called something else? What *is* it's nature and function, and why bother?

I like this idea, so far as it goes. However, I can't go to my HMO and say, "Look, we've signed this document, you have to give this other person health care." Because they've already got their own contracts with their own definitions of who can and cannot be covered. Nor are they likely to be of any assistance if I crash my car and am dying in the hospital and my "real" family wants to keep so-and-so from seeing me. Even if so-and-so did have legal recourse, this isn't likely to be recognized by the overworked and over-routined staff in the receptions area.

Friend, what you're talking about is a movement -- and that's just so much work, and gratification is neither immediate nor guaranteed! Sounds downright icky to me...

I want to divorce it, I'll settle out of court 90-10 (10 to me). I'm not greedy

Ffishin
Fishin wrote: "If it is a "traditional Republican wedge tactic" why is it that Roonnie Shows, a Democrat, proposed the same amendment last year?"

Fishin, who is Democrat Roonie Shows? I find no record of anyone by that name on the Internet.

The reason not to have marriage and children between such closely related people is well established by the scientific community as genetically risky to any offspring from such inbreeding.

---BumbleBeeBoogie

BBB, it's Ronnie Shows - It doesn't change my opinion of the issue - Shows was up against Pickering in the election. Might make a difference, still using the issue as a wedge.

All about Ronnie Shows
Former Mississippi congressman Ronnie Shows' website.

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Ronnie_Shows.htm

Actually, it's not his website -- it's put together by a political group, a libertarian advocacy group if I'm guessing right, but I'm not sure.

I don't think Ronnie would be boasting about having flip-flopped on a soft money ban.

Re: Ffishin


Your rationale here is that they might want to have offspring. But, being unmarried isn't some sort of contraceptive. There is no physical barrier that prevents 1st cousins from having sex and creating a child outside of a marriage if they chose to do so.

It is also entirely possible that they may chose not to have children. Being that the idea is risky it would be something that they should consult with their medical provider about and make a private medical decision, just as a woman has the right to do when it comes to the question of abortion. Of course current medical science provides them with the option of donor eggs or sperm and they could take that route as well.

The only reason for not allowing marrige between cousins is because of society's long held view of what is "normal" - the exact same justification for banning same sex unions. If there is justification for one wall to tumble then there is no justification for the other to remain standing.

Anywho, many states, including California, allow the marriage of first cousins.

A hoary old tradition among the aristocracy and monarchy. Charles I of England has several children, of whom the three oldest were historically the most noteworthy. His son Charles eventually succeeded him on the throne--he was famous for the huge size of his . . . "scepter" . . . but it was his brother James who made things interesting. Their sister Mary was wed to the Prince of Orange (Holland), who duly sired a son upon her--James then married this son, William III, to his daughter Mary . . . it gets really confusing when you try to untagle the webs of relationship in Yer-a-peein' history . . .

VD blood tests for marriage no longer used in most states. checking the net i found that there are 7 states that still require VD blood tests for marriage license.

I think we need a constitutional amendment to prevent politicians of the same species from marrying . . .

Then we'd have to add some goats and lions into the donkey/elephant mix..

set- have we termined what species politicans are? mules are sterile.

Yeah, but a jack-ass is a jack-ass is a . . .

They're snakes.

Problem is, how do you tell if they're male or female? If we're not careful, we'll have a bunch of gay snakes getting married...HEY NOW!

What if some yahoo wants to marry his/her dog? Crime against nature? (Let nature take them to court :razz: )

Fishin
Fishin, mea culpa. I stand corrected! I had overlooked what modern medical science has achieved that could reduce genetic risks produced by inbreeding.

You are right that a closely related couple could use modern sperm and egg donations to have a child. Where was my brain, I wonder, when I didn't consider this?

The only problem I still feel exists is how reduce the number of severely genetically damaged children produced by couples who don't take this alternative route to parenthood?

The examples you gave of the offspring of European monarchies and other royal families around the world is a good example of what I'm talking about. Never have so few produced so many idiots to this day.

---BumbleBeeBoogie