1.) actually they are for legal marriage/contracts
2.) these already exist in certain forms in certain states, they are not called marriage because they are not but they still involve government
3.) leave? LEGAL marriage already exist and theres no logical reason to change that and RELIGIOUS marriage already exists in this fashion this too wouldn't be anythign new
religious and legal marriage are 100% separate, some people do them together by choice but they have no impact on eachother
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
1. I think we misunderstood one another, or I you. We agree here.
2. I would like to see the restrictions placed by the government removed, namely sex and number. I believe a domestic contract should be open to whatever the individuals involved wish it to be. Think of it as a group prenup contract of sorts. The government only need to insure that contract is followed.
3. I just do not see why we do not separate the name between the two as many ( I feel needlessly ) have issue with the name being used for the legal term. It just seem a very simple name change could sooth a lot of people while from a legal standpoint the name it means nothing.
Made up out of whole cloth? I don't think so. The Supreme Court considers certain rights fundamental even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution, because it's clear most Americans would have seen them as basic rights even before the Constitution was written. The Court has phrased its standard for fundamental right slightly differently in its decisions, but the most common phrasing of the "magic words" is that to be fundamental, a right must be so "deeply rooted in the history and traditions of this Nation" that they are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."
The Court has recognized for a long time now that marriage between a male and a female is a fundamental right:
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
And there are similar statements in Supreme Court decisions going back to the 1800's. But notice I said marriage between a male and a female. There is no fundamental right to polygamy, or bigamy, or to marriage between parties very closely related by blood, or where one or both parties is a very young minor, or where the parties are of the same sex. None of those forms of marriage even comes close to meeting the Court's standard for fundamental rights.
That's why Justice Kennedy has had to be so creative (some would say disingenuous) with the Constitution in the three "gay" decisions he's authored: Romer v. Evans in 1996; Lawrence v. Texas in 2003; and U.S. v. Windsor last year. I won't go into all the details here. But if you study those three decisions, you can see the bizarre rationale he has been developing, which the Court is probably planning to use when it some day declares a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor all turned on the Court's belief that the only possible motive for the laws in question was animosity--a "bare desire to harm"--homosexuals. Now, even if a law doesn't infringe any fundamental right--which would make it subject to "strict scrutiny," a very demanding constitutional test--it still has to at least be "reasonably related" to some "legitimate government interest" to be constitutional. But harming a group of people can never be a legitimate purpose of government. So if the Court thinks that's the only conceivable reason for a law, it will hold that law unconstitutional.
I can already see the would-be incestuous adult couples arguing, once same-sex marriage has been proclaimed the newest constitutional "right," that the only motive for excluding them from state marriage laws, too, is a "bare desire to harm" them. And how about the polygamists, who have historically been the target of all sorts of animosity and legal persecution in this country? Doesn't justice cry out for legalizing homosexual incest--or even incestuous homosexual polygamy?
And why should we get so uptight about age, either? Don't the NAMBLA people assure us their young cadets are fully consensual partners in sodomy, and that man-boy love is a beautiful thing? Shouldn't everyone be able to force all those Ozzie-and-Harriet squares in bourgeois America to put their seal of approval on his or her way of loving--even if it is a little different?
2.) again in general these things already exist im not sure what you mean, the types of contracts you are referring to exist in some places already but they are not marriage and rightfully so.
So are you saying you want to see marriage stripped down and made a lesser to the likes of these other contracts?
3.) theres no need to separate them because they are already separated. They are currently thier own thing already
i guess i see what you are saying but people having hurt feelings or opinions over it also being a legal term is meanignless to me and i dont care because they have no rational to support it and they certainly have no rational to support denying others equal rights.
how many people didn't want minority being person under law, women equal under law, interracial marriage? we didn't give into those bigots and or anti-equal rights people then so why would we now? and if we do give in they win and then we have somethign NOT equal and a lesser.
What if we gave in to the people that said a half black man should be president? what if we said listen Barack, people dont like the idea of a black man being president. The office is "sacred, and has years and years of tradition behind it and as a sanctity to it" so we are going to call you the CEO of AMerica. Youll still have all the similar powers but we cant call you POTUS because of these peoples feelings. Also we never really cared before when it bother people but NOW we are definitely going to change it.
sorry thats complete crap and selling out to bigots and anti-freedom people
and be clear, im not claiming you feel that way just pointing out why peoples feelings dont matter one hoot on this subject since it deals with rights.
3.) again this would be giving in and sacrificing equal right and the name is everything because the name is equality. Make no mistake about it thats why they fight against the name so hard they know thats where the equality lies.
It is the name of a legal contract and has years and years of court precedence to it, the legality behind this is huge so making it somethign new would be making it a lesser.
Soothing bigots and or anti-equality people is of no concern. See Loving Vs Virginia when more than 80& of the country was against interracial marriage. Opinions like those dont matter when it comes to the constitution and rights.
One of you will end up here next!