Federal government recognizes same-sex marriages in six more states [W:70,126]

AGENT J said:

LOL it happens
apology 100% accepted AND respect is always earned and given for anybody that admits a mistake, it shows integrity!:thumbs::respekt:

seems we both made mistakes and misunderstood!
you are correct the word does not have to be in there

Click to expand...

If you cannot apologize for making a genuine blunder, then what can you apologize for. Do not get me wrong, no need to go all Japan on the world but the world would be a much better place if those in charge got to knew the word "I am sorry" a bit more rather than waging a war of words that leads to a road to nowhere.

But you are right, marriage does not need to be in the constitution but a law regulating marriage might be a good idea (and I am talking about a civil procedure, not a religious one, that is totally down to the religion of your choice). That is why Dutch people marry at least once and a lot twice. One time you get legally married by going to a city hall or go to a registered marriage location in front of a civil administration officer who's main function it is to marry people. Then and only then in a purely ceremonial (at least in the eyes of the law/government) they have a choice to get married in church or in front of a religious functionary. That second marriage has no legal standing with the government but is purely a personal choice.

For the first marriage there is full and total marriage equality (in that it is a union between 2 human beings of 18 years or older, even though there are a few legal ways to get married even sooner but that is not the norm) and for the second marriage that equality is totally down to the religion of choice (or the vicar/priest/father/imam/rabbi).

Summerwind said:

Same as they are once the marriage is in divorce, legal contracts, which is how they should have started imo.

Click to expand...

Which makes everything more expensive and less efficient overall for no legitimate reason.

Plus, since the marriage license acts similar to a birth certificate or adoption record, it is mainly used to set up a legal kinship between two people, that of spouse, which comes with certain rights/benefits/privileges due to being the closest next of kin.

Peter King said:

1.)If you cannot apologize for making a genuine blunder, then what can you apologize for. Do not get me wrong, no need to go all Japan on the world but the world would be a much better place if those in charge got to knew the word "I am sorry" a bit more rather than waging a war of words that leads to a road to nowhere.

2.) But you are right, marriage does not need to be in the constitution but a law regulating marriage might be a good idea (and I am talking about a civil procedure, not a religious one, that is totally down to the religion of your choice).

3.) That is why Dutch people marry at least once and a lot twice. One time you get legally married by going to a city hall or go to a registered marriage location in front of a civil administration officer who's main function it is to marry people. Then and only then in a purely ceremonial (at least in the eyes of the law/government) they have a choice to get married in church or in front of a religious functionary. That second marriage has no legal standing with the government but is purely a personal choice.

4.)For the first marriage there is full and total marriage equality (in that it is a union between 2 human beings of 18 years or older, even though there are a few legal ways to get married even sooner but that is not the norm) and for the second marriage that equality is totally down to the religion of choice (or the vicar/priest/father/imam/rabbi).

Click to expand...

1.) I agree 100% and thats exactly how I am but unfortunately around here there are many that will never do that . . . .15 posters and 20 links could prove them wrong and they would simply deny it, lie, personally attack or run away. I have been wrong on this board a number of times and I just simply admitted it, i have even PM'd the person to make sure they saw I admitted and given an apology when I was misinformed or was kneejerk.

2.) maybe but at this point its not needed with precedence of marriage being a right and precedence of many court cases declaring bannings unconstitutional because of the 14th. I mean dont get me wrong it be a nice EXTRA move to shut up some more bigots or those not in support of equal rights but there will still be some left just like those still opposed to equal rights for minorities women and interracial marriage.

3.) well thats the way it is here also. The religious marriage has ZERO legal standing and is strictly a personal choice also. But many people are allowed to conduct a legal marriage so many times religious marriages and legal ones are done together but they have zero impact on each other. People can choose to do them together but they are 100% separate.

Someone brought the idea up the other day though that maybe its best to totally separate them. Not allow them to be blended because obviously it confuses the people uneducated about how the law works.

4.) again similar to how it is here, id need more details on the "2 human beings of 18 years or older" but similar. ANd yes religious marriage here is totally the same way as it should be. Churches right now turn away straight couples, gay couples, interracial couples, minority couples, nonreligious enough couples etc etc and they have that 100% right. And I support that because it has nothing to legal marriage.

roguenuke said:

Which makes everything more expensive and less efficient overall for no legitimate reason.

Plus, since the marriage license acts similar to a birth certificate or adoption record, it is mainly used to set up a legal kinship between two people, that of spouse, which comes with certain rights/benefits/privileges due to being the closest next of kin.

Click to expand...

Yes, except our current divorce rate suggests that there are many other contractual issues that would cost less to hash out, as unromantic as it is, before getting married. So really it isn't generally cost effective for either party in the long run, it's just makes the divorce cost more. Though I've never had one, and because I never had one, I am very much in favor of pre-nups. But truly, marriage should have to be a legitimate contract for those benefits and priveleges as far as the state is concerned and the benefits that the state and the feds give married people.

Summerwind said:

Yes, except our current divorce rate suggests that there are many other contractual issues that would cost less to hash out, as unromantic as it is, before getting married. So really it isn't generally cost effective for either party in the long run, it's just makes the divorce cost more. Though I've never had one, and because I never had one, I am very much in favor of pre-nups. But truly, marriage should have to be a legitimate contract for those benefits and priveleges as far as the state is concerned and the benefits that the state and the feds give married people.

Click to expand...

The divorce rate doesn't suggest anything like that. The divorce rate itself only suggests that people don't want to remain together and end their relationships more often than in the past.

There are actually a lot of divorces out there that are friendly or at least done on good terms, with little to no problems. Any way it goes, if people end their relationship, it is going to get ugly, whether you have multiple contracts or just a single marriage license. This idea that prenups aren't challenged or iron out all issues is false. Heck, that was one of the major cases in Liar, Liar, the woman challenging the prenup she signed. There is no way to determine what would make a divorce cost any more, but for most people, the highest costs would come from the lawyers, even if they have a prenup, especially if they have all that paperwork done, since no one would be able to really predict their marriage and what direction it could take from the beginning.

Marriage is a legitimate contract right now, one that is very similar to the birth certificate (which is just as much a contract, at least in the agreement that you are claiming that child as yours) or adoption record (definitely a contract saying you agree to care for a child), one that creates a legal kinship first and foremost. Everything else is going to be based on how a judge decides, whether there are additional contracts attached to specific marriages or all marriages, because nothing is set absolutely in stone, no matter how much people may wish to believe that.