...and here's the slippery slope

Many also think that only one man and one woman can join. I disagree and it doesn't belong in the public sphere, yet there it sits anyway. If you want to get married and have it recognized in all 50 states, you have to be a man and a woman. It's discriminatory. I say get those moral judgments out of government and treat everyone equally. You can then go out and get your civil union affirmed through the covenant of marriage by the religion of your choice. Just like drinking is legal, but if you don't drink you can join a church where imbibing alcohol is frowned upon. I don't say "fuck 'em" and shove it down their throats. I say if you have those beliefs, you may seek an organization that affirms them.

 

Here is one article.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-25-friendly-divorces_N.htm

And it talks about all the amicable outs that don't require your arbitration method, because there are already arbitration in place "mediation"

 

small percentage

far fewer that those muslims that think they should strap on a bomb and claim their 72 virgins

 

Here's the key quote from that article: "No one keeps statistics on the number of mediated and collaborative divorces." So, there are no statistics.

Again, divorce is a lose-lose game. A common tactic when one is losing a negotiation, one changes the rules of the game. So why not change the rules of the game of divorce? Both sides are guaranteed to lose. You don't need government involved.

For example, I negotiated a prenup with my wife before we were married. It included clauses for bad acts on either of our parts with financial penalties attached. It included guidelines how we would raise any children we had in the event of a divorce. In other words, we changed the rules of the game: we negotiated when we were in love, rather than when we both hated each other. It comes down to personal responsibility. We have a responsibility to our families, our child, our friends, our co-workers, etc. to handle our personal business behind closed doors. We don't need lawyers or a judge to decide these issues. We're responsible for our own lives.

 

Sigh. You do realize that it does have an effect on them, don't you? If it's called marriage for those people, if it is given the same religious covenant as those people who may disagree with gay marriage or polyandry, they feel their own unions are diminished. That objection is why our government--which is not allowed to discriminate--discriminate against people who love one another simply because they don't fit into a one man, one woman structure.

I find it personally offensive that when I was single I could get drunk in Vegas and wake up married, but my gay friends who had been together for years don't have the same right. Civil unions for all solves that problem.

Split the legal from the spiritual.

 

It's absolutely easy to tell Howard go to trial because its public record. I think they mean, the ugly to the normal ones.

And anyway, you keep talking about amicable and I'm showing you over and over and over again that option is already available. I still don't know what you are trying to argue

 

I'm trying to argue to get the government out completely. No court. Nothing. No legal filing. No judgment by the state. Make people responsible for the dissolution of their relationship. Don't go running to the government. Again, make it about personal responsibility.

Hell, I looked at that article, and even a $39.95 quickie divorce cost over $500 in court fees. Why should the court be involved at all? It should be worked out privately, then you simply have a form that changes your status on a local, state and federal level that doesn't require a court order.

 

If we replace the word marriage from all laws with civil unions, what is or who decides the criteria for a valid civil union?

 

Hurting someone's feelings a tiny bit doesn't count.

 

would this be too simple?

For those that want to make sure there is a seperation of church and state, why should state be able to dictate policy to church?

 

Will Congress continue to offer different tax rates to "married" couples if it includes Gay couples?

Or will they change the law to redefine the tax law to target married men and women filing jointly?
This was the original intent, Will the predominately Republican House allow the courts to change their intent?

 

wll, yeah, they have. I dont care if they have the same "rights"

What I dont care for ir two fold

Government dictating what the church does..as well as private Orgs like the Boy scouts

and the very fact that the Government believes tha it needs to be involved.

Find a real issue

 

Governments can't discriminate.

 

Really? Tell Obama that

 

Our government discriminates all the time right now, especially when it comes to marriage. It shouldn't. Equal rights for all.

 

Which religions are beating the drum to ban drinking in this country?

Go Blazers