Fire and brimstone will rain down upon a Missouri town

[Perd Hapley]

The issue in Springfield is whether to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's "nondiscrimination ordinance." I don't know exactly what that is supposed to entail for the town, but it does mean that those "codifying their beliefs in law" are doing so in favor of "gay rights." 

[Strings]

I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or a bad thing, as the language you've quoted is vague as hell.

If "add sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's 'nondiscrimination ordinance'" means "you can't put up 'no negros gays allowed" signs, I'm cool with that. Unfortunately, the more likely outcome is "we want to make it so anyone of the LBGT crowd who feels offended or slighted can bring the power of the state to bear against the perceived offender", which I am not in favor of for any subculture...

But the underlying problem there is "bringing the power of the state to bear against a person seen as offending X subculture". I would feel the same way about anti-blasphemy laws...

[red headed stranger]

But not in this case.

Did anyone else, besides MechAg, actually happen to catch what they were voting on?

You read too much into my statement. 

And Yes, I knew what they were voting on. 

[RevDisk]

That's the rub isn't it?  We aren't talking about the govt preventing anyone from doing something.  We are talking about whether the govt should official recognize it for whatever reason.  Not the same thing. 

I'd argue that the government has no right to regulate marriage, period, and I think religions are flat out insane for not going completely bonkers over it. But that's me. 

IF government is in the marriage game, for good or ill, equal protection under the law applies. The government should have a really high bar on telling one group of folks "Yes, I shall grant you this shiny special status" and tell another group "Nope, I shall not grant you this shiny special status". I can understand religions getting honked off at the cheapening of marriage, especially in the face of divorce rates these days.

But what's the justification on civil unions that aren't the modern version of miscegenation laws?

[drewtam]

@RevDisk

Yeah,  I would like to see gov't just get out of marriage all together. It has made a huge mess of the matter. From insane divorce laws, child support/welfare, to weird religious entanglements at the federal level (DOMA).

Sometimes I think the gov't should be completely out, or should only enforce contracts as signed; so that marriage can be defined in any way, whatever the contract says (excluding civil/human rights violations, obviously).

Here is an interesting article describing how we got here...
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/09/divorcing-state.html

It was not until relatively recently, in historical terms, that marriage was considered the legitimate business of state government, still less the federal government. Prior to 1987, in Turner v. Safley, when the Supreme Court described marriage as “a relationship that can receive tangible benefits including government benefits and property rights,” there was still some lingering question of the federal government’s power to intervene with the formerly sovereign states of the Union in defining the concept.

The involvement of government in the form of the state in concerning itself with marriage is also relatively new. Virginia’s first legal code consisted of the Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall, enacted in 1610 by Sir Thomas Dale. In this code, Virginia’s Christian ministers were required to record all christenings, marriages and burials they performed. Not until 1631 did the House of Burgesses create marriage licenses.

But these licenses were not required for marriage, and not until 1853 was the Virginia licensing procedure taken away from the churches and given to the county and independent city clerks. Other states made marriage licenses mandatory sooner – in Indiana, for example, county marriage licenses were became necessary in 1800 although the state government did not become directly involved until 1958.

[Jamisjockey]

If it was legal I think I could talk the wife into polygamy...

[Strings]

I'm sure I've posted this here before...

Get the gooberment completely out of the marriage business. Replace the marriage license with a civil union, which is a cohabitation agreement agreement between any 2 or more consenting adults. This document would grant all the same legal status (and rights) as marriage does now.

If you want to get "married", go to the church of your choice. They won't marry you because of <insert reason>? That's your problem.

Unfortunately, it's a workable plan. Therefore, it will never be adopted

[vaskidmark]

If it was legal I think I could talk the wife into polygamy...

But would she let you participate in picking the pool boy?

Always be very careful what you wish for.

stay safe.

[MillCreek]

But would she let you participate in picking the pool boy?

Always be very careful what you wish for.

stay safe.

I was just thinking the very thing!  Jamis relegated to second husband.  But this would give him more time on the boat, so that may not be a bad thing at all.

[CNYCacher]

I was just thinking the very thing!  Jamis relegated to second husband.  But this would give him more time on the boat, so that may not be a bad thing at all.

I think he had in mind bringing another woman into the mix.


So you got it all wrong, Jamis would become the second wife. 

[MechAg94]

I'd argue that the government has no right to regulate marriage, period, and I think religions are flat out insane for not going completely bonkers over it. But that's me. 

IF government is in the marriage game, for good or ill, equal protection under the law applies. The government should have a really high bar on telling one group of folks "Yes, I shall grant you this shiny special status" and tell another group "Nope, I shall not grant you this shiny special status". I can understand religions getting honked off at the cheapening of marriage, especially in the face of divorce rates these days.

But what's the justification on civil unions that aren't the modern version of miscegenation laws?

i don't have much disagreement with the govt getting out of the marriage business.  My main beef is that the govt recognizing gay "marriage" would I think have a lot of bad consequences later. 

[Strings]

>My main beef is that the govt recognizing gay "marriage" would I think have a lot of bad consequences later.<

Such as?