http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051971.php

Hello….
We are in America!!!

HMMMMM Well that’s not to tuff,,, (just like SODOMY, MARRIAGE, and ADOPTION are or will be changed for HOMO) we can have a JUDGE change the AGE of CONSENT or ADULT,,, how does 10 sound……. (remember when a judge rules it there is nothing you can do about it).

You don’t really think that this CONSENT or ADULT thing is going to stand in the way of PEDOPHILES do you? Why is it any more difficult than SODOMY, MARRIAGE, or ADOPTION is for HOMOS?

As for the INCESTS or POLYGAMISTS,,,, well thier RIGHTS should have been here before the HOMOS,,,, where’s the justice in that…. or the GAY LOBBY pushing for others rights?

PS,,, historically PEDOPHILES and POLYGAMISTS have a claim to marriage,,,, not so for HOMOSEXUALS

Unforutnately, it has been tried and has failed so many times. The fact is, Americans are used to the 2 Party system. Love it or hate it, they rely on it (moslty) to keep things “simple”.

The change has to come from within one or both of the 2 parties. Once the rest in the party see that its popular and could keep them in office, then they’ll jump on the bandwagon because that’s what they do. The problem is, views that help most Americans really aren’t popular. I think it is mainly due to the issues aren’t really being discussed. Many of the “average” citizens who don’t read those “evil blogs” don’t even realize that an alternative which benefits them could even actually exist.

Right now, it is the corporations who recognize what the Government can do for them and they utilize it to get billions in “subsidies”. They, in turn, spend countless millions on convincing the Average American that that’s what they want, too.

That way, gay people can still get married, and churches can still choose not to marry them on religious grounds.

A marriage “contract” and a divorce “contract” are both required to be recognized by the state. Even if a divorce is amicable and settled out of court, it still requires state recognition. Again, government involvement.

I agree that married couples have the tax advantage. It is a way of trying to encourage (bribe) couples to stay together and when children are involved we get a bigger tax break as an “offset” of child raising expenses. It is basically a way to encourage procreation. So instead of changing the marriage laws, why not change the tax laws in order to accommodate gay couples.

I said, on TP, long ago that this needs to be a Federal issue for these very reasons.

Therefore we are keeping the government out of the vocabulary, but not the institution.

So they are still in our bedroom regardless.

What about if the relationship should end? How do you go about division of assets aquired during the relationship? Sounds like a divorce to me. Again governmental intervention.

Not really. Divorce is a function of the contract between the individuals involved – upon which the state may be called to mediate.

The real issues where government gets involved, are based around taxation, in which marriage does have definite advantages. Indeed the heart of the gay marriage debate can be argued to be that gays in dedicated couples are prejudiced against by America’s tax system.

What about if the relationship should end? How do you go about division of assets aquired during the relationship? Sounds like a divorce to me. Again governmental intervention.

So, how would be be keeping the government out exactally?

It was a joke, son!

How do we extend the rights to people without government intervention (such as a marriage license)?