Frank Turek, Christian apologist and decidedly homophobic author, published an opinion piece in The Christian Post.( And, it doesn't take a great deal of investigation to determine what that rag promotes). The article is entitled "Same Sex Marriage: Stealing Rights From God." Yes, we've heard the same, tired, BS arguments over and over ad nauseum from the christian fascist camp. Rights are from God. Without acknowledging god, there can be no rights whatsoever, blah, blah, blah.
Normally, I wouldn't bother posting this, as there is nothing new from his camp that we haven't heard before. However, I was intrigued by the comments section at the end of the article. Not one, single, solitary person agreed with him. Each and every one I read was critical and dismissive of him. Turns out there's good news here. The bibble thumpers are actually getting push back on their own sites.
I suppose if all rights under the Constitution emanate from God, this would include the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms. Which begs the question WCWJU (what caliber would Jesus use). And, for a great video of where rights come from, I would reference the late Mr. George Carlin starting at time marker 4:20.
As an addendum, Frank Turek is one of the theistic apologists who got his ass handed to him by the late Christopher Hitchens.
marriage of any sort is a civil contract, which has attached to it multiple rights and privileges, among which being those related to inheritance and issues regarding medical treatment or withholding of that treatment based on input from a spouse when the patient isn't competent to indicate his/her preference.
Yes, those rights and privileges are written into law as resulting from marriage.
But a person can designate anyone else to inherit from them. And someone can designate a preference when they are competent.
You seem to be saying, basically, that marriage laws serve as a default when people haven't had the foresight to make wills, designate their preferences when they are competent, etc.
But is it even a good default? There are many abusive marriages where people don't even want to have their spouse having such powers. Many people are separated but not legally divorced.
Getting legally divorced is a big deal, that's why many people are separated but not divorced.
But it isn't a big deal to charge one's designation of inheritor in one's will, change one's contact in case of emergency, change who has the power to make decisions regarding medical treatment. One's physician or hospital should ask this when one first seeks treatment.
If you make each of these rights and powers legally separate, it could make things work better, actually.
I remember at one job, the health insurance benefits could be extended to one's domestic partner, of either sex. It had to be a live-in partner.
This seems sensible, because extending the benefits is contingent on one's actual living situation - not whether the people are actually married or not.
If health insurance benefits are extended only to one's legal spouse - that still discriminates against people who have live-in partners but aren't actually married.
Maybe people don't want the entire package of laws that apply to being legally married.
And again - why is the government discriminating against single people in taxation? Why should marriage figure into the tax code at all?
One's number of dependents should figure into taxes - but that is independent of marriage.
Taxes may benefit or hurt married couples. It changes from year to year, and from person to person, couple to couple. The clam that the tax benefits of marriage discriminate against single people is only partly true. Sometimes the laws discriminate against married couples.It dilutes the fairness of the issue, when gay couples have been excluded from marriage, that now instead if including us, we should do away with the institution altogether. An idea that has a snowball's chance in hell. I could just see how many votes a politician would get by running on the "no marriage for anyone" plank.
If marriage were replaced by a civil union with features you can choose individually, perhaps that would work for people.
I would feel strange about it, if I got married and the division of property, etc. is regulated by the state. Maybe I don't like all of the marriage laws of the state I live in. I suppose a lot of the marriage laws can be superseded by a civil contract, but then you're making a civil contract anyway.
Also, one argument that's made against gay marriage is that heterosexual marriage involves children. They say the marriage laws are designed around the situation of having children.
But this doesn't work well. Some heterosexual couples are deliberately childless. Some gay couples have children - adopted, or resulting from a previous heterosexual relationship. Gay couples are probably less likely to have children associated with them.
The conditions of a civil union ought to depend on whether there are children involved - but not on the gender of the people in it. Heterosexual couples who are in a union but don't have children and don't plan to have children, probably should have different laws applied to them than to couples - gay or straight - who do have children.
he definitely got his ass handed to him, lol!
ps. this is bullshit
furthermore there's 7,000 000 000 fucking people on the planet, WE DON'T NEED TO PERPETUATE SOCIETY!
I agree completely. People whose argument against marriage equality includes the idea that people wont reproduce if a relative handful can marry a person of the same sex, are either amazingly stupid, or disingenuous.
I used to argue that as same sex couples were not capable of reproducing their "sin" is on the side of the angels. But in the meantime, two things happened. One, I became an atheist; two, same sex couples began having babies by artificial insemination (when they were not adopting children, which is more admirable). It now seems entirely possible to me as as we evolve we have less and less need of populating the earth. Because we can artificial inseminate we can not only guarantee added population when we need it (?) and make sure that our offspring will be (1) beautiful, and (2) smart as hell. Brave new world, indeed! The gnostics believed that having babies was evil since humans contain a spark of the divine sadly intermingled with matter, which they thought evil. Maybe the breeders should convert to gnosticism.