# Let's outlaw marriage!



## Indigomama (Dec 26, 2001)

Maybe I'm feeling a little radical here, but I'm thinking it's time just to outlaw marriage for all couples (as recognized by the state).

It really is such a simple concept...like the state of NY recognizes my marriage... wtf... god recognizes my marriage. NY state gives me 50/50..

just make everything a lot clearer...

civil unions for everyone!


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

works for me


----------



## 1jooj (Apr 8, 2002)

This has been my position since I started hearing about the "controversy."

Civil unions--or something comparable--for all, and if you want the sanctity of marriage protected, then go to your house of worship and get married. Different religions regard marriage differently, so I think it's only logical. If you're Catholic, it's a sacrament. If you're Muslim, it's not. If our faith-based values are important to us, let us honor them appropriately--not by legislation, but by ritual.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Sounds good to me!


----------



## whimsy (Aug 6, 2004)

I agree.

I've always seen them as separate entities.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

This has been my stance on marriage all along. It's a private institution; the government should not get involved.


----------



## orangebird (Jun 30, 2002)

This has been my view as well. It is ridiculous for the government to base their recognition of a marraige based on a set of religious principles. They either don't recognize any unions (which is fine) or they recognize them all (which is fine too) and the churches (houses of worship or whatnot) decide the marraige/god part.


----------



## Galatea (Jun 28, 2004)

ITA. Dh and I were talking about this last night. Let your church marry you; let the state make your civil union legal.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Indigomama*
Maybe I'm feeling a little radical here, but I'm thinking it's time just to outlaw marriage for all couples (as recognized by the state).

It really is such a simple concept...like the state of NY recognizes my marriage... wtf... god recognizes my marriage. NY state gives me 50/50..

just make everything a lot clearer...

civil unions for everyone!

I'm with you on that one! I think that people that just live together should be able to get health insurance from their partner as well.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

But lookie at what Texas is teaching the nation's children:

Quote:

The State Board of Education approved health textbooks for Texas high school and middle school students Friday, after publishers changed the wording in their books to reflect marriage as being between a man and a woman.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6415905/


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Did you all see the new West Wing this past Thursday? This topic came up there. It was interesting.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Seriously...this makes *total* sense to me....and, given the supposed separation of church and state, what business does the state have marrying people anyway???!!!

Let 'em have the word and the institution "marriage". It really is just a word to me; "family" is a much more important concept for me, personally.

So, what do we do? How do we work towards change?


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

Holy crap, that's genius!


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Who will write a brilliant letter to the editor that I can send to my local paper? (and they can ignore














)


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I completely agree (and was just saying this to dh earlier today)
Annette

ETA: Not outlawing marriage, but having all unions legally recognized as "civil unions" and letting churches define marriage. So, my husband and I would be married in the Lutheran and Catholic church, and would have a legal civil union.


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

Outlawing marriage would mean outlawing a religious ceremony and that would be a very unamerican thing to do.

However, it seems clear by now that the State should not be giving special perks and benefits to people just because they have undergone a religious ceremony.

Rather than outlawing marriage, the law should clearly state that it is illegal to give preferential treatment to people who have undergone particular religious ceremonies.

Once the religiously loaded word "marriage" is out of the picture
our society can start all over trying to define what particular perks and benefits the government will give to people who share custody of children.

--AmyB


----------



## wasabi (Oct 12, 2004)

I don't think they mean outlawing marriage but making marriage something that is religious only that there would be no laws concerning. I'm all for it. Europe has done it this way for years.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama*
So, what do we do? How do we work towards change?

good question....

anyone?


----------



## yoga (May 1, 2002)

First of all, all ppl should push for civil unions to be legal and recognized, making usre the language does not leave out heterosexual couples.

Then, all married couples need to divorce.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

there we go!~


----------



## RadiantMama (Sep 9, 2004)

man, i've been just so aggrivated lately with all this anti-gay stuff (measure 36 in portland) and i've HAD IT!

my partner and i HATE that we had to get married in order to get health insurance, while friends of ours who are gay partners can't--it's perposterous!

i thought we were the only ones to think of outlawing marriage! woo hoo!

i just really think it should be a religious thing and NOT A CIVIL THING and all the "benefits" for married couples should be revoked on a state and federal level...to level the playing field, as it were.

YES!


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

Like France! Except I don't know their stance on gay marriage. But you have to marry in a civil service at your town hall. Then if you chose you can have a religious ceremony, but in the eyes of the law that doesn't matter.

Britain is bringing in civil partnerships for gay couples, which is fab, but I don't like this "seperate but equal" thing. We should have one thing for all couples. I want a civil partnership! I don't want a marriage! Yuck!


----------



## mamadawg (Jun 23, 2004)

I'm down with the OP. I don't think the state has any business getting involved in personal relationships.


----------



## Tata (Jun 2, 2004)




----------



## boingo82 (Feb 19, 2004)

I'm with you.
As it is, we are not "married" in the religious sense but in the legal sense - I agree there should be separate terms.


----------



## queen bee (Nov 19, 2001)

Not such a radical idea. The Libertarian Party has been thinking along those lines for a long time. From Rick Tompkins (a former LP presidential nominee hopeful in '96):

"Libertarians hope to prune away all the government interventions into our private lives which supposedly 'necessitate' the state keeping track of who's married to whom, in the first place. And believe me, that will benefit religious freedom, too," Tompkins said.

"But today, in the world as we find it, real people are suffering if the state refuses to record their marriages. I don't find there's such an excess of love and commitment in this world, or that any of us enjoys such a certain moral superiority to our brothers and sisters, that we can decide for them what path their lives should take. I fail to see what's charitable or compassionate about arguing that any sincere expression of love or concern or mutual commitment should be banned by an all-powerful state. "

qb


----------



## JanetF (Oct 31, 2004)

Well here in Australia our politicians just decided to outlaw gay and lesbian marriage. So now even if I wanted to marry my male partner, there's no way I would. I will have no part of something that's denied to people I love simply because of who they love. But what really confuses me is that my previous longterm relationships were with women, and yet now I'm with a man I am now somehow worthy of state sanction??? But I'm the same person, idiots! Politicians!

J


----------



## spooky mom (Jul 3, 2004)

I posted this idea as a reply to a thread a long time ago, and offended a few people. It's nice to see that not everyone has a sort of addiction to federal validation for their relationship.

I also agree that you should be able to give insurance and stuff to anyone who lives with you. I think we should register our households for tax and benefit purposes, romantically involved or not.

We got legally married when I was a few months pregnant because I had to get insurance through his employer. We've talked about a legal divorce for political reasons, but we can't afford it. We need our tax breaks to survive, and I need medical insurance. Thinking of where we would be without the government recognising us as a "household" through marriage really opened my eyes to how much legal unions affect lives.
There are so many people whining about their relationship's "sanctity" and it blows my mind. What about the people who need healthcare? The people who have temporary visas, come to America and fall in love with someone of the same gender, can't get 'married' and have to go back home alone? The people who can't afford decent housing because they don't get the tax breaks? The people who can't see their lifetime partners in the hospital because they're not legal "kin"?

The recent state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are so depressing.
Is the desire for government validated sanctity more important than equality for all? How can people be so blind? and if they're not blind, how can they be so *&#%@!! selfish?


----------



## paccookie (Mar 10, 2003)

Sounds good to me! Especially since I live in one of the states that just voted on gay marriage. <shakes head>


----------



## Seeking Refuge (Nov 2, 2002)

For the longest time dh and I resisted the pressure to get married despite the fact that we had a son and are devoted to one another. As far as we were concerned marriage is a religious ceremony and since neither of us are Christians we saw no reason for it.

Then the economic reality of not being able to get insurance for the kids and things like that set in and we decided to get married in a civil ceremony. Do you know that even after I asked her not to the magistrate still had to throw the word "God' into our ceremony?

I don't get it and I don't like it.


----------



## zipperump-a-zoomum (Jan 9, 2002)

I tried to get my partner to do the divorce thing, in a fit of rage about the whole, depressing, immoral situation. (As well as call each other partner, not use marriage benefits whenever we can avoid it, not wear wedding rings.) I convinced him on a few issues, not the divorce one.

And then I started thinking- if our point is to say that we don't think the state should be involved in marriage, isn't asking the state to end our marriage kind of besides the point?

I would like to start a weekly/monthly vigil outside of the courthouse.
Kaly


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

Then, all married couples need to divorce.
So, that's the test to see who is REALLY serious about this. Let me know when those divorce papers are finalized.


----------



## BelovedBird (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

Outlawing marriage would mean outlawing a religious ceremony and that would be a very unamerican thing to do.
Its not about outlawing a ceremony, any more than "christenings" are "outlawed". Christenings exist and they are allowed, they just have nothing to with the government.

So what is the other side? Why would people *not* want this?


----------



## Seeking Refuge (Nov 2, 2002)

BelovedBird said:


> Christenings exist and they are allowed, they just have nothing to with the government.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Which is exactly the way it should be if there truly were the separation of church and state in this country.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *calpurnia*
Like France! Except I don't know their stance on gay marriage.

In France a daughter can have a civil union with her own mother- they use it to keep the daughter on the mother's health insurance. I don't think they have any problem with gay civil union.


----------



## yoga (May 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sahm*
So, that's the test to see who is REALLY serious about this. Let me know when those divorce papers are finalized.

So, you're on-board with this?


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

I didn't say. I am just curious to see who's talk and who really means what they say. That's all. It's one thing to talk about what you should do, it's another thing to believe it enough to follow through on it.


----------



## yoga (May 1, 2002)

Or to be able to afford it.

And, obviously, you didn't say...that's why I asked.


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Actually, with the marriage penalty tax, you'd be better off financially just living together without a marriage license.


----------



## yoga (May 1, 2002)

:LOL

Not if you're poor.


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chaka Falls*
:LOL

Not if you're poor.

Until you travel the world and see real poverty, I have a hard time believing many people in America are _really_ poor. Mind you, I'm not denying there are some, just not as many as people would like to claim...


----------



## Indigomama (Dec 26, 2001)

I'm not sure I was calling for everyone to divorce.

More that we should just stop "marriage" at the state level.

Everyone should have the opportunity to have a "civil union" ... moms and daughters... etc.

More in line with french or mexican laws. They make a very big distinction. Usually people have two ceremonies...one for the religious.. the other civil. Keep the religious ... exactly where it belongs -- in the churches, synagogues, and mosques.


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chaka Falls*
First of all, all ppl should push for civil unions to be legal and recognized, making usre the language does not leave out heterosexual couples.

Then, all married couples need to divorce.

Indigomama -- I was not referring to anything you said. I was referring to this post by Chaka Falls...


----------



## attachmentfeminist (Mar 26, 2004)

Heh, I was at lunch with some girls at work today, and came up with this very concept. Civil unions for everyone under the law, and if you want a religious ceremony, go for it. That way you could also have the option of being married in the eyes of your church without having to do it legally. I don't know that people would really choose that, but options are always good!


----------



## Stacie (Nov 19, 2001)

just a little food for thought on marriage licensing...

Marriage License A marriage license is a three-party contract between the man, woman, and the State known as an adhesion contract. An adhesion contract is one which is extremely one-sided, grossly favoring the State. From weakness in bargaining position, ignorance, or indifference, couples are willing to enter into the marriage transaction controlled by this lopsided legal document.

When a couple applies for a license from the State to marry, they are actually asking for permission to engage in the illegal activity of marriage (License - permission granted by a competent authority to engage in an activity that would otherwise be illegal - Black's Law 7th ed). By entering into a State-sanctioned franchise (marriage) as a married couple, this couple forfeits their rights to a private, sovereign marriage and any ownership of their children or property; as a result of the marriage license. Child Protective Services receives its full power and authority to seize children via the marriage license under the ancient legal doctrine of parens patriae.

http://www.mainemediaresources.com/mpl_marriage.htm


----------



## yoga (May 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sahm*
Until you travel the world and see real poverty, I have a hard time believing many people in America are _really_ poor. Mind you, I'm not denying there are some, just not as many as people would like to claim...

Well, geez...I was referring to American poverty since we were discussing American marriage.

It's ridiculous, IMO, that it costs more to divorce than to get married. Of course, I mean basic costs, not the cost of a wedding and/or reception.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Indigomama*
I'm not sure I was calling for everyone to divorce.

More that we should just stop "marriage" at the state level.

Everyone should have the opportunity to have a "civil union" ... moms and daughters... etc.

More in line with french or mexican laws. They make a very big distinction. Usually people have two ceremonies...one for the religious.. the other civil. Keep the religious ... exactly where it belongs -- in the churches, synagogues, and mosques.

So you just want to call marraige a civil union? That's all civil unions are, marriage laws that are not called "marriage". So what difference does it make what you call it? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chaka Falls*
Well, geez...I was referring to American poverty since we were discussing American marriage.

It's ridiculous, IMO, that it costs more to divorce than to get married. Of course, I mean basic costs, not the cost of a wedding and/or reception.

Yea, but if you're really serious about it, and about "making a point" a small cost should be worth it, right? I have no clue how much divorces cost, but I'm sure you can "do it yourself" for not much, considering that there wouldn't have to be litigation or anything.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom*
So you just want to call marraige a civil union? That's all civil unions are, marriage laws that are not called "marriage". So what difference does it make what you call it? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

I think the difference would be not calling it marriage. People are getting all bent out of shape over the semantics ("Marriage is defined as one man and one woman") Additionally, marriage has traditionally been considered a religious covenant. So.... people can have a choice. You could be married by a church and have it recognized by law by also having a "civil (legal) union." You could have a civil union with all the civil rights and responsibilities it entails, without adding on a church-recognized married, or you could have a church-sponsored married without getting the law involved (no civil union).

At least I think that's what is being proposed. It's what I wish there was.

Interestingly enough, the infamous Pearls' daughter was married in a religious ceremony, without having a "legal" marriage:

Quote:

None of my daughters or their husbands asked the state of Tennessee for permission to marry. They did not yoke themselves to government. It was a personal, private covenant, binding them together forever-until death.. (hate-filled crap removed) And, while I am on the subject, there will come a time when faithful Christians will either revoke their state marriage licenses and establish an exclusively one man-one woman covenant of marriage, or, they will forfeit the sanctity of their covenant by being unequally yoked together (More crap) The sooner there is such a movement, the sooner we will have a voice in government. Some of you attorneys and statesmen reading this should get together and come up with an approach that will have credibility and help to impact the political process. Please contact me when you do and I will assist with publicity.
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.ph...23&tt_news=196

I do NOT agree with this- I think the Pearls are disgusting and an affront to Christianity, and I am not sure if it is OK to post. If it is too offensive I will remove it and just leave the link up. (Believe it or not I removed some of the nastiest stuff)

Annette


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Annette,

Funny that you brought up the Pearls. When I read this thread, my first thought was that it would be interesting if the posters here knew they had something in common with the Pearls







.

That said, I think the Pearls are wackos and I hope that no one takes their view as the Christian view.


----------



## yoga (May 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sahm*
Yea, but if you're really serious about it, and about "making a point" a small cost should be worth it, right? I have no clue how much divorces cost, but I'm sure you can "do it yourself" for not much, considering that there wouldn't have to be litigation or anything.

I was addressing the "real" poverty vs. percieved "American" poverty issue you brought up. The whole "it costs more to divorce than marry" part pertained to your suggestion that ppl would divorce if they were truly serious about this, not the perception of poverty.

I think you know that. You still haven't answered my first question to you, but that's okay.


----------



## zipperump-a-zoomum (Jan 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zipperump-a-zoomum*
I tried to get my partner to do the divorce thing, in a fit of rage about the whole, depressing, immoral situation. (As well as call each other partner, not use marriage benefits whenever we can avoid it, not wear wedding rings.) I convinced him on a few issues, not the divorce one.

And then I started thinking- if our point is to say that we don't think the state should be involved in marriage, isn't asking the state to end our marriage kind of besides the point?

I would like to start a weekly/monthly vigil outside of the courthouse.
Kaly

I'm going to quote myself since no one has responded to my brilliant and cogent point.









So, would anyone really even have to pay for a divorce? Couldn't one just stop refering to oneself as married both socially, legally, politically?
K


----------



## rachdoll (Aug 18, 2003)

Quote:

So, would anyone really even have to pay for a divorce? Couldn't one just stop refering to oneself as married both socially, legally, politically?
You could choose to NOT get divorced and simultaenously stop referring to eachother as husband/wife, that would kinda do it socially, but so long as you DID get a marriage license when you married, legally you will be considered married until you went to court and got a divorce - make sense?


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chaka Falls*
I was addressing the "real" poverty vs. percieved "American" poverty issue you brought up. The whole "it costs more to divorce than marry" part pertained to your suggestion that ppl would divorce if they were truly serious about this, not the perception of poverty.

I think you know that. You still haven't answered my first question to you, but that's okay.

I know what you were referring to. I'm just saying that if indeed you truly believe what you say, and it was your post that suggested that people should get divorced, then you should be the first to lead the way. Talk is easy. If you really believe it, then let the talk follow with action.

Your first question? As to whether I'm on board with this? Nope. I'm not willing to divorce my husband. I never indicated that I would be. I was just intrigued with your suggestion of divorce and wondered if anyone actually believed in it strongly enough to follow through...


----------



## zipperump-a-zoomum (Jan 9, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rachdoll*
You could choose to NOT get divorced and simultaenously stop referring to eachother as husband/wife, that would kinda do it socially, but so long as you DID get a marriage license when you married, legally you will be considered married until you went to court and got a divorce - make sense?

Yeah, it does make sense- but I guess I'm not totally clear on the legal ramifications of marriage. If I file my taxes singlely, and my partner does the same, what other legal issues are there?

K


----------



## zipperump-a-zoomum (Jan 9, 2002)

Ok, on second thought what i just wrote was stupid. There's the whole visitation in hospital, making decisions for next of kin, etc.

Is there anyway to get divorced, legally, but still get those benefits? How? Does one have to have all sorts of lawyer involvement? See, I want those benefits for me and for everyone else who wants them. (Anyone who self-defines as in a union.)
K


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zipperump-a-zoomum*
Yeah, it does make sense- but I guess I'm not totally clear on the legal ramifications of marriage. If I file my taxes singlely, and my partner does the same, what other legal issues are there?

K

It's not just taxes, it's property ownership, authority to make medical decisions, lots of different things. So you'd end up with all kinds of laws being applied to you that you might not want, if you didn't get divorced. For example, some states have community property laws, some have marital property laws, so that would determine who owns what when you die. What if you don't want your spouse to own half your retirement? Well, if you live in a community property state, you'd better get divorced because it's 50-50 if you're married.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
So.... people can have a choice. You could be married by a church and have it recognized by law by also having a "civil (legal) union." You could have a civil union with all the civil rights and responsibilities it entails, without adding on a church-recognized married, or you could have a church-sponsored married without getting the law involved (no civil union).


But you already have that choice. But I can see how if you didn't want the church involved you might not want to call it marriage, because people might think it was a church wedding or something. So I guess I see the point.


----------



## yoga (May 1, 2002)

I know if civil unions became legal in the USA and the language was such that they apply to anyone who wants one, I would divorce. The only reason we got married is so that the gov't would respect the rights we already felt we had toward one another and our children. Sad, but true. It really let me know how not Free we are in this country and I've felt oppressed ever since.


----------



## BigJimSlade (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:

Civil unions--or something comparable--for all, and if you want the sanctity of marriage protected, then go to your house of worship and get married.
Where have you people been all my life? I love this line of thought and it makes TOTAL sense. The government controls marriage right now, not the church. However, don't tell everyone in our country that the two are separate entities. For your reading enjoyment and slightly off topic:

http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Big Jim


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Ok, I'm confused. Help! I married my husband in MI in a court house, (wearing a hot little white mini-dress, may I add!). Our marriage is legal in Australia and in the States. Also, in Oz, we have a legally recognised union called "de-facto", do you have that in the States? If you have been living with a person as a partner for more than six months, you are recognised as defacto whether you want to be or not, and you can claim on all the things married people can.

None of my family is married bar me, and we did it primarily so we could stay together as we are not from the same country. My brothers have kids and so on, but they never married their partners and are seen completely married by law.

So I am confused because it sounds like you have no defacto relationships there. Is this the problem? If so, I totally think that is ridiculous. If you do have defacto, then I don't understand the bloody problem. And this isn't about same sex marriages, because I think they should be equal too, I am wonderin about this marriage thing. sorry? Can someone explain the problem? I'm real tired, excuse my dithering.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

And I meant it is ridiculous if you don't have defacto, not that it is ridiculous to want it. Just clearing that up.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Calm, you have to understand that these things vary state by state.
And yes, there ARE some states that recognize what is called "common law" marriage rights for people who have been together a certain amount of time.

But that doesn't apply to same sex couples.
And THAT is the bloody problem.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Thanks, Asherah, I was wondering about common law, my husband just edumacated me on it briefly. So, my marriage would not be recognised in all states? Wow. That's sick.

As for gay couple's rights - of course it stinks. It is one of the most disgusting things to come out of this last election. Makes me weep. I wasn't sure if this thread was a piss take or not on behalf of same sex couples, you know? Just gettin' the gist. Still unsure, but I'll keep reading I'll catch up.


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Thanks, Asherah, I was wondering about common law, my husband just edumacated me on it briefly. So, my marriage would not be recognised in all states? Wow. That's sick.

Nope, your marriage is recognized in every state in the US. There is an agreement that each state has to recognize the legal marriage of a man and a woman in any other state (actually, probably any other country too???).

If you JUST lived common law and didn't legally marry (like you did in the courthouse), then yes, each state has their own laws as to what they recognize.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Thanks for helping me out there, I was slow on the uptake all day that day. Can tell when I'm tired, hey? I got confused about what a civil union was. Most marriages I know in my life are far from civil, I wouldn't even call them a union. :LOL More like a form of tolerance. I have a marriage, whether a piece of paper proves it or not; if to marry means to join together. According to my pocket dictionary marry is to unite intimately.

Anyway, now I can say to the OP, I agree.


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *calpurnia*
Like France! Except I don't know their stance on gay marriage. But you have to marry in a civil service at your town hall. Then if you chose you can have a religious ceremony, but in the eyes of the law that doesn't matter.

Britain is bringing in civil partnerships for gay couples, which is fab, but I don't like this "seperate but equal" thing. We should have one thing for all couples. I want a civil partnership! I don't want a marriage! Yuck!


I want nothing to do with the way France operates.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

That is a broad sweeping statement.


----------



## DamaBonita (Nov 14, 2004)

Why would any of you want to outlaw marriage? Men and women need each other. That is what God intended.

This is why so many American men are going for women in Russia, Asia, and South America. My husband told me American women are so nasty and rude to men, and he was happy to have found me. I did not want to believe this stuff, but now it looks like I have to. I can't believe some of the nasty things I am reading about men on this site. No wonder men love Spanish women so much. We don't try to hurt them or make them feel bad about themselves


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

So we are supposed to feel threatened that men that none of the women here seemed to want, are marrying women from other countries?

:LOL


----------



## DamaBonita (Nov 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy*
So we are supposed to feel threatened that men that none of the women here seemed to want, are marrying women from other countries?

:LOL

Who said anything about feeling threatened by us? If you have to bring that point up, then you must feel threatened.

It is just so odd how so many of you think it's funny to hate men. It's not. It's cruel to hate men


----------



## pamelamama (Dec 12, 2002)

I dont think that loving or hating men has anything to do with the proposed "outlawing of marriage" discussed in this thread. I interpret this thread as concerning the legal and semantic ramifications of the term "marriage" and its practical failure to respect the separation of church and state doctrine upheld by law in this country.


----------



## boingo82 (Feb 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DamaBonita*
Who said anything about feeling threatened by us? If you have to bring that point up, then you must feel threatened.

It is just so odd how so many of you think it's funny to hate men. It's not. It's cruel to hate men

What are you talking about? Did you read the thread? I don't hate men. I love men, I'm happily married to one and happy mother to another. I spend ridiculous amounts of time standing up for men's rights. Seems like you are lost in the wrong thread - nay, the wrong SITE, or something.


----------



## DamaBonita (Nov 14, 2004)

Dear Pamelamoma,
Thank you so much for being patient with me. Thank you for not resorting to personal attacks on me just because I made a comment about the topic. I see that this discussion is about something entirely different, so I will leave it alone

Carry on


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I don't hate men, I adore them. Nearly all my friends are male.


----------



## zipperump-a-zoomum (Jan 9, 2002)

I love men so much that, should they choose to love each other, I want them to be able to get the same rights and priviledges that I do.


----------



## spooky mom (Jul 3, 2004)

Yeah, what zipper said.

If anything, this thread is specifically about _not_ hating someone for their sex (or the sex of the one they love).


----------



## sahm (Nov 19, 2001)

Back to the discussion...


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DamaBonita*
Why would any of you want to outlaw marriage? Men and women need each other. That is what God intended.

The problem isn't men and women. The problem is God. Since you and many others who recently voted against gay marriage think that marriage is defined by religion, that means that the benifits of marriage should come from God and not from the U.S. Government.

I don't believe anybody wants to outlaw religious marriage. What we are suggesting should be outlawed is giving special privileges to men and women who have had a particular religious ceremony.

Since men and women do indeed need each other it hardly seems like the government needs to intervene in order to get them to pair up and marry according to their religious preferences.

--AmyB


----------



## didelphus (May 25, 2003)

I just simply don't understand how so much of the American public could be so blind to blantant discrimination?! How have we come to this? I just don't see the difference between saying something like 'Baptists can't get married or 'caucasians can't get married' (just using examples, here, don't take offence if you're Baptist). What's the difference?? Is it because homosexuality hasn't been worked into the long list of what we can't discriminate against YET? It makes me sick. Why do so many people spend so much time and effort hating other people and what the heck does it have to do with government. Church. State. Separate. Is that so hard to see. I would jump at the chance to be able to do something about this.


----------

