At why the debate about who can marry who is even a thing in the USA. Wouldn't this fall under the 14th amendment? I mean, seriously, who has the time to worry about what other people do in their own personal lives?
I (rightly or wrongly) tend to assume that the most vociferous opponents of homosexual unions (regardless of terminology) are closet cases that are lashing out at people because of their own psychological issues.
I know you are all going to raise an eyebrow when I invoke Ann Coulter's name, but she was right about how to end the "gay marriage" debate in the US. Just have the government get out of the "marriage" business. The government should issue "certificates of civil union" to any couple regardless of orientation that confer all of the same legal rights (equally) that marriage licenses currently do.
Then if one wants to be "married" you do that in accordance with your ethnic and faith traditions and it is simply a ceremony with no legal standing.
This cuts off the argument of both sides right at the knees because the argument is primarily semantic anyway. Religious fundies get their knickers in a twist because the word marriage has a very specific meaning to them (because #biblequrantorahetc). The same-sex couples are just seeking the same legal rights as heteros (understandably and rightly). If we are giving everyone the same legal standing then there is no discrimination, that ends the argument from the same-sex couples. The fundies don't have a leg to stand on anymore because the government is completely out of the "marriage" business and has no obligation to legally define it.
Thoughts? Am I way off base here?
- People get very upset that this would delegitimise marriage, reduce the social role of churches, and result in anarchy and a decline of all moral standards. But yeah. Not quite what you suggest, but in some civilised countries, such as Germany, marriage is an entirely civil matter and church weddings have no legal standing. (Admittedly, this arose out of anticatholicism in the Imperial period.) Annquin (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can imagine people would get upset, but only because fundamentalists aren't exactly known for their intellectualism. Their church wedding should still be just as legitimate in the eyes of FSM as it was before. The only thing that is changing is a few words on a legal document. B4Xiphos (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Libertarian case/No-fault divorce
I find the libertarian case misrepresented. Effectively it already makes no differences whether you are married or not since no-fault divorce was introduced and sex outside marriage legalised. Common law marriage assumes you are married when you are not. Child support does not depend on a kid being illegitimate or not. There is really no penalty for whoring around anymore, so I think the argument that the state should stay out of the business is legit.— Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
Substance abuse, fidelity and domestic abuse rates
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Legal arguments section outdated
The legal arguments section somehow does not include the actual arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, notably the "right to choice of intimate identity and beliefs". Any objections to adding them? Also the author of the text, Justice Anthony Kennedy, somehow does not have a page? Ramendik (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)