OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

I think this is a great idea, save for the fact that there are serious difficulties in actually doing it.

For one thing, such a change would have to happen fifty times, once in each state. Secondly, every law in each state that mentions marriage would have to be changed.

Yea, the only way around that I can think of (and I don't know if it's been done before), is just add a condition stating that "Henceforth all mentions of the term 'marriage' refers now to civil unions" or something to that nature. It wouldn't be perfect and they probably have to slowly go back through existing laws to change the 'offending' word. Essentially all the government needs to do in this debate is just stop calling them 'marriages', since people get so tied up on the religious aspect of it.

Exactly. Whatever happened to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"

If you dont believe the government should be in the business of marriage, then you should be lobbying to eliminate ALL recognition, of ANY kind of "marriage".

You should want to abolish civil unions as well.

What business does the government have in "recognizing" two people's affections for each other?

(hint: Marriage isnt just about "recognizing two people who love each other". That's not why marriage exists. The public view has been twisted to portray it as that, through movies and activism. But that's not the purpose of legal marriage)

phil

They don't have to recognize anything with regards to love. A civil union would simply be for two people who feel the compulsion to live together and pool their financial resources and property. Although I really don't understand corporate law at all, I would imagine this could have some parallels to a business merger. I'm sure there are plenty of people in marriages that either didn't get married for love or have fallen out love (probably because they got married too quickly in the first place). If they love each other then so be it, they can get married if they want to, but the Government shouldn't have anything to do with a religious ceremony.

Some sort of government recognition of these partnerships is going to be required because there are always going to be people splitting up that won't be able to sort their own messes out. The courts will need to rule in on these cases, (and I hope you'll excuse the pun) so you can't completely 'divorce' the Government from relationships.

GOD didn’t create Adam and Adam. They cant procreate. So if all the gays had to live own an island amongst there own, how would they continue there existence? "Don't ask don't tell." Words to live by.

Jack B: If an entire society was homosexual, they could certainly live for the rest of their lives. And I would also suggest that there are an equal number of economically stable homosexual couples as heterosexual couples, fully capable of adopting and raising a child. Just because two people can produce offspring doesn't mean that they should.

Also the purpose of "Don't ask don't tell" is to allow homosexuals to serve in the same capacity as heterosexuals. To apply that to marriage would be to allow homosexuals to marry by simply not requiring different genders for marriage certificates.

Phil and Paddirn,

The same-sex marriage debate raises the question: What are the appropriate government laws regarding marriage? Which in turn raises the question: What is the legal definition "marriage"? The answer is contained in the requirements for a government marriage license. There is no requirement or even intent for love, living together, making babies or even liking one another. It is a voucher for exclusive government subsidies and privileges. So let's get government out the marriage business and civil union business.

Your answer lies in your idea "he Government would cease from recognizing any and all marriages and marriage ceremonies would only be performed by ministers or church groups." Any real minister or church group isnt going to recognize homosexuals. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

1. no claim of sexual relations

2. "This is NOT MARRIAGE!!" marriage is a belief. Belief is glorified opinion. Some states recognize gay "marriage" and some don't this opens the way to insert this at the federal level as this is a purely economic issue. If property, civil rights and or benefits have the possibility of being impeded by interstate legal boundaries, this then falls under the umbrella of the federal government as they are in charge of regulating interstate trade.

3 It must not be named a civil union as words not only carry meaning but also emotion Civil union has obtained a stigma from previous conflicts. Try something like economic codependent status.

Think of the good this could bring, I have a good job and benefits say my brother had lost his job has no benefits for him or his kids. I could then claim him as an economic codependent and get him and his kids on my insurance. claim taxes with him and his kids. and if I want to "marry" a nice girl that might be difficult as the sizzling noises that occur when I enter a church are just too distracting to make the ceremony picture perfect.

I believe in god, I just don't believe in man.

My above comment "2" would be a federal patch to force acknowledgment of another states individuals protection.