Marriage ‘redefiners’ make progress

July 14, 2010


A federal judge in Boston has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress (427 members voted in favor) and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 cannot take precedence over a Massachusetts law allowing same-sex marriage. The ruling again raises serious questions about the origin and purpose of law. But before we get to that larger question, the “logic” of Judge Joseph L. Tauro’s ruling should first be examined.

Judge Tauro’s decision flies in the face of what the federal government has claimed and is claiming in at least two other significant cases. In 1973, the Supreme Court struck down all state laws restricting a woman’s right to have an abortion. In its lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law, the Department of Justice claims federal law (which the feds are not enforcing) trumps state law.

So let’s see: State laws are fine when they promote the interests of the ruling liberal and cultural elites, but they are to be ignored, or overturned, when they do not promote the objectives of the ruling liberal and cultural elites. Is that it? How can the federal government have it both ways?

A New York Times editorial says of DOMA “There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.” Really? Has the newspaper forgotten the federal government’s “discrimination” against Utah when it forbade the territory from entering the Union until it outlawed polygamy? In 1878, the Supreme Court declared in Reynolds v. United States that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution.

If the federal government could reject polygamy then as a means of promoting the general welfare, why can’t it block attempts to redefine marriage now? If marriage is re-defined by courts, what is to stop anyone from declaring a “right” to any relationship they wish to enter and demanding “equal protection” under the Constitution?

Now to the larger question of law, which is also being re-defined. During her confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan said she loved the law. Too bad no one asked her which law she loves and what is law’s purpose? Law is meant to conform humans to a standard that preserves the cultural and moral order. The purpose of government is to “secure” unalienable pre-existing rights about which Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence (a document Kagan dismissed as irrelevant to the Constitution, though it is the Constitution’s moral and philosophical foundation). Government is not supposed to create new rights like national health care, or same-sex marriage.

The Times editorial dismisses the overwhelming approval for DOMA as a “wedge issue” during an election year. In fact, it reflected the principled position not only of a vast majority of members of Congress, but also the position of the public, which has almost universally rejected attempts to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2004, 11 states had ballot measures preserving marriage as between opposite sex couples. All passed. In 2008, three states had gay marriage ballot initiatives. Two passed. In California, a measure to overturn the State Supreme Court’s earlier 4-3 decision upholding the constitutionality of a legislative ban on same-sex marriage was approved by 400,000 votes, or 52 percent of those voting.

Marriage re-definers demand acceptance for their position that morality, as well as right and wrong, are to be determined by polls. If polls show the public disapproving of behavior the elites favor, the elites ignore majority opinion and seek to shove it down our throats anyway, because, you see, only they can be right. The rest of us have the equivalent standing of 1950s segregationists. Anyone arguing for tradition is branded a bigot, a label that is supposed to end all discussion, while the labeled one is exhausted trying to prove a negative.

Judge Tauro’s ruling will likely be overturned on appeal, but that won’t stop the marriage re-definers. In a morally exhausted society, they just might succeed. Polygamists were 130 years before their time.

— Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services. tmseditors@tribune.com


Paul R Getto 7 years, 11 months ago

Marriage is an abstract commercial invention/arrangement based on an equally abstract invention, AKA religion. Government needs to stay out of personal relationships and concentrate on larger, more tangible issues.
Cal: "Marriage re-definers demand acceptance for their position that morality, as well as right and wrong, are to be determined by polls" == Morality is another invention, created by the people with castles, money and weapons. Take a deep breath and relax. No one is trying to tell you how to operate your life and your relationships.

denak 7 years, 11 months ago

One day, Cal Thomas may actually read a decision before he writes an editorial. When that day comes, he might actually get it right. There were 2 cases involved in this ruling and even though Thomas wants to drag in Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, Roe v Wade and Utah/polygamy, none of those things had anything to do with the 2 cases.

In Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, the judge ruled that section 3 of DOMA encroaches on state rights. Rather than dismissing the Constitution, the judge reaffirmed a state's sovereignty --guaranteed by the 10th amendment-- to determine marriage rights.

In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Judge Tauro ruled that section 3 of DOMA violated the equal protection principles of the 5th amendment.

Cal writes that these decisions raise serious questions about the origin and purpose of the law. That government is not suppose to create new laws. And yet that is what DOMA did. DOMA mandated that the federal government would not recognize a same sex marriage even when that union was legal in a particular state. The federal government created new laws that denied states that right to govern as the state saw fit even when the federal government did not have a legitimate compelling interest. This ruling, which only applies to one section of DOMA, does not ignore history or give rights that did not exist before rather it reaffirms the Constitutional right of the state to govern independently and without undue interference by the federal government.

And correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what Conservatives want? Smaller government. More state rights???? I guess like the liberals he so maligns, he only wants state laws when they promote the objectives he wants.


jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

Thank you.

This seems like a particularly convoluted editorial, even for Thomas.

mom_of_three 7 years, 11 months ago

I am morally exhausted because I feel gay marriage should be recognized, that everyone should have equal rights? What a moron.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, African Americans were not allowed to intermarry with whites, with many state laws against it. It was morally wrong, they said.
Funny how Cal didn't bring that one up.

Jeff Kilgore 7 years, 11 months ago

Here's what I do: when I see the name, Cal Thomas or see his smug, superior mugly shot, I ask myself what mood I'm in. If I'm in a good mood and have time for a few good laughs, I teleport myself back to 1928 and see what he has to say. Otherwise, I steer clear of him.

emaw 7 years, 11 months ago

I think that gays should be allowed to have the same tax advantages and legal rights as straight couples but I suggest we call it something other than "marriage", which I believe is a union between a man and a woman. Why can't we just call the union between 2 homosexuals something else and give them all the same rights? I think this would satisfy both sides of this issue. Any clever ideas on what we could call this union?

ebyrdstarr 7 years, 11 months ago

Separate is inherently unequal. Any two people who want to be legally joined in a union should have their relationship labeled just the same as any other two people, regardless of sex.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

That's not really true - separate is inherently unequal.

It's entirely possible to have two words for a committed relationship and give both unions equal benefits/social recognition.

And, in fact, I think it might be in the better interests of the gay/lesbian community to push for civil unions that offer the same benefits, and allow the small-minded religious conservatives to use "marriage".

It might be more likely to succeed.

ebyrdstarr 7 years, 11 months ago

Then the government needs to call all relationships, both same and opposite sex relationships, civil unions. If the government labels them differently but tries to claim they're equivalent institutions, the government would be falling into that same trap rejected by the Supreme Court in Brown v. BoE, the source of that famous line that separate is inherently unequal.

As for whether that statement is true, well I think I'll side with the Court and continue to believe it is true.


jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

You can believe that is some sort of absolute truth if you'd like, but that isn't necessarily the case.

That court case proved that, in that situation and time, that the separate schools for black and white students were, in fact, not equal.

We now have black colleges which are separate - are they inherently unequal?

ebyrdstarr 7 years, 11 months ago

There are so many problems with this comparison, I hardly know where to begin. There are no colleges or universities in this country that aren't open to people of all races. That some colleges are historically mostly populated by students of one race is simply not a valid comparison to government institutions placing one group in one category and placing another group in another category and calling them equal enough.

When it comes to government institutions, yes, I believe separate is inherently unequal

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

Listen, I don't care what anybody calls it - I'd be glad for all consenting adults to be able to marry anyone they'd like, and/or as many people as they like at one time.

I'm just saying I think that the gay/lesbian community would have a much higher success rate if they pushed for civil unions that conferred the same secular benefits as marriage.

Sure - call everything a civil union secularly, and let the churches call things marriages - I wouldn't object.

Or remove any/all secular benefits of marriage. Again, no problem.

The problem is that marriage is both a secular and a religious institution, and the lines there are blurred.

In the gay/lesbian community, I believe there are differing views - some would be glad to have a civil union, and others want to push for marriage.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

First, I don't assume that at all. However, there are relatively few denominations that are supportive of same-sex marriage, especially among the major ones - Catholic, Methodist, etc.

Second -?

Third - Some of those are funny - I like "multiple attempt unions" quite a bit actually. I think that whether or not the unions are equivalent legally and offer the same secular benefits as others is more important than what they're called, unless of course it's a derogatory term.

We are, of course, all somewhat different from one another, as well as similar, so I see no problem with that. Gay/lesbian marriages have a number of obvious differences from straight ones - no "husband/wife" gender roles, inability to conceive children, etc.

There's nothing wrong with differences.

mickeyrat 7 years, 11 months ago

I think the difficulty with that idea -- a different name -- is mostly logistic, given that thousands, if not tens of thousands of laws use the word "marriage." If it were as simple as a "find & replace" function in a single Word .docx, I'd be all for it, but without using that word, I'd think it difficult to be sure homosexual couples would have "all the same rights."

LoveThsLife 7 years, 11 months ago

That would be considered a civil union.

jimmyjms 7 years, 11 months ago

Regardless of what you believe, denying gays the right to marry is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage equality is coming, so get used to it.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

Maybe, although from the lawyers/law students I've talked with, it's not that clear.

jimmyjms 7 years, 11 months ago

I think is it, and I've discussed it with lawyers, judges, and a state Supreme Court judge. It's only a matter of time.

staff04 7 years, 11 months ago

This decision kind of caught the teabaggers in a bind...states' rights and all.

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago

I'd be fine with it provided that the tax benefits extended to marriages were shored up so people couldn't take advantage of it to the detriment of others. Why should it matter?

I sincerely hope that you're next step is not to bring it bestiality.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

The other option would be to remove any/all civil benefits of marriage - wouldn't that make this less of an issue?

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago


By getting the government completely out of marriage you would strip the whole purpose of marriage, from perpetuity to now.

The joining of property rights The joining of decision rights

It is far more a civil institution than a religious one. The two have often gone hand in hand.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

That's the problem - the "hand in hand".

Individuals can make contracts joining property rights, etc. without the government providing tax and other secular benefits to couples.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

I think any relationships entered into by consenting adults is fine.

It wouldn't bother me if 3 or more people wanted to form a committed partnership - would it bother you?

tomatogrower 7 years, 11 months ago

I have no problems with these group marriages. I personally wouldn't want one, but if it's between consenting adults, it's ok. I have a problem with some of the religious groups who have forced young girls into such marriages however. As long as all parties are adults and enter into a relationship willingly, I consider it none of my business.

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago

"I just like to expose the bigotry held by many on the left"

Well, you appear to be failing at that.

Orwell 7 years, 11 months ago

I'm pretty sure that if three people wanted to form a committed partnership, at least two of them would have to be of the same sex. "Natural" has become a code word for "Whatever I'm OK with."

Brian Laird 7 years, 11 months ago

Why is this relevant logically? No-one currently has the right to plural marriage, so banning it does not discriminate. This is not the case with marriage between two people.

Paul R Getto 7 years, 11 months ago

RATM: Who really cares if a man is brave/foolish enough marry more than one woman? That's a nonissue.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

You must be pretty rich if you can support 30+ children - what do you do for a living?

ksjayhawk74 7 years, 11 months ago

It's a nice touch that Cal throws in sympathy for 1950s segregationists... "Anyone arguing for tradition is branded a bigot"

That's because the "traditions" he is referring to are bigoted, racist, antiquated ways of thinking that need to stay in the past.

jimmyjms 7 years, 11 months ago

Cal Thomas columns in two sentences: "The world has changed and I don't like it. You kids get off my lawn!"

Liberty275 7 years, 11 months ago

Can we redefine government workers as parasites on society too. If we are going to change the meaning of words to fit the agenda of special interests groups, shouldn't all special interest groups be represented?

tomatogrower 7 years, 11 months ago

Ohh, it's a good thing you don't post your real name. If your house ever caught on fire, those "parasites" might have other things to do.

tomatogrower 7 years, 11 months ago

What I'm saying is that would never happen. Firemen, policemen, teachers, etc do a lot of things for people, even those who call them "parasites". It would be nice for people to show them some respect. Whine about taxes and government employees until you need one, then they will come through for you, but you will probably go on whining. Pathetic.

KUnlv13 7 years, 11 months ago

Eh, the numerous TSA agents, "the last line of defense" under the Dept. of Homeland Security, standing around, texting, and joking as I walked through Reagan National yesterday sure as heck weren't earning their $18+/hour +Med/Dental/Vision, and neither were the dimwit cashiers in the US Capitol Cafeteria this afternoon worthy of the rather exorbitant pay and benefits granted to them as government workers. A minimum (or reasonable) wage for a minimal degree of responsibility performing a menial task isn't an unreasonable notion. Just my opinion though...

In other words, my respect shall be dispensed at my discretion, not simply to all workin' for Sam.

Brian Laird 7 years, 11 months ago

I would think that the US Capitol Cafeteria workers are not US government employees, but employees of the private company employed to run the restaurant. In my experience, the US government contracts out most of its food service. You can correct me if you have information otherwise for this particular facility.

KUnlv13 7 years, 11 months ago

I stand corrected, somewhat, as the Capitol workers are UNITE HERE unionized employees, which I'll concede doesn't make them overpaid government workers per say, but overpaid union workers receiving benefits (unlike their TacoBell counterparts) because our government elected (through collective bargaining) to provide them benefits with our tax bucks.

blindrabbit 7 years, 11 months ago

Cal carefully "crafts" his story to support what he vomits. His biased reasoning can easily be used to argue against his liberal vrs. conservative ""objectives.

jaywalker 7 years, 11 months ago

Thomas has to be the worst columnist we routinely get through the LJW and yet he usually inspires long strings. Odd.

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago

Hardly odd. We don't have much of meaning to say in general, so we flock to the big bangs.

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago

Or, perhaps, the path of least resistance. It's a lot easier to poke Cal Thomas columns full of holes because so much of what he says is flawed.

Perhaps Cal is simply a giant strawman.

jaywalker 7 years, 11 months ago

Not certain which response to appreciate more, jonas. Either way, you're right. Not that odd after all.

Jay Keffer 7 years, 11 months ago

For those that support gay marraige, and then go on to say there is are also no concerns with plural marraige, what makes incest right or wrong?

tomatogrower 7 years, 11 months ago

Incest implies that one of them is not an adult. Consenting adults only.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

I believe, that the original reason for the taboo on incest is in fact the genetic consequences of such a union.

Jay Keffer 7 years, 11 months ago

As in brothers and sisters getting married. Just another relationship between consenting adults, right?

tomatogrower 7 years, 11 months ago

That's really stupid. There are genetic reasons for making marriage between close relatives illegal. If they would have children, the danger of any negative recessive genes is very great. What is the reason for not letting 3 people marry? What is the reason for not letting 2 people of the same sex marry?

pantheon 7 years, 11 months ago

So you don't have any issues with a dude marrying his brother?

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago

Can't really see why it's any of my (our) business. But something tells me that we'd not witness any rush of sibling marriages were they not prohibited.

blindrabbit 7 years, 11 months ago

Just the facts; I have no "dog in this race", or religious bias. From a strictly biological point of view, no offspring will result from gay/lesbian couples, nor are there any genetic consequences of children of plural marriages. One the other hand, there is considerable evidence of genetic consequences of off-spring produced from incestuous relationships.

I think you have taken this a bit beyond the real issue. Gay marriage and plural marriage are political issues. Incest is biological!!

Jay Keffer 7 years, 11 months ago

Sorry, but love is love and you can't stop it. I love my son and want to marry him. Who are you to tell me what to do? Alternatively, I love my daughter and want to marry her, and have more children. Animals mate with their offspring, and examples of gayness in the animal world is often cited as a reason all this dog piling is natural. Why is the government meddling in my affairs? Marriage is being reduced to the lowest common denominator - two people, no distinctions. So butt out, marriage is just some construct that has lost it purpose, and was misguided and misunderstood from the beginning. I get all the rights and privileges married men and women get - don't be a bigot, don't discriminate, and what I do in my bedroom is none of your dang business! Most of all, society has lost its moral compass, so there is no right and wrong.

Slouching towards Gomorrah.

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago

And it drives you crazy, doesn't it? hahahahaha

Sexual frustration is an embarrassing thing to witness when it's aired so publicly. FYI

Jay Keffer 7 years, 11 months ago

Ad hominem as usual. Can't respond to the issue raised, can you?

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago

Of course I can. Animals and children are legally (and practically) considered incapable of entering into a binding agreement (without guardian consent in the case of children), and so those are non-issues. Marriage Is just a social (and legal) construct, with extra trappings of religion for those that voluntarily wish there to be some, and to say that its redefinition does anything to reduce its meaning is simplistic and flawed. Your definition of morality is just that, your definition of morality, so to say that those that deviate from it or follow their own have no guiding principles is simply arrogant and untrue.

In short, everything that you posted is an ad hominem or a strawman, you've never shown any capacity or inclination to consider any viewpoint in contrast to your own, and so this whole post is simply a waste of time other than for pure entertainment purpose, which is why I feel no guilt in simply making fun of your open obsession over what other people are doing in their bedrooms behind closed doors.

Jay Keffer 7 years, 11 months ago

You must have time on your hands.

Completely missing the point, one would hope not willfully, but one wonders.

Obviously not speaking about children, but adults. Adult children. Adult siblings. Adults - got it?

You have not addressed the issue raised - that there are no limits to the attack on marriage, that frivolous construct, just social and legal in nature, with a few religious (shudder) trappings thrown in. Are you married? If so, aren't you just participating in some sham? Why did you even bother? Taxes? Fix that little issue and you can rip up that pesky document. Your partner know how you feel?

You don't appear to have any issue with biological family members marrying. Say everyone in the equation is sterile, or same sex. No problem, right? Yes or no? That was the question posed.

The dog pile continues and you have no issue with that. No absolutes, no right and wrong.

It would appear that your morality is no morality. Let's all get enlightened and get free, baby.

Slouching indeed.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

Incest is a valid issue when advocating for consenting adults to have more freedom.

Bestiality is not - since animals are not "consenting adults".

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago


You portray the concerns about morality on the right side of aisle well.

Incest aside for a moment (since it's one of the more difficult issues), the problem with legislating morality is vast. First, it's somewhat subjective. Second, I'm not sure that the role of our secular government should be to legislate morality - I think it should be to protect citizens from being hurt by one another, and allow for as much individual freedom as possible. Churches are about morality. Third, it's somewhat ironic that those who generally advocate for government to "get out of my way" are so concerned about private sexual behavior.

Which is more moral - a heterosexual who engages in multiple instances of promiscuity and casual sex or a committed loving homosexual partnership? If I think that certain sexual practices are simply wrong (between heterosexuals), should I be able to legislate that you can't engage in them? Why does the concern about morality only seem to extend to sexual behavior? I find numerous example of immoral behavior in the activities of large companies - but when it comes to them, the right is usually against regulation.

A pro-war, anti-regulation stance doesn't seem to be consistent with a real concern for morality if the only place that shows up is sexuality (and narrowly anti-homosexual).

Incest is difficult to figure out, given my general feeling that consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever sorts of relationships they'd like to. The original prohibition was probably due to negative genetic consequences. What animals mate with offspring?

If you're truly concerned about morality, I strongly suggest that you apply that concern to other areas of life as well as sexuality.

Armored_One 7 years, 11 months ago

"If it's okay for gays to be married, why can't I marry a goat, or my brother, or five women all at once?"

What a load of crapola.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the same people that spew forth such utter nonsense are the same people who argue that if smokers can smoke in restaurants, they should be allowed to carry radioactive materials around, or urinate on the tables and other such idiocy.

If marriage is such a sacred religious event, why do you need a piece of paper saying you are before it's legal?

It's a damned legal issue. Leave it to the lawyers and judges to figure out. Homosexuality isn't my personal thing, but no one cares other than me. Does it halt anyone's life what anyone else does in their own bedrooms?

All this whining and moaning and complaining about a "nanny state" and you arrogant fools are trying to do the exact same thing to a select group of people.

Hyporacy reigns supreme when it comes to morals. Everyone's morals are better than everyone else's and by George, we just have to make everyone else agree with us. Screw that.

It's kind of like an abortion, really. If you are opposed to them, Don't Get One! If you are opposed to two guys or two girls getting hitched, then don't do it yourself. It's really just that damned simple. Leave it to the courts to figure out, and regardless of what they decide, if you don't want one, don't get one.

jonas_opines 7 years, 11 months ago

Do you have a reference for your assertion on the beliefs held by the pro-gay marriage community? Or a definition of who constitutes that group in your mind?

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

Regardless -

As if life is not complex enough. When two homo sapiens enter into a traditional marriage, man and woman, one of the logical outcomes is procreation. The traditional family, man/woman/child(ren). Our laws reflect this.

So, lets codify different unions of people in the name of equal treatment in tax, property and inheritance in fed/state/local law/statute.

Don't think we have enough laws, let's make laws for every minority/special interest/good idea/preference/tendancy/genetic predisposition.

Let's do it because in a vacuum it's the right thing to do. And implant a gps/biometric chip/assign a lawyers to every child at birth so that they can navigate the already too complex world.

We need laws for every idea, the good ones and the bad ones. Then things would really be swell.

Oops, and we need a smoking park.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

So your idea is that we should discriminate because it means fewer laws?

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

there is room in the framework, stated more succintly by others on this thread

for example same sex couples can share assets like 'married couples' by executing a legal document.

my uncle died and his same sex partner assumed all responsibilities and ownership of his estate including personal effects, it was suggested to him by the rest of the surviving family. Any pertinent documents that required signature to transfer deeds/title/accounts/power to him were signed/sealed/delivered. (but i reserved the picasso ballerina print)

I do not beleive we need to supplant common sense and decency by defining everything in law down to the hair on a chiggers leg.

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

then you would counter with - so non-discrimination depends on common sense/decency, there are no guarntees or punishment for the bad people.

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

i would counter - when government acts on anything it is humongous and clumsey. Will Rogers says when congress is creating law it's like giving a baby a hammer.

Be careful what the government defines down the the hair on a chiggers leg. I want to keep some semblence of freedom dammit.

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

i'm for personal responsibility, like like a proverb from the series kung fu. 'walk and leave no blade of grass bent where you have passed'

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

of course you would counter with ' you are ignorant and crazy'

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

and I would agree.

I maintain that it should cost as much to get married as it does to get divorced. Make it look like marriage is worth as much as divorce, even if it ain’t. That would also make the preachers financially independent like it has the lawyers.(Will Rogers)

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

Well, that was entertaining.

My comment is that if common sense and decency were the norm, we wouldn't need a lot of the laws we have.

However, that doesn't justify discrimination in our legal system.

It's not about punishment, it's about fairness/equality under the law.

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

glad you enjoyed but there is no utopia especially since we insist on trading fairness for one group to give to another under auspices of fairness

Corey Williams 7 years, 11 months ago

What about couples who can't or don't want to have children?

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

I would call that a couple's right to logic simplification

Corey Williams 7 years, 11 months ago

"The traditional family, man/woman/child(ren)."

So childless marriages aren't really marriages?

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

nope, they're marriages

see jafs 11:26 above

and when two people live together for life sans license/legal document they are in a marriage too (some marraiges are legally recognized some aren't. In New Jersey ain't no such thing as common law marriage (for the legal eagles, twas that way when I lived there in 90's) but in all other states there are varying laws on the books that say in cohab for 6 months you're married in the eyes of the law.

Corey Williams 7 years, 11 months ago

You yourself said, "When two homo sapiens enter into a traditional marriage, man and woman, one of the logical outcomes is procreation. The traditional family, man/woman/child(ren). Our laws reflect this."

Traditional, traditional, traditional. And I've heard a lot of arguments that a lack of procreation is a reason to forbid gay marriage. As you say, "Our laws reflect this."

Regarding common law marriage: Do your homework.

"A common law marriage will be recognized in Kansas if the couple considers themselves to be married and publicly holds themselves out to be married and if they are legally eligible to marry. No minimum period of cohabitation is required."

And, of course, no references to gay common law marriages.

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

ok, like I said two people can execute legal documents i am of the opinion we have too many laws now, layering more law upon law just makes life more complex. I like my freedom, if I was a well adjusted heterosexual male who lived with a well adjusted female and we parted ways, we should be able to part ways without government filings. Why? because we are well adjusted and executed legal documents or made transactions to split up the combined assets. But then I'm not well adjusted, obviously.

from above, when a person is born (could start a new argument here by saying when life begins but I'll pass) assign it a number, a bureau to administer benefits when it reaches mandatory retirement age, a healthcare account with an unlimited budget, a housing allotment, an account for only healthy foods, a lawyer to manage the legal mumbo jumbo. Oh almost forgot, and how would one budget that stuff and collect tax revenue to support the rights?

Corey Williams 7 years, 11 months ago

And this relates to gay marriage how?

Allowing two consenting, non-related human adults to marry without regard to sexual orientation would remove laws that have been passed. Less government.

And yes, you can "...part ways without government filings." Just don't get married.

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

i proposed - two people who decide to cohab don't need gov't (despite common law) when they cohab or when they part ways. It still a marriage. What the laws do (ours come mostly from old english common law) is handle the property aspects of those relationships.

(a lot of those old common laws still reflect woman and children as chatel in many ways)

Relates to gay marriage? Nothing is stopping a gay couple from cohabitating and executing legal instruments to protect the sanctitiy of shared/cownership of assets. SAme as common law marriage without the showers of blessings of the state.

jafs 7 years, 11 months ago

There are certain agreements that can't be made legally right now.

For example, a gay couple sign agreements making each other their "health care proxy" - the person who gets to decide what medical treatment they receive if they're unconscious or mentally unable to do so.

Unfortunately, hospitals can simply ignore those, because state laws maintain that only relatives can be health care proxies.

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

A man that don’t love a horse, there is something the matter with him. (Will Rogers)

beatrice 7 years, 11 months ago

I love how sick and twisted the imaginations of the Right are when human sexuality is discussed. Just mention homosexuals in a loving relationship, and they jump right in with stories of sex with animals, incest and group activities! What a twisted bunch the Wide-Stance Right can be! Very telling of what is really going on behind closed doors.

independant1 7 years, 11 months ago

I'm not "Right" and I proffered the horse quote. (Take the I'm not Right/right either way)

Live your life so that whenever you lose, you are ahead. (Will Rogers)

Commenting has been disabled for this item.