I oppose SSM but could accept no government recognized marriage as a compromise.
I support SSM but could accept no government reconized marriage as a compromise
I oppose SSM It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.
I support SSM. It's a function of government to recognize legitimate marriages. No compromise.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963
I agree, you should be able to assign rights outside of marriage, but getting rid of marriage altogether, would be a disaster.
If the talking heads are correct, the SCOTUS will punt on California, return the case to the 9th circuit court which has already ruled the ban is unconstitutional. If this is true, then California will once again be a state that recognizes gay marriages. That is 10 states and I expect that number to increase to around 20 over the next several years. I can imagine in 10-15 years time that 30-40 states will have made gay marriage legal and congress will use their power under Article IV section 1 to ensure that all states recognize all other states marriages which is congress's right since marriages are a public record.
Tomorrow the SCOTUS hears arguments on DOMA, which I think is unconstitutional. But who knows what the judges think of it. Striking it down will lead to federal recognition of gay marriages from the states in which it is legal and pretty much make it nation wide. What will be mission is state benefits in those states which gay marriages is still illegal, but federal benefits will be had.
My opinion or opinions.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
There is no legal or social precedent to gut the whole idea of marriage merely to prevent gays from having access to it. Marriage has always been a legal status. Laws about property, inheritance, and sex have been affected my legal marital status for thousands of years. If someone wants to have a relationship with all of those legal elements, without marriage, they're welcome to fill out the paperwork. You can have a relationship and call yourself whatever you want. Marriage is a legal status, and destroying that status over some people's desire to keep the label for themselves is absurd.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
You have all the same rights you would have with a normal marriage contract. Here's the difference: you can assign them however you want.
For example, let's say someone in your family is a doctor. You may wish to assign your medical rights to them, since they are more knowledgeable, and assign everything else to your partner.
That is the freedom of separating rights from relationship status. You don't have to LOSE anything. You just get more choice in what to do with it.
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes