Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:

I'm not sure you are responding to the right person.

I do not support state intervention (which would be "dictating the terms for everyone else").

Click to expand...

You want to strip the state from marriage because you don't want the state involved in your marriage. Instead of making that decision on behalf of everyone why don't you just not get married?

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

CriticalThought said:

You want to strip the state from marriage because you don't want the state involved in your marriage. Instead of making that decision on behalf of everyone why don't you just not get married?

Click to expand...

There is no reason for the government to be involved in marriage. You don't need the government to form a private contract. Hell, you don't even need any of that to live with someone for the rest of your life. The entire thing is pointless.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Henrin said:

There is no reason for the government to be involved in marriage. You don't need the government to form a private contract. Hell, you don't even need any of that to live with someone for the rest of your life. The entire thing is pointless.

Click to expand...

True. You don't need the government involved in marriage. For those who like the government recognizing their marriage, leave them be.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

CriticalThought said:

True. You don't need the government involved in marriage. For those who like the government recognizing their marriage, leave them be.

Click to expand...

I said nothing about eliminating the government marriages of those people married. I'm just saying there is no reason to give out more government marriages. The government is not needed for marriages to take place and for people to form their own contracts.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Henrin said:

I said nothing about eliminating the government marriages of those people married. I'm just saying there is no reason to give out more government marriages. The government is not needed for marriages to take place and for people to form their own contracts.

Click to expand...

If there are people who want to get married and have government marriages then who are you to dictate that they cannot have them? Why must you dictate the terms of other people's marriages?

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Kobie said:

There's no reason everyone can't have it with the state involved.

Click to expand...

Apparently, 'if the state is involved' it may have one definition ONLY and that can never change.

But if the definition MUST be changed, then the state should not be involved. (it was only 'ok' when it was 1 man/1 woman).

So...state ONLY if <fill in your personal blank> /sarcasm

I've never been in support of govt involvement in 'marriage' and I dont think that much of the institution myself. We had a choice, discussed it, and lived together more yrs than alot of people stay married. And then when it was done...no fuss, no muss. Social pressure affects people the most *IMO*. We got alot of pressure...from parents, from married friends (but not single friends, lol). I think it's great to have something recognized by your religion or traditions, but not being married does not mean disrespect for the commitment.

But the govt IS involved in marriage now...no use bitching about it...I dont mind as long as they apply it 'equally.' And yeah, that does change with society and culture and the recognition of people's rights

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

CriticalThought said:

You want to strip the state from marriage because you don't want the state involved in your marriage. Instead of making that decision on behalf of everyone why don't you just not get married?

Click to expand...

Remove state intervention in marriage doesn't involve myself into any marriages.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

CriticalThought said:

If there are people who want to get married and have government marriages then who are you to dictate that they cannot have them? Why must you dictate the terms of other people's marriages?

Click to expand...

Your argument is irrational. No one is stopping them from getting married. When the government is involved in marriage they are coming up with terms of marriage and the contract. If the government were to step aside then no one would be involved in peoples marriages except those involved in the marriage itself.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:

Remove state intervention in marriage doesn't involve myself into any marriages.

Click to expand...

If you do not want state intervention in your marriage then do not get a state marriage. Why is that so hard? Why do you want to eliminate the option for people who want state marriages?

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Henrin said:

Your argument is irrational. No one is stopping them from getting married. When the government is involved in marriage they are coming up with terms of marriage and the contract. If the government were to step aside then no one would be involved in peoples marriages except those involved in the marriage itself.

Click to expand...

People can currently form their own marriages through contracts and religious services without getting a state license. Nobody currently has to rely on the government. However, some people like state marriages. So why do you want to eliminate state marriages for people who would like to have them? That seems irrational to me.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Henrin said:

Your argument is irrational. No one is stopping them from getting married. When the government is involved in marriage they are coming up with terms of marriage and the contract. If the government were to step aside then no one would be involved in peoples marriages except those involved in the marriage itself.

Click to expand...

Yanno legal things like rights to inheritance hospital visitation rights are involved in this

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

CriticalThought said:

People can currently form their own marriages through contracts and religious services without getting a state license. Nobody currently has to rely on the government. However, some people like state marriages. So why do you want to eliminate state marriages for people who would like to have them? That seems irrational to me.

Click to expand...

The government has no business involving itself in the relationships of people or promoting families for that matter. Government marriage is just a way for people to get benefit from the state and that mindset needs to be eliminated, not empowered.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Henrin said:

The government has no business involving itself in the relationships of people or promoting families for that matter. Government marriage is just a way for people to get benefit from the state and that mindset needs to be eliminated, not empowered.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you want to control how people think. If some people choose a state marriage to get benefits from the state then that is their choice. Are they not entitled to their choice?

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:

Yanno legal things like rights to inheritance hospital visitation rights are involved in this

Click to expand...

Why not just put them in your will? You can probably guess where I stand on the idea of hospital visitation rights.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

CriticalThought said:

Ah, so you want to control how people think. If some people choose a state marriage to get benefits from the state then that is their choice. Are they not entitled to their choice?

Click to expand...

The government should not empower the idea that the government is someone to gain personal favors from. They are free to think whatever they desire, but their mindset needs to seize to be empowered.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Henrin said:

The government has no business involving itself in the relationships of people or promoting families for that matter. Government marriage is just a way for people to get benefit from the state and that mindset needs to be eliminated, not empowered.

Click to expand...

So ho w to deal with property?

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:

So ho w to deal with property?

Click to expand...

It can be in your marriage contract or you could just be grown ups. Whatever.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Kobie said:

I've noticed that the "I don't think the government should be involved in marriage" line of reasoning and the push toward marriage equality seem to have evolved simultaneously and at an almost identical rate. Smacks to me of "If it's not just ours anymore, nobody can have it!"

Click to expand...

The argument has been hijacked by social conservative nuts. In an ideal world there would be no marriages licenses. But until then I am as strongly pro marriage equality (and by that I mean give same-sex couples marriage licenses) as you can get.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:

The argument has been hijacked by social conservative nuts. In an ideal world there would be no marriages licenses. But until then I am as strongly pro marriage equality (and by that I mean give same-sex couples marriage licenses) as you can get.

Click to expand...

The more you empower the state on an issue the less likely they will step aside.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Henrin said:

Why not just put them in your will? You can probably guess where I stand on the idea of hospital visitation rights.

Click to expand...

A marriage contract makes numerous things like this automatic, without having to pay lawyers thousands of dollars to properly draw up a bunch of different contracts that may or may not be immediately recognized and followed by a hospital, business, or state.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:

Marriage is two opposite sex people.

Click to expand...

You keep saying that. but it just isn't true.

There are states and countries where marriage is two people of the same gender. So your statement is wrong.

You may want to qualify it. You may mean "my religion says it's opposite sex" or something like that.

But factually, your statement is wrong, because there are many married couples right now where the couples are NOT opposite sex.

And as Lakryte has pointed out over and over, marriage is a right. The Supreme Court has said that (see cases where prisoners have sued to be able to marry - marriage is a right). So the question is - can we deny this right to same-sex couples? is there any reason that society can forbid this right? is it going to hurt society if they get married? As even the people supporting Prop 8 admitted in the trial - SSM would be good for the kids, good for the couples, and more in line with our country's values than banning it. And these were the people who wanted to ban it!

If there is no reason to withhold a right from someone, then we need to let them exercise that right.

Let's take voting: In general, we say voting is a right. You cannot be stopped from voting. BUT - we have said that felons can't vote; that there is a benefit to society to not allowing them to vote from prison. Many states also ban ex-felons from voting. I don't agree with those restrictions on voting rights, but the courts have allowed those restrictions.

So when SSM gets to the Supreme Court, the SC will need to decide if there is some reason to withhold the right to marry from SSM couples. At that point, I think the evidence will be overwhelming that allowing SSM does no harm, and the bans nationwide will be repealed. (Similar to what happened with interracial marriage laws).

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

WorldWatcher said:

Not in 18 States and DC.





OK, don't get a Civil Marriage license for about $35 dollars and when you find the person you want to spend your life with - just have a religious ceremony. Then spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and estate planners to achieve only a fraction of the things that others have for that simple government recognition.

You are free not to have the state "intervene" in your marriage.


>>>>

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! I was all for "I don't need the govt to legalize my relationship" ...until I realized health care for my partner and other financial benefits I would get from marrying. I got married. Twice.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:

You keep saying that. but it just isn't true.

There are states and countries where marriage is two people of the same gender. So your statement is wrong.

You may want to qualify it. You may mean "my religion says it's opposite sex" or something like that.

But factually, your statement is wrong, because there are many married couples right now where the couples are NOT opposite sex.

And as Lakryte has pointed out over and over, marriage is a right. The Supreme Court has said that (see cases where prisoners have sued to be able to marry - marriage is a right). So the question is - can we deny this right to same-sex couples? is there any reason that society can forbid this right? is it going to hurt society if they get married? As even the people supporting Prop 8 admitted in the trial - SSM would be good for the kids, good for the couples, and more in line with our country's values than banning it. And these were the people who wanted to ban it!

If there is no reason to withhold a right from someone, then we need to let them exercise that right.

Let's take voting: In general, we say voting is a right. You cannot be stopped from voting. BUT - we have said that felons can't vote; that there is a benefit to society to not allowing them to vote from prison. Many states also ban ex-felons from voting. I don't agree with those restrictions on voting rights, but the courts have allowed those restrictions.

So when SSM gets to the Supreme Court, the SC will need to decide if there is some reason to withhold the right to marry from SSM couples. At that point, I think the evidence will be overwhelming that allowing SSM does no harm, and the bans nationwide will be repealed. (Similar to what happened with interracial marriage laws).

Click to expand...

One state, or forty-nine has no bearing on a federal "right" to gay marriage.

I am not religious.

Marriage of two opposite sex people is, because that is the definition of marriage.

Gay marriage will most likely be federal protected soon, sure.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:

A marriage contract makes numerous things like this automatic, without having to pay lawyers thousands of dollars to properly draw up a bunch of different contracts that may or may not be immediately recognized and followed by a hospital, business, or state.

Click to expand...

A private contract between mutual parties can cover numerous things just as a government contract can. If you want to force your will on third parties, then yes, a government contract is really the only way forward for you. If that is the case however, then frankly, I don't consider your desires of any merit.

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:

One state, or forty-nine has no bearing on a federal "right" to gay marriage.

I am not religious.

Marriage of two opposite sex people is, because that is the definition of marriage.

Gay marriage will most likely be federal protected soon, sure.

Click to expand...

That's not what you said. You said "marriage is between opposite sex people". That's not true. Even the federal govt now recognizes it's not true (with the striking down of part of DOMA). You are the only one thinking the definition of marriage is still "opposite sex". You need to qualify it. In some states it is; in most religions it is; but in many states and many countries, it isn't.

You seem to be really stubborn about that definition. Here you go -from Merriam Webster:
Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Click to expand...

Even THEY don't define it solely as opposite sex couples.