New Type of Marriage Would Make Divorce Harder

[Kori Ellis]

What do you think of this?

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d2404863-02aa-4931-bf80-b02a9144cb34

Marriage may change here in Texas. That's because a state representative has proposed a law that would allow "covenant marriages." Texas State Rep. Bill Zedler’s bill would allow existing marriages to be converted into covenant marriages.

The idea is to make divorces harder to get. Covenant marriages recognize marriage as a social and moral relationship, instead of just a legal one.

Zelder tells 1200 WOAI News participants in covenant marriages would not be able to utilize 'no fault' divorces currently the law in Texas and other states. To divorce, one of the spouses would have to break one of the "covenants" – which include conviction of a felony, going to prison for a year, being abusive, or cheating.

A covenant marriage would also require a revised marriage oath. It would state, "We declare our intent to contract a covenant marriage. We do hereby declare that our marriage will be bound by Texas law on covenant marriage and we promise to love, honor, and care for one another, as husband and wife, for the rest of our lives."

Covenant marriages would be optional under Zedler's measure, and couples could opt out of covenant marriages and instead enter into a traditional marriage.

Experience in the three states, Arkansas, Arizona, and Louisiana, which currently allow covenant marriages, has indicated that participation in them is limited to between 1% and 3% of total marriages.

Opponents say covenant marriages are essentially a religious, not a legal, agreement, and states should have no business getting involved in religious agreements.

[Spurminator]

Opponents say covenant marriages are essentially a religious, not a legal, agreement, and states should have no business getting involved in religious agreements.

:tu

[sandman]

So the insertion of a "morality" clause changes the sanctioning authority from being governmental to being religious? Interesting.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Why would you want to make it more difficult for people to get out of dysfunctional relationships?? What an idiotic notion!

[Extra Stout]

Covenant marriage would only have value to those people who view the religious and state institutions of marriage as one and the same.

[clambake]

It might make divorce even easier. Just cheat.

[sandman]

Covenant marriage would only have value to those people who view the religious and state institutions of marriage as one and the same.

Ah, but the article states that the need for covenant marriages are driven from social and moral influences. Nothing is mentioned about religion, which is the tail that wags the dog to some around here. This seems to be about man being more self aware, recognizing the needs to hold himself to a higher standard of social and moral responsibility.

The only one mentioning religion are the opponents, ironically.

[Extra Stout]

Ah, but the article states that the need for covenant marriages are driven from social and moral influences. Nothing is mentioned about religion, which is the tail that wags the dog to some around here. This seems to be about man being more self aware, recognizing the needs to hold himself to a higher standard of social and moral responsibility.

The only one mentioning religion are the opponents, ironically.
I don't need a special kind of marriage decreed by the state to reinforce my social and moral responsibility to my family.

[sandman]

I don't need a special kind of marriage decreed by the state to reinforce my social and moral responsibility to my family.

I don't either, my friend. I already see the vows I took as both a part of my faith and legal obligations. Just being sarcastic about those who foam at the mouth over religious influences.

btw, coming up on 15 years soon and don't regret a minute of it. I just don't get the irreconcilable differences thing. Going to ditch the kids with Grandma in Wyoming and take the Mrs to England for a week.

[blaze89]

Why do I get the feeling the sponsor of this bill will be involved in an act that would break "covenant marriage."

[tsb2000]

I've got a feeling this will allow the "civil union" to come into play, maybe redefined as a lesser degree of marriage. Everyone should mind both edges of this sword, regardless of which side they are on. :)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ah, but the article states that the need for covenant marriages are driven from social and moral influences. Nothing is mentioned about religion, which is the tail that wags the dog to some around here. This seems to be about man being more self aware, recognizing the needs to hold himself to a higher standard of social and moral responsibility.

The only one mentioning religion are the opponents, ironically.


I agree with you but why should the state get involved to 'make man more self aware, and the need for him to hold himself to a higher standard?' If it's a symbolic issue then it's just a waste of time and tax payer money. If the issue is more of a legislative one then one must ask what is the limit of the state in regards to legislating behaviour?

[TDMVPDPOY]

dudes an idiot for comin up with this shit, theres alot of shit you cant control in life....

[101A]

No big deal, IMO; after all it's voluntary.

Besides, I'd like to see dudes squirm when their fiance's insist on a "covenant" marriage.

Also, a little surprised at the liberals take on this; that the government ought not have a hand in morality; I thought that's what you people were all about. I mean, the government takes money from people to give to the poor for moral reasons, right - or is it for the stability and betterment of society (which is the stated purpose of this proposal, after all)? What about "hate" crimes; they carry heavier penalties based on a moral judgement, right?

[sandman]

If the issue is more of a legislative one then one must ask what is the limit of the state in regards to legislating behaviour?

Would it be more accurate to state that society and not government should "legislate" acceptable/non-acceptable behaviors?

[George Gervin's Afro]

No big deal, IMO; after all it's voluntary.

Besides, I'd like to see dudes squirm when their fiance's insist on a "covenant" marriage.

Also, a little surprised at the liberals take on this; that the government ought not have a hand in morality; I thought that's what you people were all about. I mean, the government takes money from people to give to the poor for moral reasons, right - or is it for the stability and betterment of society (which is the stated purpose of this proposal, after all)? What about "hate" crimes; they carry heavier penalties based on a moral judgement, right?


Morality is an is an individual issue. One that each person must decide if they are moral. Social programs are designed to assist individuals with the basic necessities. I think we are morally obligated to help other folks. We are not however obligated to make these folks moral people. Now you won't get an argument from if you say there is entirely to much waste and fraud.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Would it be more accurate to state that society and not government should "legislate" acceptable/non-acceptable behaviors?


I think we do with the current laws we have in place. People who harm society have to pay for their mistakes. When you allow for 'society' legislate acceptable vs unacceptable then you run into problems. How would you define society?

[Spurminator]

This is so ridiculous, I can't believe some of you are getting sucked in by this. What a sham. Our roads are shit, crime is bad, and our legislators are busy drawing up a proposal to create a Super-Ultra-Mega-Marriage that's more of a commitment than regular marriage?

Why is the government involved in marriage? What right does government have to give special benefits to two people who enter into a religious agreement, and make rules about who qualifies for these benefits?

Maybe if we weren't allowing a man-made entity like the government to dictate a Religious institution, divorce rates would be lower. Just a theory.

[boutons_]

The holy-rolling, self-appointed, crusading, sanctimonious do-gooders are trying legislate saving our souls and our morality, and this is just a jerkoff pandering to such a constitutency.

What goes on between a man and women is strictly, "sacredly" between them and absolutely nobody else, especially not the state. Are the sheeple so fucking dazed and confused, dumbed down, and lobotomized by the corps and pop culture that they need the state to prop up and enforce their intimate relationships?

[MannyIsGod]

This is so ridiculous, I can't believe some of you are getting sucked in by this. What a sham. Our roads are shit, crime is bad, and our legislators are busy drawing up a proposal to create a Super-Ultra-Mega-Marriage that's more of a commitment than regular marriage?

Why is the government involved in marriage? What right does government have to give special benefits to two people who enter into a religious agreement, and make rules about who qualifies for these benefits?

Maybe if we weren't allowing a man-made entity like the government to dictate a Religious institution, divorce rates would be lower. Just a theory.:tu

Educate the damn kids.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

This is so ridiculous, I can't believe some of you are getting sucked in by this. What a sham. Our roads are shit, crime is bad, and our legislators are busy drawing up a proposal to create a Super-Ultra-Mega-Marriage that's more of a commitment than regular marriage?

Why is the government involved in marriage? What right does government have to give special benefits to two people who enter into a religious agreement, and make rules about who qualifies for these benefits?

Maybe if we weren't allowing a man-made entity like the government to dictate a Religious institution, divorce rates would be lower. Just a theory.

Why say it again when Spurminator has said it so well already?

[velik_m]

This is so ridiculous, I can't believe some of you are getting sucked in by this. What a sham. Our roads are shit, crime is bad, and our legislators are busy drawing up a proposal to create a Super-Ultra-Mega-Marriage that's more of a commitment than regular marriage?

Why is the government involved in marriage? What right does government have to give special benefits to two people who enter into a religious agreement, and make rules about who qualifies for these benefits?

Maybe if we weren't allowing a man-made entity like the government to dictate a Religious institution, divorce rates would be lower. Just a theory.

:tu

[2centsworth]

No big deal, IMO; after all it's voluntary.
Is everyone missing the point that it's voluntary? I personally would love another reason to marry my wife and make it harder for us to get divorced. It's not like the law is forcing people who shack up to get married.

[Spurminator]

But what's the point? Why do you need the Government to hold you accountable for your marriage?

So great, we would have just regular marriages and Super-Ultra-Mega-Marriages. Can you imagine new marriage proposals?

"Will you marry me?"

"Yes. Is it a covenant marriage?"

"Well, I don't want to get THAT married."

"Oh, great, so you want an easy way out if you change your mind?"

"No I just..."

"Oh whatever, just put that cubic zirconia ring on my finger and let's call our parents."

[2centsworth]

But what's the point? Why do you need the Government to hold you accountable for your marriage?
I don't need the government, but based on your argument I never needed to get married in the first place.

Maybe you really do want to destroy the concept of marriage?

[2centsworth]

it's not like the covenant marriage law would force people to abide by their marriage vows either

this is like the law that wanted to outlaw the bare midriffs of highschool cheerleaders
your logic is flawed. this does not "outlaw" anything. It allows people to voluntarily submit themselves to a higher standard.

[Spurminator]

I don't need the government, but based on your argument I never needed to get married in the first place.

Maybe you really do want to destroy the concept of marriage?


Uh, no. I want it back where it belongs. In the Church, controlled by the One who created it in the first place.

[Spurminator]

I bet when this falls flat, Bill O'Reilly will claim there's a War on Marriage.

[Spurminator]

You know, Weddings are "voluntary" too. But try telling your Texas Fiance that you just want to elope in Las Vegas.

[2centsworth]

Uh, no. I want it back where it belongs. In the Church, controlled by the One who created it in the first place.
Are you're arguing that all marriages should legally be desolved and should not be regulated or sactioned by the government?

[Spurminator]

Man, I really want to divorce my wife, but we're covenantly married. Guess I'll just have to beat her or fuck her sister.

Decisions...

[Spurminator]

Are you're arguing that all marriages should legally be desolved and should not be regulated or sactioned by the government?

"Legally" dissolving marriage is unnecessary in my scenario. I AM arguing that Marriage should not be regulated or sanctioned by the government, yes.

[2centsworth]

oh yeah kids have to become cheerleaders

but that wasn't the point -- the point was it's a feel good, do nothing, stupid ass piece of shit legislation that some lawmaker is pitching in order to garner votes from the high and moral
yes religious people would probably like the option to submit themselves to such a standard and would probably vote for this lawmaker. However, I do not see how that makes it a piece of sh* and why garnering votes from your constituents is wrong.

This law wouldn't affect anyone except the people who signed up for it.

[FromWayDowntown]

Are you're arguing that all marriages should legally be desolved and should not be regulated or sactioned by the government?

I don't think that's Spurm's point at all.

To me the point is that government shouldn't do anything more with marriage than perhaps recognize its existence and accord it some sort of useful legal status (for the purposes of disposing of property upon death, for instance)

For those who wish to impose higher standards upon their own marriages -- exactly what it appears this law would allow -- the voluntarily choice to regulate a marriage by a particular religious, social, or moral doctrine is there. There's no particular reason that such a choice needs (or even should have) the state's imprimitur to be valid.

And, if that's true, the best thing for the State to do is simply back off.

[2centsworth]

Man, I really want to divorce my wife, but we're covenantly married. Guess I'll just have to beat her or fuck her sister.

Decisions...
life is full of choices. What's your point?

[2centsworth]

"Legally" dissolving marriage is unnecessary in my scenario. I AM arguing that Marriage should not be regulated or sanctioned by the government, yes.
not being regulated or sanctioned by the government would essentially" legally" disolve all marriages.

Are you a gay marriage supporter?

[Spurminator]

I mean this is EXACTLY why Marriage should be a strictly Religious institution. When you let idiot Lawmakers decide what "Marriage" is, suddenly you have idiots like this one determining that there are different "levels" of Marriage.

God must be laughing right now.

[Spurminator]

not being regulated or sanctioned by the government would essentially" legally" disolve all marriages.

Are you a gay marriage supporter?

I believe that if benefits are given for two people who join into a certain kind of legal "union," then those benefits should be extended to any two people.

I just don't get why we have to call it "marriage."

[Yonivore]

Uh, no. I want it back where it belongs. In the Church, controlled by the One who created it in the first place.
I'm for that just as long as you remove any benefits or penalties related to being married.

For instance, everyone pays for insurance. No more employee and spouse coverages. If you want to buy insurance for your wife or your children or the hobo on the corner of IH-35 and Rundberg, you pay full price.

If you'll remove all the marriage-related garbage from our laws, I'd be for letting it be defined by whomever wants to define it; churches, cults, whomever.

[Spurminator]

I'm for that just as long as you remove any benefits or penalties related to being married.

For instance, everyone pays for insurance. No more employee and spouse coverages. If you want to buy insurance for your wife or your children or the hobo on the corner of IH-35 and Rundberg, you pay full price.

If you'll remove all the marriage-related garbage from our laws, I'd be for letting it be defined by whomever wants to define it; churches, cults, whomever.

Well, I think employers/insurance companies should have the right to offer package deals to whomever they want, but I agree with your basic premise.

[2centsworth]

To me the point is that government shouldn't do anything more with marriage than perhaps recognize its existence and accord it some sort of useful legal status (for the purposes of disposing of property upon death, for instance)
A contract should be as flexible as one wants. Someone could even have a prenuptual agreement if they wanted.




For those who wish to impose higher standards upon their own marriages -- exactly what it appears this law would allow -- the voluntarily choice to regulate a marriage by a particular religious, social, or moral doctrine is there. There's no particular reason that such a choice needs (or even should have) the state's imprimitur to be valid.

is there a particular reason it should not have the state's imprimitur? besides it's moral, because there's no way it can be deemed religious.




And, if that's true, the best thing for the State to do is simply back off.
back off of everything moral, social and religious... like helping the homeless?

[2centsworth]

I believe that if benefits are given for two people who join into a certain kind of legal "union," then those benefits should be extended to any two people.

I just don't get why we have to call it "marriage."
does sex have to be involved to get those benefits of which you speak?

[2centsworth]

it's unnecessary and a waste of resources (albeit, like a lot of legislation)
so your argument changes to it waste money? Now that I might agree with.

[Spurminator]

You mean sex like gender, or sex like whoopie? Either way, the answer is no.

[2centsworth]

You mean sex like gender, or sex like whoopie? Either way, the answer is no.
like whoopie. then I don't have a clue what you're describing besides everyone stay single because there aren't extra benefits to being married that I'm aware of except health insurance coverage.

[FromWayDowntown]

A contract should be as flexible as one wants. Someone could even have a prenuptual agreement if they wanted.

And if all the State does is set the floor -- recognizing that there is a legal status of being "married" that carries with it some significance -- there's nothing that prohibits individuals from having the flexibility to define their marriage however they choose to. If a couple wishes to operate under standards like those proposed for covenant marriages, so be it; if a couple wishes to view their marriage as a matter of convenience or expediency and maintain the ability to bail out whenever they choose to do so, so be it; if a couple wants to define their marriage by some middle of the road view, so be it. The State doesn't have to sanction each of those choices; it would only have to recognize the existence of the status of marriage.


is there a particular reason it should not have the state's imprimitur? besides it's moral, because there's no way it can be deemed religious.

I think there are compelling arguments for and against state recognition of marriage. Where the state chooses to recognize the status of marriage, though, I can't see a compelling reason to stratify the status based on the individual choices made by those who undertake the status. That's not the State's business. If the individuals involved in a marriage want to contract with each other to make it more difficult for either of them to invalidate the marriage, then that's their choice; but, again, they don't need the State's involvement to do that. I'm not sure why that's not self-evident.


back off of everything moral, social and religious... like helping the homeless?

So, should I take it then that you favor heavy-handed state regulation of legal status wherever possible?

[2centsworth]

And if all the State does is set the floor -- recognizing that there is a legal status of being "married" that carries with it some significance -- there's nothing that prohibits individuals from having the flexibility to define their marriage however they choose to. If a couple wishes to operate under standards like those proposed for covenant marriages, so be it; if a couple wishes to view their marriage as a matter of convenience or expediency and maintain the ability to bail out whenever they choose to do so, so be it; if a couple wants to define their marriage by some middle of the road view, so be it. The State doesn't have to sanction each of those choices; it would only have to recognize the existence of the status of marriage.

I agree with everything you said there. However, the state sanctioning two choices instead of one is no big deal IMO.


If the individuals involved in a marriage want to contract with each other to make it more difficult for either of them to invalidate the marriage, then that's their choice; but, again, they don't need the State's involvement to do that. you're right but there are many who want to subject themeselves to a higher standard. I don't think the state providing an easier means than highering an attorney is such a bad thing. On the contrary, I'm in favor of saving on attorney cost. btw, I have nothing against lawyers except the ones who aren't my friends or don't work for me lol..


So, should I take it then that you favor heavy-handed state regulation of legal status wherever possible?

it's not heavy handed because most importantly it's voluntary, but also it sounds pretty weak. Now outlawing Trans Fats sounds heavy handed.

[Spurminator]

like whoopie. then I don't have a clue what you're describing besides everyone stay single because there aren't extra benefits to being married that I'm aware of except health insurance coverage.

When I got married, benefits weren't a part of that decision. I got married as a lifelong commitment to my wife and God.

[2centsworth]

When I got married, benefits weren't a part of that decision. I got married as a lifelong commitment to my wife and God.
why are you married if you don't believe in it?

[Yonivore]

Well, I think employers/insurance companies should have the right to offer package deals to whomever they want, but I agree with your basic premise.
You might also agree that employers/insurance companies would like to control and limit the number of people that are covered at a reduced rate and, so, are probably opposed to "gay marriage" on those grounds alone.

[Yonivore]

:smchode: I AGREE WITH YONIVORE :smchode:
The temperature in Hell just dropped 4 degrees.

[Spurminator]

why are you married if you don't believe in it?


I never said I don't believe in it.

[Phenomanul]

It's because of ramifications to other facets of life that the government even meddles with the issue. Whether you like it or not, the government has to patrol the welfare of society... and families are the smallest self-supporting sub-units of the population - not individuals. The marriage contract therefore serves to protect the welfare of those not able to protect themselves (i.e. children).

This 'new covenant standard' just stresses that importance... Whether or not liberals believe it, the breakup of families is what is driving this country to 'crap'; lack of parental guidance has been leading generation after generation into a deeper and deeper hole.... Children taking care of children??? That is not helping anyone...

Without sufficient guidance, acceptance and proper nurture children will rebel - shoot, they will sometimes rebel even when those benefits and a caring environment are provided. Anyway, rebelious generations have driven the productivity of society down while increasing the burden placed on the welfare-state.

Drugs, alcohol, unwanted babies, violence, gangs... half of society's problems could be curbed if we strengthened the bonds that glue this society together. I don't know how trying to make that bond even more binding would be detrimental. Especially 1) because as already pointed out it is voluntary and 2) because it is not claiming to be or meant to be a stop-gap measure. Reversing national divorce rates will take time. Making responsible adults out of the population will take even longer.

This has nothing to do with religion... and everthing to do with the efficient functionality of society (at least from the government's perspective).

[2centsworth]

I never said I don't believe in it.
let me rephrase that. Why are you legally married if you don't believe in state sanctioned marriages?

[Spurminator]

Because that's the way it works right now. I don't think I'm receiving any unfair benefits, and I'm certainly not going to deny them as some sort of protest, I just think others should be entitled to those benefits as well. And I don't feel the government has to dictate arbitrary rules for me and my spouse/partner/whoever to get those benefits.

But the way the system is now, that's how it works. I don't like the current Electoral system either, but I still vote.

[Spurminator]

It's because of ramifications to other facets of life that the government even meddles with the issue. Whether you like it or not, the government has to patrol the welfare of society... and families are the smallest self-supporting sub-units of the population - not individuals. The marriage contract therefore serves to protect the welfare of those not able to protect themselves (i.e. children).

This 'new covenant standard' just stresses that importance... Whether or not liberals believe it, the breakup of families is what is driving this country to 'crap'; lack of parental guidance has been leading generation after generation into a deeper and deeper hole.... Children taking care of children??? That is not helping anyone...

Without sufficient guidance, acceptance and proper nurture children will rebel - shoot, they will sometimes rebel even when those benefits and a caring environment are provided. Anyway, rebelious generations have driven the productivity of society down while increasing the burden placed on the welfare-state.

Drugs, alcohol, unwanted babies, violence, gangs... half of society's problems could be curbed if we strengthened the bonds that glue this society together. I don't know how trying to make that bond even more binding would be detrimental. Especially 1) because as already pointed out it is voluntary and 2) because it is not claiming to be or meant to be a stop-gap measure. Reversing national divorce rates will take time. Making responsible adults out of the population will take even longer.

This has nothing to do with religion... and everthing to do with the efficient functionality of society (at least from the government's perspective).


There are better ways to curb society's problems than inventing new levels of marriage. Most of the problems you cite are rooted in parts of society where there was never a marriage in the first place.

Over time, I think this could lead to fewer marriages. Would that be positive for society? Why does it have to be difficult or threatening?

[Crookshanks]

Many of you have said the State shouldn't regulate marriage - but they already do. You can't get married without a license issued by the State and you have to go through the State courts in order to get divorced. All this law would do is make it harder to get a divorce for basically "no reason." If it were harder to get a divorce, maybe some couples would try harder to make the marriage work instead of bailing out at the first sign of trouble.

And anyway, many evangelicals already treat their marriage as a covenant relationship. I know the divorce rate among christians is just as high, but I believe they wait longer to pull the plug.

[Extra Stout]

This 'new covenant standard' just stresses that importance... Whether or not liberals believe it, the breakup of families is what is driving this country to 'crap'; lack of parental guidance has been leading generation after generation into a deeper and deeper hole.... Children taking care of children??? That is not helping anyone...
Covenant marriage at best only would be entered into by people who take their marriages seriously in the first place, and would do nothing to reverse the breakup of families.

Think about it. If someone thinks they would need the added barriers to divorce of a covenant marriage, they would do better to call off the engagement in the first place.

Government is a weak agent to change culture. Our culture of marriage is the problem. The root causes of that are myriad and complex, but I can assure you that the problem is not that we lack covenant marriage as defined by the state for us.

[2centsworth]

Because that's the way it works right now. I don't think I'm receiving any unfair benefits, and I'm certainly not going to deny them as some sort of protest, I just think others should be entitled to those benefits as well. And I don't feel the government has to dictate arbitrary rules for me and my spouse/partner/whoever to get those benefits.

But the way the system is now, that's how it works. I don't like the current Electoral system either, but I still vote.What benefits are you talking about? The marriage penalty?

The government isn't dictating anything, they are just facilitating one version of a contract we/society calls "marriage".

This proposal is in favor of the government facilitating a second version not much different from the first. However, you advocate the abolition of any government sponsored recognition of marriage.

On the other hand I'm assuming you support gay marriage and your own legal state sponsored marriage.

Maybe you're against any state sponsored marriage law except the ones you support?

[2centsworth]

Think about it. If someone thinks they would need the added barriers to divorce of a covenant marriage, they would do better to call off the engagement in the first place.

that's a stretch. Again, using your logic why get married at all?

[Extra Stout]

Many of you have said the State shouldn't regulate marriage - but they already do. You can't get married without a license issued by the State and you have to go through the State courts in order to get divorced. All this law would do is make it harder to get a divorce for basically "no reason." If it were harder to get a divorce, maybe some couples would try harder to make the marriage work instead of bailing out at the first sign of trouble.

And anyway, many evangelicals already treat their marriage as a covenant relationship. I know the divorce rate among christians is just as high, but I believe they wait longer to pull the plug.
The state regulates things like property rights, inheritance rights, taxes, and custody of dependents with marriage and divorce laws. The laws say little about the relationship between husband and wife. Even if they did say more, they would be unenforceable and empty.

As the prospective law in Texas is written, in order to get a divorce from a covenant marriage, a couple could simply opt back into a regular marriage and proceed from there. Adding a couple of administrative hoops is hardly a barrier for people who want to be apart from one another.

So covenant marriage is merely symbolic. In my view, God's law in marriage trumps man's law, so a gussied-up human arrangement adds zero value.

Things like this do not address root causes of social problems.

Bringing up divorce among evangelicals is a good place to start pondering. What friends do you have in the church that have gotten divorced? What were the reasons?

[2centsworth]

So covenant marriage is merely symbolic. In my view, God's law in marriage trumps man's law, so a gussied-up human arrangement adds zero value.


this is a community property state so it's not totally symbolic.

[PixelPusher]

The temperature in Hell just dropped 4 degrees.
It's about to get a lot colder...I agree with Yoni too.

The reason marriage is "officially recognized" by the state to begin with is that marriage is, at it's core, a business contract in which resources (money, property) are pooled to form a partnership. The religious ceremony involved is irrelevant to the legal standing implicit in obtaining a marriage license. If you think marriage should be strictly the domain of religion, then have the wedding ceremony, shack up together and don't get a marriage license.

[2centsworth]

It's about to get a lot colder...I agree with Yoni too.

The reason marriage is "officially recognized" by the state to begin with is that marriage is, at it's core, a business contract in which resources (money, property) are pooled to form a partnership. The religious ceremony involved is irrelevant to the legal standing implicit in obtaining a marriage license. If you think marriage should be strictly the domain of religion, then have the wedding ceremony, shack up together and don't get a marriage license.

:toast

[Extra Stout]

that's a stretch. Again, using your logic why get married at all?
What are you talking about? I get married in the legal sense because I want to establish a legal household with my spouse, collectivize our assets, gain executory rights, etc., i.e., all the privileges accompanying marriage that make it easier to run a household.

What does a covenant marriage add to that? Do I need the nanny-state to make sure I don't lose all my morals and divorce my wife? No. Am I concerned that it will be too easy for my prospective wife to divorce me unless I get the state involved? Then the relationship lacks trust in the first place.

It is the job of family, friends, social network, and religious fellowship where applicable to be on the front lines of helping families struggling to stay together. If they can't or won't do it, then the culture is irretrievably degraded and I'm sorry, but government can't help us.

[2centsworth]

What are you talking about? I get married in the legal sense because I want to establish a legal household with my spouse, collectivize our assets, gain executory rights, etc., i.e., all the privileges accompanying marriage that make it easier to run a household. all of that can be accomplish without the state's involvement.


What does a covenant marriage add to that? Do I need the nanny-state to make sure I don't lose all my morals and divorce my wife? No. Am I concerned that it will be too easy for my prospective wife to divorce me unless I get the state involved? Then the relationship lacks trust in the first place.tthe covenant marriage doesn't subtract from what you want to do either. The out clauses are symbolic because you're not obligated to submit yourself to the convenant clauses. I probably would as pure symbolism, but that's between me and my wife and I'm grateful that state is considering making it less expensive for me and my wife to enter into such an agreement.


It is the job of family, friends, social network, and religious fellowship where applicable to be on the front lines of helping families struggling to stay together. If they can't or won't do it, then the culture is irretrievably degraded and I'm sorry, but government can't help us.I agree but why should you decide what symbolic arrangement I have with my wife?

[MannyIsGod]

This thread is fuunnnnnnnnnnny.

[Extra Stout]

all of that can be accomplish without the state's involvement.
But it is much, much more difficult and cumbersome.


I agree but why should you decide what symbolic arrangement I have with my wife?
If you are part of a sufficiently large group which values the symbolism that covenant marriage would dispense, then fine.

But be under no illusion that it would solve any social problems. It is very much preaching to the choir, so to speak.

[Spurminator]

This proposal is in favor of the government facilitating a second version not much different from the first. However, you advocate the abolition of any government sponsored recognition of marriage.

On the other hand I'm assuming you support gay marriage and your own legal state sponsored marriage.

Maybe you're against any state sponsored marriage law except the ones you support?

You have created a false assumption that because I am party to something, I believe it is ideal. I don't have to forego the entitlements the government assigns to "marriage" just because I believe the government's religiously-influenced definition of "marriage" is outside the scope of its responsibility.

[Phenomanul]

Covenant marriage at best only would be entered into by people who take their marriages seriously in the first place, and would do nothing to reverse the breakup of families.

Think about it. If someone thinks they would need the added barriers to divorce of a covenant marriage, they would do better to call off the engagement in the first place.

Government is a weak agent to change culture. Our culture of marriage is the problem. The root causes of that are myriad and complex, but I can assure you that the problem is not that we lack covenant marriage as defined by the state for us.


All I was addressing was the question of why government even 'feels' the need to address the marriage issue....

But I agree, the goverment itself can't do much at this point. Those that want marriage to work will invest their life into it. Unfortunately though, the more and more marriages continue to fail, the higher the burden that will have to be shouldered by society and the more likely that divorce will be propagated to the next generation. I'm not sure any government can stop the monster that has been created now.

[2centsworth]

You have created a false assumption that because I am party to something, I believe it is ideal. I don't have to forego the entitlements the government assigns to "marriage" just because I believe the government's religiously-influenced definition of "marriage" is outside the scope of its responsibility.no entitlements assigned to marriage. I can't help your anti-religous stance.

[2centsworth]

But it is much, much more difficult and cumbersome.


If you are part of a sufficiently large group which values the symbolism that covenant marriage would dispense, then fine.

But be under no illusion that it would solve any social problems. It is very much preaching to the choir, so to speak.
bingo! to your argument, not that I neccessarily agree with you.

[Guru of Nothing]

This thread is fuunnnnnnnnnnny.

Concur.

This type of legislation is just more political sleight-of-hand bullshit.

Is it considered cheating when a politician fucks you?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Say a couple enters a covenant marriage, and 5 years later they realize they didn't know each other that well before, and perhaps they are not meant for each other (it happens). Again, what good could come from making it difficult for those people to end their dysfunctional relationship? You think because the law tells you, you can't divorce, that the love is magically rekindled?

Yes, you could say "well, if people want to be able to divorce each other with ease then they can chose the normal marriage". However, lets face it when people decide to get married, they're not thinking about divorce! Its not like couples rationalise the possibility of divorce before professing their love to each other.

Forcing people to stay together simply to maintain the "family unit" is not going to solve a thing IMO.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Concur.

This type of legislation is just more political sleight-of-hand bullshit.

Is it considered cheating when a politician fucks you?
:lmao

[SpursWoman]

It's about to get a lot colder...I agree with Yoni too.

The reason marriage is "officially recognized" by the state to begin with is that marriage is, at it's core, a business contract in which resources (money, property) are pooled to form a partnership. The religious ceremony involved is irrelevant to the legal standing implicit in obtaining a marriage license. If you think marriage should be strictly the domain of religion, then have the wedding ceremony, shack up together and don't get a marriage license.

:tu


But be sure both of your names aren't on the mortgage, because if they are that pretty much makes you married under Texas common law. :spin

[SpursWoman]

Say a couple enters a covenant marriage, and 5 years later they realize they didn't know each other that well before, and perhaps they are not meant for each other (it happens). Again, what good could come from making it difficult for those people to end their dysfunctional relationship? You think because the law tells you, you can't divorce, that the love is magically rekindled?

Yes, you could say "well, if people want to be able to divorce each other with ease then they can chose the normal marriage". However, lets face it when people decide to get married, they're not thinking about divorce! Its not like couples rationalise the possibility of divorce before professing their love to each other.

Forcing people to stay together simply to maintain the "family unit" is not going to solve a thing IMO.

From my own perspective, I would say that making it more difficult to get a divorce would make people want to get to know each other better before they make the kind of committment marriage is supposed to be.

Would you sign a 30 year mortgage and not read the fine print?

The scenerio you described above is exactly the reason the divorce rate is so high.

"Awww, fuck it. Next!"

[Spurminator]

no entitlements assigned to marriage. I can't help your anti-religous stance.

:rolleyes

My anti-religious stance? :lol Nice give-up. How is my stance anti-religion? Have I suggested anywhere that marriage should be banned?


As for marriage benefits, here's some reading for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

[boutons_]

Even the Pakis refuse to enact a law enforcing a sect's morality:

'Taleban law' blocked in Pakistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6182395.stm

Texas has never been known as a modern, progressive, open-minded state, at least at the state law level.

[Extra Stout]

Even the Pakis refuse to enact a law enforcing a sect's morality:

'Taleban law' blocked in Pakistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6182395.stm

Texas has never been known as a modern, progressive, open-minded state, at least at the state law level.
Right, because a voluntary and inefficacious marriage option is exactly the same as Sharia law.

You're like the Archie Bunker of anti-evangelicals.

[Spurminator]

:lol

[boutons_]

"exactly the same as Sharia law."

You said that. I didn't. They both legislate morality or ethics.

[DarkReign]

Look, if cookoo conservatives want to enter into a new cool-sounding contract marriage, fine.

Its elective, not mandatory. Call me when they try and make it mandatory. Save your outrage for then.

[boutons_]

but which police force is going to enforce this "morality pact",

which judicial agent will be competent to judge guilt or innocence of the accused?

what are the penalties for violation? fines? loss of child custody?

can a person judged guilty of violating a pact enter another pact? be a serial pact violator?

What a fucking waste of time (not that it's a surprise for TX legislature).

[DarkReign]

"...waste of time"

I comlpetely agree. But, think about it, sooner or later one of these convenant marriages are going to want a divorice for a reason not warranted under the terms.

The very people who enter into the agreement will be the same people who strike it down (constitutionally). When it does happen (not if), I hope the Texas Supreme Court does the nation a favor and rules to allow the divorice.

Save the US Supreme Court the trouble of stating "unconstituionality".

[exstatic]

Covenant marriage is like a dieter putting the cookies on the top shelf. The first party to want out of one of these will definitely be cut free, via lawsuit, rendering the whole thing moot.

I think Fundys should just cut themselves off from society like the Amish, and stop trying to legislate away temptation, fucking up life's fun for the rest of us.

[jochhejaam]

I mean this is EXACTLY why Marriage should be a strictly Religious institution. When you let idiot Lawmakers decide what "Marriage" is, suddenly you have idiots like this one determining that there are different "levels" of Marriage.

God must be laughing right now.
Why would God be laughing at an attempt to reinforce the sanctity of marriage? Explain that if you don't mind.

Apparently roughly 2% of people getting married in states that have passed this legislation have taken advantage of it, which means roughly 98% (yeah, I'm good at math) of those getting married don't really care for it. With that percentage of unpopularity it's a huge stretch to think that the lawmaker's legislation is anything more than a personal conviction.
The thought that he's pandering to his constituents is absurd.

What's the big deal? It's completely voluntary. If you don't like it, don't do it. Other than that, as many have stated :spin , what business is it of those that choose not to?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=DarkReign]Look, if cookoo conservatives want to enter into a new cool-sounding contract marriage, fine.
^^^Arrogance.







Its elective, not mandatory. Call me when they try and make it mandatory. Save your outrage for then. Good take.

[smeagol]

It's optional people. OPTIONAL.

[exstatic]

It's optional people. OPTIONAL.
Why not three levels of marraige, then? Why not five? It's completely ridiculous. Just get married and stay married. Don't rely on some law to force you to stay together. Just add some extra stuff to your vows.

[boutons_]

... optional, and meaningless ... to the state.

This is another example of you holy rollers wanting religious morality forced into Caesar's law.

[exstatic]

This just in: there will now be Covenant driver's licenses for those who REALLY want to drive well. No speeding will be tolerated. Your first ticket costs you your license, permanently.

[mikejones99]

Fuck the sister, beating is wrong unless she really deserves it.

[GrandeDavid]

I think this is an attempt by the state to stick its nosy ass nose in citizens' private affairs. I think I wouldn't get married in Texas.

[smeagol]

I think I wouldn't get married in Texas.

BINGO!

[Spurminator]

Why would God be laughing at an attempt to reinforce the sanctity of marriage? Explain that if you don't mind.

It's NOT reinforcing the sanctity of Marriage. It's mocking it. It's saying that Marriage isn't enough of a commitment, you need a special SuperMarriage, and you need the Government to hold you accountable for your commitment.


What's the big deal? It's completely voluntary.

It's not a big deal at all. If it passes, it passes. I just think it's silly, and it does more to damage the supposed "sanctity" of marriage than a lot of other things Conservatives shudder at.

It's a goofy sideshow to bait defensive Christian Conservatives and you guys are buying it. As a Christian, I'm embarrassed, but I've seen worse.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]It's NOT reinforcing the sanctity of Marriage. It's mocking it. It's saying that Marriage isn't enough of a commitment, you need a special SuperMarriage, and you need the Government to hold you accountable for your commitment.
They're vows with either ceremony, so the marriage vow is a mockery?
And you failed to address your observation of why God is up there laughing at someones desire to make a stonger commitment to marriage.


I just think it's silly, and it does more to damage the supposed "sanctity" of marriage than a lot of other things Conservatives shudder at.
That makes no sense. Seeing how this covenant is entered into strictly by choice, explain how it "damages" the sanctity of marriage.


It's a goofy sideshow to bait defensive Christian Conservatives and you guys are buying it.
Between 1 and 3 percent of couples getting married take advantage of this, and you label that with a "you guys are buying into it? :lol
And please provide the data to support your assertion that "conservative Christians" are the ones taking advantage of this covenant.

[ChumpDumper]

Is there really anything in these supervows that couldn't be addressed in a prenuptual agreement?

[PixelPusher]

Is there really anything in these supervows that couldn't be addressed in a prenuptual agreement?
I think you might have hit on a key ingredient in this issue; prenups have a negative "preparing for the inevitable failed marriage" stigma attached to them where as these supervows provide a more optimistic, romantic way to "bind" your partner.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe, but it sure seems like there could be plenty of problems if only one party wants to be superbound.

[Spurminator]

[QUOTE]
They're vows with either ceremony, so the marriage vow is a mockery?
And you failed to address your observation of why God is up there laughing at someones desire to make a stonger commitment to marriage.

I like to think God has a sense of humor, and finds redundancies like "Covenant Marriage" to be humorous. I'm more comfortable with that than I am with thinking it makes Him angry.


That makes no sense. Seeing how this covenant is entered into strictly by choice, explain how it "damages" the sanctity of marriage.

If "Covenant Marriage" is the new standard for a lifetime commitment of marriage, what is a "Non-Coventant Marriage," or, as we currently call it, "Marriage"?


Between 1 and 3 percent of couples getting married take advantage of this, and you label that with a "you guys are buying into it? :lol
And please provide the data to support your assertion that "conservative Christians" are the ones taking advantage of this covenant.

You misunderstood. You are buying it by thinking it will somehow strengthen families, reduce crime or uphold the sanctity of Marriage. Since it is Conservative Christians who are so hellbent on making sure the term "Marriage" is kept pure from any secular influences, I'm surprised at how comfortable they are with your representatives creating "Levels" of Marriage. I don't recall the Scripture in the Bible that differentiates "Marriage" from "Covenant Marriage."

[ChumpDumper]

Just another way folks can act covanenter than thou.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]You misunderstood. You are buying it by thinking it will somehow strengthen families, reduce crime or uphold the sanctity of Marriage.
I have no misunderstanding of the issue, and where, oh where have I insinuated that it will strengthen families or reduce crime?



Since it is Conservative Christians who are so hellbent on making sure the term "Marriage" is kept pure from any secular influences, I'm surprised at how comfortable they are with your representatives creating "Levels" of Marriage.
Surprised? Wow! You're kidding right? What's astounding to me is a Brother being hellbent on the concept of voluntarily strengthening the commitment of marriage through a covenant! Especially when if the legislation passes it's entered into striclty on a voluntary basis.





I don't recall the Scripture in the Bible that differentiates "Marriage" from "Covenant Marriage."
I would strongly suggest that the Bible would be more in line with a stronger commitment as opposed to one that's easily disposed of. Would you disagree with that?
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel (Malachi 2:16). It appears to me that you are at odds with God over the matter of entering (it's voluntary!) a strong marriage covenant.

[Extra Stout]

I would strongly suggest that the Bible would be more in line with a stronger commitment as opposed to one that's easily disposed of. Would you disagree with that? It appears to me that you are at odds with God over the matter of entering (it's voluntary!) a strong marriage covenant.
I don't know about you, but I don't need special human laws to enter into a strong marriage covenant.

[Spurminator]

I have no misunderstanding of the issue, and where, oh where have I insinuated that it will strengthen families or reduce crime?

Then I really want to know what the point is.

So, basically you support this initiative because there's no reason not to? Super. Should the Government oversee Covenant Tithing too? We could have 10% of our salary automatically redirected to a church of our choice. I mean, it would be voluntary...



Surprised? Wow! You're kidding right? What's astounding to me is a Brother being hellbent on the concept of voluntarily strengthening the commitment of marriage through a covenant! Especially when if the legislation passes it's entered into striclty on a voluntary basis.

Your Government is redefining Marriage and you're okay with it. That's fine, but don't start quoting Scripture when the Gay Marriage issue comes up again.



I would strongly suggest that the Bible would be more in line with a stronger commitment as opposed to one that's easily disposed of. Would you disagree with that? It appears to me that you are at odds with God over the matter of entering (it's voluntary!) a strong marriage covenant.

I would suggest God expects us to be held accountable by Him and by His Church for the marital commitments we have made, not by man-made authority.


I'm anxious to hear some defense of this proposition that amounts to a little more than "Why Not?"

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I think He - in his divine power - will not allow this bill to become law, just as He enjoys His cheerleaders with non-legislated routines.

This is a bill that is taking paper from bills which could do so much more to better this state - and that's why people should be upset.

[gtownspur]

I don't know about you, but I don't need special human laws to enter into a strong marriage covenant.



Lame argument.

This is about options.

You can retain your regular marriage.

[Spurminator]

This is about options.

It's about big government. Buncha Lib'rals.

[Extra Stout]

Lame argument.

This is about options.

You can retain your regular marriage.
Options are fine. If some people want a statutory covenant marriage, great. I think it is useless because my wife and I are committed to one another under God's authority, not man's. If other people think a "covenant marriage" adds something, then fine. It doesn't hurt much of anything.

But joch insinuated that anybody who doesn't think statutory covenant marriage is a wonderful idea must be against strong marriages and must be in opposition to God, which was patently ridiculous and warranted a rebuttal.

[Extra Stout]

I think He - in his divine power - will not allow this bill to become law, just as He enjoys His cheerleaders with non-legislated routines.

This is a bill that is taking paper from bills which could do so much more to better this state - and that's why people should be upset.
Seriously.

If you get upset at the thought of legislators wasting paper, don't visit Austin or you will spontaneously combust.

[jochhejaam]

I don't know about you, but I don't need special human laws to enter into a strong marriage covenant.
Nope, me neither Stout. My commitment to my wife is based on a personal code of ethics. It's just that I have no problem whatsoever with someone that wishes to make a strong commitment to marriage via a covenant.

[jochhejaam]

But joch insinuated that anybody who doesn't think statutory covenant marriage is a wonderful idea must be against strong marriages and must be in opposition to God, which was patently ridiculous and warranted a rebuttal.
It was a misguided rebuttal on your part Stout, and totally unwarranted because I didn't insinuate that at all.
My contentions were with Spurminator's outright condemnation of the covenant, and his notion that God laughs at something that stresses commitment to marriage.
That combined with the fact that someone would get all up in arms about something that's 100% voluntary.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator ]You are buying it by thinking it will somehow strengthen families, reduce crime

Oops, you forgot to address the ridiculous charge. Where did I state this?

[Spurminator]

Outright condemnation? Up in arms? I think you're misreading my tone, Joch.

You won't see me protesting in the streets if this ever gains legs. If it happens, it happens. I just think it's a stupid and pointless idea that SHOULD insult people's intelligence, but this isn't the first time I would say that about a proposal.

[ChumpDumper]

Oops, you forgot to address the ridiculous charge. Where did I state this?So, what will it do?

[Spurminator]

Where did I state this?

I assumed you believed it because you are defending the idea of legally-enforced covenant marriage. I assumed that one would only defend a proposed law if he felt it benefitted society in some way. If I assumed wrong, I will own up to that. But in that case, I'd like to hear what value you think this law would bring to society.

All I've heard from you is, essentially, "What's the big deal?"

Even though I disagree with Phenomanul's take, at least he presented reasoning to support such a measure.

[jochhejaam]

Mind if I join in?

By all means join in CD, but I would hope that your questions would be a little less vague.
Thanks



(gotta leave for one of those Christmas dinner parties)

[ChumpDumper]

What will this law accomplish?

What is its purpose?

Why should there be two teirs of marriage?

[johnsmith]

What will this law accomplish?

What is its purpose?

Why should there be two teirs of marriage?


I agree with all three of these questions.

[ChumpDumper]

Mind if I take a few hours to think about it?

[clambake]

1. nothing
2. So that some couples can argue that they're more in love than others.
3. So that typical marriage divorce rates will drop below 50% and covenant marriage divorce rates will make up for that.

[Extra Stout]

What will this law accomplish?

What is its purpose?

Why should there be two teirs of marriage?
1) It will create a new kind of legal marriage arrangement which is more difficult to get out of.

2) It may appeal to people who disagree with the concept of no-fault divorce and want to set a different example.

3) I don't know. It doesn't really matter all that much.

[ChumpDumper]

My question is what is the desired end result?

Fewer divorces?

[Extra Stout]

My question is what is the desired end result?

Fewer divorces?
Do all state initiatives have to have tangible social impact?

[ChumpDumper]

I think initiatives that redefine marriage probably should have such an impact.

[Guru of Nothing]

Daily affirmations - I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, I love my wife.

[exstatic]

Double Secret Probation marriage.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]I assumed you believed it because you are defending the idea of legally-enforced covenant marriage.

You assumed I believed that voluntarily entering into a covenant marriage would reduce crime? The reasoning behind that conclusion eludes me...




But in that case, I'd like to hear what value you think this law would bring to society.

All I've heard from you is, essentially, "What's the big deal?"

I wasn't drawn into the discussion because I felt strongly about the law, but by your insinuating that God could possibly be laughing at a strong commitment to marriage.
Feel free to mock the covenant, but don't pretend that God feels the same way unless you have something in the form of doctrine to back that notion up with.

[Spurminator]

You assumed I believed that voluntarily entering into a covenant marriage would reduce crime? The reasoning behind that conclusion eludes me...

I wasn't drawn into the discussion because I felt strongly about the law


You're right, I gave you too much credit. I should have known you had no position on this issue. My mistake.


, but by your insinuating that God could possibly be laughing at a strong commitment to marriage.
Feel free to mock the covenant, but don't pretend that God feels the same way unless you have something in the form of doctrine to back that notion up with

I made no such insinuation. My suggestion was that God is laughing at Man's arrogance, not the covenant of Marriage itself.


When you let idiot Lawmakers decide what "Marriage" is, suddenly you have idiots like this one determining that there are different "levels" of Marriage.

God must be laughing right now.

And I would bet He'll laugh even harder in 20 years when the next politician panders to his gullible constituents by proposing the creation of "Ultra-Covenant Marriage" where the penalty for Divorce is life in prison - unless the couple opts out.

[2centsworth]

It's about big government. Buncha Lib'rals.
now you're changing your argument. Just admit that anything that "threatens" gay marriage you're against.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]You're right, I gave you too much credit. I should have known you had no position on this issue. My mistake.
Most people understand the difference between not feeling strongly about an issue and not having an opinion.
If what you've got from my posts is that I have no position on the issue, then I've seriously overestimated your ability to comprehend. My mistake.

[Guru of Nothing]

Spurminator, along with EStout, Scott and FWD, is a most stellar possessor of opinion and insight. ... and they are all funny when they want to be.

On the other hand, Jochhejaam and 2pennies are funny all the time.

[Spurminator]

now you're changing your argument. Just admit that anything that "threatens" gay marriage you're against.

I'm against government-endorsed gay marriage.

Except when the government endorses heterosexual marriage.




Most people understand the difference between not feeling strongly about an issue and not having an opinion.
If what you've got from my posts is that I have no position on the issue, then I've seriously overestimated your ability to comprehend. My mistake.

Then give an opinion. Make a point.

Please.

[Phenomanul]

Spurminator, along with EStout, Scott and FWD, is a most stellar possessor of opinion and insight. ... and they are all funny when they want to be.

On the other hand, Jochhejaam and 2pennies are funny all the time.


So where do you place your drive-by posting style??? With the insightful or with the comical?

[Guru of Nothing]

So where do you place your drive-by posting style??? With the insightful or with the comical?

If I'm insightful, you are a dumbass.

I place my posting style FIRMLY in the "don't give a fuck" category.

[exstatic]

GoN's posting style is "Ham on Wry"

[smeagol]

Spurminator, along with EStout, Scott and FWD, is a most stellar possessor of opinion and insight. ... and they are all funny when they want to be.

On the other hand, Jochhejaam and 2pennies are funny all the time.
I'm afraid GON will not include me on the first category :depressed

[MannyIsGod]

Why would God be laughing at an attempt to reinforce the sanctity of marriage? Explain that if you don't mind.

Because Man's law can't reinforce a damn thing about the sanctity of marrige. Do we need a press confrence from memebers of congress next that they indeed have decided God is a the one in charge next? Perhaps a George Dubya Bush can grant a presidential pardon for Gods part in the terroristic Great Flood next. Or maybe just a congressional resolution in support of God.

Sure, God's laws are above the laws of men, but the laws of men can make God's laws better! I get it now!

[MannyIsGod]

It is wonderful that we're going to allow government supersized marriages for an extra 39 cents. Sorry, no fries with that.

I wonder, is its voluntary to pay the taxes for this legislation or do I have to support it? I think I know the answer. I love voluntary legislation that effects everyone while providing unequal rights. Hoooray! Anything to make it seem as though marriage by the state is a pure act that is endangered by the gays. Oh no, the gays! Run!

[Extra Stout]

It is wonderful that we're going to allow government supersized marriages for an extra 39 cents. Sorry, no fries with that.

I wonder, is its voluntary to pay the taxes for this legislation or do I have to support it? I think I know the answer. I love voluntary legislation that effects everyone while providing unequal rights. Hoooray! Anything to make it seem as though marriage by the state is a pure act that is endangered by the gays. Oh no, the gays! Run!
Just have the covenant marriage applicants pay a $1 surcharge. The administrative costs can hardly be much of anything.

I don't think this has anything to do with gays. I think this has mostly to do with a symbolic opposition to no-fault divorce, and to the permissive and cavalier attitudes toward marriage in our culture.

From a philosophical standpoint, I prefer to steer clear of initiatives that give the state any authority to influence the sanctity of marriage, because I do not trust the state to be a faithful vanguard of the sanctity of anything. But if this is something that some people really want, then OK, fine. Government is here to serve and my opposition isn't so strong that I think it worth fighting to stop. I really don't think it's any more relevant from a public policy standpoint than offering "Choose Life" license plates (for a small extra cost).

[MannyIsGod]

ES, that someone would need a state mandate saying their marriage is stronger shows me just how little perspective people have on marriage. A surcharge would be fine.

This is absolutely gay marriage related, even if it is in a mostly indirect sense. One of the main points that is raised when it the subject is discussed is the high divorce rate as it is, and I see this as an attack on that divorce rate.

Anyhow, I firmly believe that anyone who feels the need for a stronge state issued marriage doesn't realize what marriage actually should be to begin with.

[Spurminator]

From a philosophical standpoint, I prefer to steer clear of initiatives that give the state any authority to influence the sanctity of marriage, because I do not trust the state to be a faithful vanguard of the sanctity of anything. But if this is something that some people really want, then OK, fine. Government is here to serve and my opposition isn't so strong that I think it worth fighting to stop. I really don't think it's any more relevant from a public policy standpoint than offering "Choose Life" license plates (for a small extra cost).

Agreed. Like I said before, it's not really something I'd picket the State Capitol over.

I just think it's symptomatic of the "Pat Robertson Christian" era that some people feel compelled to support any kind of legislation (or two-ton granite display) that has a "Christian" purpose or inference, regardless of its actual value to society.

[Extra Stout]

ES, that someone would need a state mandate saying their marriage is stronger shows me just how little perspective people have on marriage. A surcharge would be fine.
If they think they need it for their marriage, I agree that it is misguided. Perhaps this is just a voluntary protest saying, "I want to set an example for how marriage ought to be in this society," without forcing it on people. In my view, the actual practice of being faithful and devoted in a marriage sets the example, not a special piece of paper from the state. But, whatever.


This is absolutely gay marriage related, even if it is in a mostly indirect sense. One of the main points that is raised when it the subject is discussed is the high divorce rate as it is, and I see this as an attack on that divorce rate.
If this proposal were capable in any way whatsoever of reducing the divorce rate, that would be a merit in its favor. Of course it can't, but...

In order to accept your "indirect" connection to gay marriage, one would have to first buy the notion that gay marriage contributes to divorce. The only possible connection I could think of would be if gay marriage were seen as being part of the permissive and cavalier cultural attitudes regarding marriage that lead to people thoughtlessly entering into and then breaking up their marital relationships.

Indeed, there are certain non-traditionalist self-described free-thinkers of a hedonist bent who would like marriage to be defined as any freely-agreed-upon amorous relationship between any group of people of indeterminate number and nature, for whatever period said group desires to maintain the relationship. Traditionalists regard such an endeavor as highly deleterious to the vast majority of society, inasmuch as traditional marriage in general is a structure developed over history to maintain familial stability and support.

Government is an inappropriate tool to be used in this struggle, first of all because it is such a weak actor upon culture, and second of all because our government according to its own Constitution is supposed to concern itself with the dispensation of equal rights to individuals, as opposed to the maintenance of group norms.

So when the state is used as leverage to uphold customs and traditions, then those customs and traditions are made vulnerable to death by a thousand cuts, because every individual and their special case has to be accounted for.

But if that is the bed that we make, then we get to lie in it.


Anyhow, I firmly believe that anyone who feels the need for a stronge state issued marriage doesn't realize what marriage actually should be to begin with.
Understand that covenant marriage can just be a perfunctory social statement, rather than something couples are leaning on as a bond to stay together. For the latter, it would be utterly useless and indeed reflect a grevious failure to grasp the nature of the commitment; for the former, it is probably inefficacious, but really not worth getting worked up about.

[Phenomanul]

If I'm insightful, you are a dumbass.

I place my posting style FIRMLY in the "don't give a fuck" category.


Your 'insults' directed toward JJ and 2centsworth certainly didn't qualify for that style. You were trying to make a point.

DGAF indeed....

Toucheé.

[2centsworth]

Your 'insults' directed toward JJ and 2centsworth certainly didn't qualify for that style. You were trying to make a point.

DGAF indeed....

Toucheé.
they can only be insults if someone of value is making them. In this case I know for a fact Guru has a big "L" stamped on his forehead.

If he really was DGAF he would not post but instead he lables himself "insightful" even though no one has ever given him credit for being anything but arrogant.

[2centsworth]

I'm against government-endorsed gay marriage.

Except when the government endorses heterosexual marriage.

the government doesn't "endorse", they facilitate. Nevertheless, you went through a big speel about being against government-endorsed marriage, but when infact you're in favor of your version of government "endorsed" marriages. You are either unprincipled or can't make logical arguments.

[MannyIsGod]

the government doesn't "endorse", they facilitate. Nevertheless, you went through a big speel about being against government-endorsed marriage, but when infact you're in favor of your version of government "endorsed" marriages. You are either unprincipled or can't make logical arguments.Thats not true in the least. Spurm is saying that if the government is going to "facilitate" marriage for heterosexuals then they should do the same for homosexuals. You can feel that way and also be against the government endorsing marriges at all.

In a perfect world government marriage would be a non existent object. However, the chances of complete removal of government from marriage is what is nonexistant. In that environment, it is very logical to say that marriage should be applied equally.


If I can't get X then at least give me Y.

[2centsworth]

Thats not true in the least. Spurm is saying that if the government is going to "facilitate" marriage for heterosexuals then they should do the same for homosexuals. You can feel that way and also be against the government endorsing marriges at all.

In a perfect world government marriage would be a non existent object. However, the chances of complete removal of government from marriage is what is nonexistant. In that environment, it is very logical to say that marriage should be applied equally.


If I can't get X then at least give me Y.
Here is what Spurm said



Why is the government involved in marriage? What right does government have to give special benefits to two people who enter into a religious agreement, and make rules about who qualifies for these benefits?



Why do you need the Government to hold you accountable for your marriage?


Uh, no. I want it back where it belongs. In the Church, controlled by the One who created it in the first place.



"Legally" dissolving marriage is unnecessary in my scenario. I AM arguing that Marriage should not be regulated or sanctioned by the government, yes.That tells me his primary argument is that government is involved in marriages at all, period, finito!

Then to say it's ok if they are involved as long as they sanctioned gay marriage is contradictory or unprincipled.

A principled person would suggest a person who wants to have a legal marriage would have to hire an attorney at their own expense and draft the contract. BTW, gay people can do the same.


If I can't get X then at least give me Y
x precludes y.

[Spurminator]

the government doesn't "endorse", they facilitate.

When it facilitates one kind of marriage and not the other, that is an endorsement.


Spurm is saying that if the government is going to "facilitate" marriage for heterosexuals then they should do the same for homosexuals. You can feel that way and also be against the government endorsing marriges at all.

:tu

Somebody gets it...

[Spurminator]

Then to say it's ok if they are involved as long as they sanctioned gay marriage is contradictory or unprincipled.

Never said it was okay.

[2centsworth]

When it facilitates one kind of marriage and not the other, that is an endorsement.



:tu

Somebody gets it...
let me clear up your argument for you. You are in favor of allowing people to enter into covenant marriages as long as the government allows for gay marriage.

Your anti-government involvement was just a cover-up.

[Spurminator]

No, let me clear up my own argument for you.

Here is my Government/Marriage Wish List, in order of Preference.

1. No Government involvement in Marriage beyond acknowledgment
2. Equal opportunity for Marriage, regardless of gender or sexuality
3. Opportunity for Marriage limited to heterosexual couples

#1 being most preferred, #3 being least preferred.

Are you following yet, or should I make a chart?

[2centsworth]

No, let me clear up my own argument for you.

Here is my Government/Marriage Wish List, in order of Preference.

1. No Government involvement in Marriage beyond acknowledgment
2. Equal opportunity for Marriage, regardless of gender or sexuality
3. Opportunity for Marriage limited to heterosexual couples

#1 being most preferred, #3 being least preferred.

Are you following yet, or should I make a chart?
You are unprincipled IMO. You are not willing to fight for what you believe, in this case #1 or #2 or #3 which all sound wildly different.

[Spurminator]

:lmao :smchode:


We are AT #3.

#1 would be ideal.

#2 would not be ideal, but it's better than #3.

[2centsworth]

Here is my Government/Marriage Wish List, in order of Preferenceyou have lots of wildly different wishes. Seems to me one wish is contradictory to the other wish.


Manny on the other hand is in favor of your #2 and any compromise would have to be something close to what he believes. It's highly unlikely he would except a total gay marriage ban.

That is understandable and we can debate each other respectably.

You don't have a firm stance.

[Spurminator]

You're overanalyzing the word "wish."

[2centsworth]

You're overanalyzing the word "wish."here's the definition

"1.to want; desire; long for (usually fol. by an infinitive or a clause): I wish to travel. I wish that it were morning. "

maybe I'm underanalyzing the word

[Spurminator]

Context. I specifically said Wish List in order of preference. Meaning, if #1 is available, I'm not interested in #2 or #3. If not, I would prefer #2 over #3.

It wasn't a perfect choice of words, but given everything I've said on this topic I don't understand how you would possibly think #3 was something I wanted.

[2centsworth]

It wasn't a perfect choice of words, but given everything I've said on this topic I don't understand how you would possibly think #3 was something I wanted.

because being in favor of #1 would preclude #2 if you're a strong supporter of #1. But it seems that you're a stronger supporter of #2 so maybe you have those turned around.

[Spurminator]

Why does it seem like I'm a stronger supporter of #2?

And why can't I prefer #2 over #3 if #1 is my most preferred? If I voted for Ralph Nader, could I not prefer John Kerry over George W. Bush? Could I not engage in a discussion over why John Kerry would be a better President than Bush?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]Because Man's law can't reinforce a damn thing about the sanctity of marriage.
Correct, no more so than a speed limit sign can force anyone to refrain from exceeding the posted speed, but we don't discard the speed limit signs or make them more lax because very few obey them.

What the covenant can offer couples is the opportunity to proclaim and stress the importance of commitment to each other and to the institution of marriage.
With the current high rate of failed marriages and the resulting wake of childrens lives that are turned inside out by the parents divorcing, why would anyone dare to raise a voice against a covenant that stresses the imporance of being committed to marriage? Especially when you consider the fact that it's entered into strictly on a voluntary basis!


<If you have a reply to this, I'd like to thank you in advance for not falsely attributing statements to me that I've never made as Spurminator has done>

[MannyIsGod]

[QUOTE]
Correct, no more so than a speed limit sign can force anyone to refrain from exceeding the posted speed, but we don't discard the speed limit signs or make them more lax because very few obey them. Actually, we DO make them more lax when few obey them. But thats an entirely different subject. Marriage is not a traffic law does the comparison hold much water, IMO.


What the covenant can offer couples is the opportunity to proclaim and stress the importance of commitment to each other and to the institution of marriage.
This is the part that gets me. Now, maybe its just me, but I'm not sure exactly WHY people need a stronger version of FOREVER. You shouldn't NEED a law a law saying that your marriage is stronger to do what you just mentioned anymore than you need a law to explain to you that you love somebody. Thats lunacy to me.

This new marriage can no more make a marriage bond stronger than a new diamond ring can cure the ills of cheating on a spouse etc etc.



With the current high rate of failed marriages and the resulting wake of childrens lives that are turned inside out by the parents divorcing, why would anyone dare to raise a voice against a covenant that stresses the imporance of being committed to marriage? Especially when you consider the fact that it's entered into strictly on a voluntary basis!

<If you have a reply to this, I'd like to thank you in advance for not falsely attributing statements to me that I've never made as Spurminator has done> Because 1) I don't believe the government should be in the marrige business to being with and 2) I believe it to be inhernetly unequel when one segment of society is being given services that others are being denied.

Pete really doesn't understand my position on homosexual marriage. I believe exactly as Spurm does. I would much rather see the government out of the marriage business completely, but because I see that as rater unlikely a compromise would be to allow everyone to marry as they wish.

I read your last paragraph and I in turn wonder, that in light of the increasing numbers of divorces, why anyone would turn away people so passionate about declaring their love for each other.

[MannyIsGod]

because being in favor of #1 would preclude #2 if you're a strong supporter of #1. But it seems that you're a stronger supporter of #2 so maybe you have those turned around.Yeah, that makes sense if you completely discount that #1 is an incredibly unlikely to happen. Pete, if people never came to comprimises and always stuck to their guns very little in this world would ever get done.

[Spurminator]

<If you have a reply to this, I'd like to thank you in advance for not falsely attributing statements to me that I've never made as Spurminator has done>

:violin

Stop being such a baby. I used "you" as a general term to describe those who rushed to the defense of this legislation.

[jochhejaam]

:violin

Stop being such a baby. I used "you" as a general term to describe those who rushed to the defense of this legislation.
:dramaquee Spare me the lecture, and in the future be less wreckless with your replies, and more attentive to detail. It'll save a lot of unnecessary off-topic bantering. <or don't>

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]This is the part that gets me. Now, maybe its just me, but I'm not sure exactly WHY people need a stronger version of FOREVER.

There are those that are interested in stating through a covenant that "untill death do us part" means what it says, and they'd like to express that by entering the union without the option of an easy out.




You shouldn't NEED a law a law saying that your marriage is stronger to do what you just mentioned anymore than you need a law to explain to you that you love somebody. Poor parallel. You don't need a license to tell someone you love them. They're words, no commitment necessary. Marriage requires some level of commitment just by the fact that you need a license to be so.


This new marriage can no more make a marriage bond stronger... And your proof of that is can be found where?





I read your last paragraph and I in turn wonder, that in light of the increasing numbers of divorces, why anyone would turn away people so passionate about declaring their love for each other.
I'm sorry Manny, but there's severe disconnect in your position here. A high divorce rate has absolutley no bearing on a State sanctioning homosexual marriage...???

[Ozzman]

Gay marriage outside of Civil unions, is just....wrong. just gross really. Nobody sticks up for their religion these days and they only really care about being politically acceptable.
Fuck, they killed gays 100 years ago as a sport. At least they aren't hunted now. They have just as many civil rights as everyone else, and so do blacks.

And if you're wondering, I'm half Inuit, fuckers.

[Guru of Nothing]

I know for a fact Guru has a big "L" stamped on his forehead.

L is for Lucky!

[MannyIsGod]

There are those that are interested in stating through a covenant that "untill death do us part" means what it says, and they'd like to express that by entering the union without the option of an easy out.

Next can we have a marriage level where the only out is death? Purely voluntary of course




Poor parallel. You don't need a license to tell someone you love them. They're words, no commitment necessary. Marriage requires some level of commitment just by the fact that you need a license to be so.
Fine, if you want to look at this as a purely legal situation then I'm all for that. But remember your stance on legal marriage as opposed to spiritual marriage when it comes to homosexual marriage.

It can't be both ways.



And your proof of that is can be found where?
And your proof that it will can be found where? The burden of proof is on those who want to pass new legislation. You don't need proof for retaining status quo.



I'm sorry Manny, but there's severe disconnect in your position here. A high divorce rate has absolutley no bearing on a State sanctioning homosexual marriage...???The comment I made was that in light of the high divorce rates, I could not understand why someone would protest 2 people who's love for each other runs deep enough to fight for the right to marry that strongly. It makes no sense for me that people who profess to want stronger marriages and more of them would fight to stop people from entering into stronge marriages.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]Next can we have a marriage level where the only out is death? Purely voluntary of course
Sarcasm in lieu of substance. Lame.


Fine, if you want to look at this as a purely legal situation then I'm all for that. But remember your stance on legal marriage as opposed to spiritual marriage when it comes to homosexual marriage.

It can't be both ways.
Oh, but it can. My views on covenant marriage are in no way tied in to, or constrained by my views on homosexual marriage.



And your proof that it will can be found where? The burden of proof is on those who want to pass new legislation. You don't need proof for retaining status quo
It's already law in three states. So much for status quo. Now, prove that it hasn't made for a stronger marriage bond as you stated.


The comment I made was that in light of the high divorce rates, I could not understand why someone would protest 2 people who's love for each other runs deep enough to fight for the right to marry that strongly. It makes no sense for me that people who profess to want stronger marriages and more of them would fight to stop people from entering into stronge marriages.
If the generally accepted view of marriage wasn't between one man, and one woman, you might have a point. But it is, and you don't.

[Guru of Nothing]

Next can we have a marriage level where the only out is death? Purely voluntary of course

Divorce by duel!

[MannyIsGod]

[QUOTE]
Sarcasm in lieu of substance. Lame.

Oh, but it can. My views on covenant marriage are in no way tied in to, or constrained by my views on homosexual marriage.



It's already law in three states. So much for status quo. Now, prove that it hasn't made for a stronger marriage bond as you stated.


If the generally accepted view of marriage wasn't between one man, and one woman, you might have a point. But it is, and you don't.I"m going to address your points in one cohesive post. I actually get annoyed with the fracturing of arguments into one sentence rebutals that remove the context of the entire argument.

Anyhow, you're free to define your views on covenant marriage and homosexual marriage however you wish. But what you are doing is inherently inconsistent. As far as status quo goes, regardless of what the law is in other states it is not the law here. Therefor there should be a burden of proof to show the nessecity of passing this legislation on those who are actively supporting it. "Why not" is not a reason to pass new legislation.

What is generally accepted as marrige is irrelevant to what should be legal. At one point inter racial marriage was not what was generally accepted as permisable, but of course we're not allowed to prevent that from occuring now are we?

In the end I believe you have a point that if people want to enter into this of their own accord, then its not a big deal and its not a threat to anyone else. Thats not to say there is an actual need for the state to be involved in this sort of a situation. People can make it harder for a divorce, but in the end this will simply cause more work for our judicial system because these people who enter into a marriage of any sort (covenant or otherwise) and later decide that it was a mistake will attempt to get a divorce. The responsibility for mainting a marriage should not be transfered in anyway to the State and thats exactly what this legislation does.

I tell you what Joch. Outline me a marriage scenario where being in a covenant marriage would be beneficial to both parties involved that does not involve an increase of burden to the State.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]I"m going to address your points in one cohesive post. I actually get annoyed with the fracturing of arguments into one sentence rebutals that remove the context of the entire argument.
Thought by thought breakdown has been your M.O. with me in this thread, but a change in your style is fine by me.



Anyhow, you're free to define your views on covenant marriage and homosexual marriage however you wish. But what you are doing is inherently inconsistent.
Nope. One attempts to stress the importance of commitment to the institution of marriage, and the other degrades the institution of marriage.
Polar opposites.





As far as status quo goes, regardless of what the law is in other states it is not the law here. Therefor there should be a burden of proof to show the nessecity of passing this legislation on those who are actively supporting it. "Why not" is not a reason to pass new legislation.
This reinforces that you don't have a leg to stand on when you assert that covenant marriages don't exhibit a stronger bond. You have States that have similar laws on the book from which to attempt to support your theory.

It's no different than States that passed a statewide smoking ban. There's data out there that should be able to support one's position on the issue regardless of whether or not their State has passed the law.

With that being the case your unsubstantiated theory or opinion does not pass muster. It's has zero clout. Totally without persuasive qualities, etc.




What is generally accepted as marrige is irrelevant to what should be legal.
Established law is irrelevant? Precedent is quite compelling. Prior tempore potior iure.




At one point inter racial marriage was not what was generally accepted as permisable, but of course we're not allowed to prevent that from occuring now are we?Which has nothing to do with the issue of Covenant Marriage, or same-sex marriage.




In the end I believe you have a point that if people want to enter into this of their own accord, then its not a big deal and its not a threat to anyone else.
Common ground. Finally. :lol





People can make it harder for a divorce, but in the end this will simply cause more work for our judicial system because these people who enter into a marriage of any sort (covenant or otherwise) and later decide that it was a mistake will attempt to get a divorce.
They were elected, and are well paid to adjudicate, so that's not a problem.



The responsibility for mainting a marriage should not be transfered in anyway to the State and thats exactly what this legislation does.
It's the free choice of individuals to enter into a more binding marriage. The State having such a law in place does not equate to them compelling couples to enter the Covenant.





I tell you what Joch. Outline me a marriage scenario where being in a covenant marriage would be beneficial to both parties involved that does not involve an increase of burden to the State.
What's the point? I've never argued that a couple that tries to break a Covenant Marriage doesn't require that the State to be involved.

[2centsworth]

Pete, if people never came to comprimises and always stuck to their guns very little in this world would ever get done.
I agree with you Manny, but there's such a thing as not compromising your principles.

[Spurminator]

I still don't understand how I'm compromising my principles.

[2centsworth]

I still don't understand how I'm compromising my principles.
In simple terms.

Why are you against government endorsed marriages?

[MannyIsGod]

[QUOTE]
Thought by thought breakdown has been your M.O. with me in this thread, but a change in your style is fine by me.

Nope. One attempts to stress the importance of commitment to the institution of marriage, and the other degrades the institution of marriage.
Polar opposites.

This reinforces that you don't have a leg to stand on when you assert that covenant marriages don't exhibit a stronger bond. You have States that have similar laws on the book from which to attempt to support your theory.

It's no different than States that passed a statewide smoking ban. There's data out there that should be able to support one's position on the issue regardless of whether or not their State has passed the law.

With that being the case your unsubstantiated theory or opinion does not pass muster. It's has zero clout. Totally without persuasive qualities, etc.

Established law is irrelevant? Precedent is quite compelling. Prior tempore potior iure.

Which has nothing to do with the issue of Covenant Marriage, or same-sex marriage.

Common ground. Finally. :lol

They were elected, and are well paid to adjudicate, so that's not a problem.

It's the free choice of individuals to enter into a more binding marriage. The State having such a law in place does not equate to them compelling couples to enter the Covenant.

I tell you what Joch. [b]Outline me a marriage scenario where being in a covenant marriage would be beneficial to both parties involved that does not involve an increase of burden to the State.
What's the point? I've never argued that a couple that tries to break a Covenant Marriage doesn't require that the State to be involved.That you believe a marriage can be strengthened by laws making divorce dificult fully removes the marriage in discussion from the religous spectrum. No longer are we in any way discussing marriage by god, but rather marriage by the state because there is no law in the books that could stregthen marriage under the church.

With that in mind, there is absolutely no way you can say homosexual marriage is a weakining of any marriage. First of all, it meets the most important aspect of your argument for covenant marriage:

It is completely voluntary.

Pray tell Joch, why entering into a voluntary form of marriage for 2 men would be a problem for you when it has absolutely no effect on you? You have no problem advocating forms of marriage that some of us do not advocate going onto the books, why can the same not be said about homosexual marriage? In a legal sense, the ONLY thing that a covenant marriage does to make the marriage stronger is make it harder for a divorce. If your criteria for the strength of a marriage is the difficulty of achieving a divorce then homosexual marriage would be no different than any other marriage in strength as they would be under the same requirements as anyone else.

This is where your inconsitency lies Joch. On one hand, you have a problem with homosexual marriage stemming from religous beliefs. On the other, you choose to view marriage in a purely legal sense (which frankly is the correct view to apply to a marriage discussion when changing the law) and forgo the obvious inconsistencies with religous marriage (strengthening marriage by god through the law of man. HA!). What you do for covenant marriage you do not do for homosexual marriage because ultimately in a legal sense the church does not mater which renders any argument against homosexual marriage without merrit.

Next, you seem to fail to grasp the point I am making. Status quo is where we are at right now with no covenant marriage law on the books. Those who seek to pass the law bear a burden to prove that the law is 1)nesecary, 2)beneficial, and 3) cost effective. So you as a proponent of this legislation should be able to provide information along those 3 points. How is the law nessecary? How would it benfit the State? Would the increase in costs be worth any benefits?

My concern of the increase in burden of the State's judiciary has nothing to do with whether or not they are elected or how well they are paid. I'm not worried about personal strain on the judges over these cases, but rathe increasing the time and monetary constraints of an already over burdended system. Our state judicial system is hardly sitting around twidling its thumbs just looking for something to do. Any time devoted to new endeavours detracts from somewhere else. That simply stresses the importance of proving this legislation as nessecary.

You admit that covenant marriages would require the judicial system to do more work, so I ask you (again) what are the benefits to society as a whole?

[2centsworth]

With that in mind, there is absolutely no way you can say homosexual marriage is a weakining of any marriage.
it has absolutely weakend marriages in countries that allow it. Use France as an example, Marriage means almost nothing in that country.

However, ultimately where you and I will disagree is that strong marriages produce a better and happier society.

[Spurminator]

In simple terms.

Why are you against government endorsed marriages?

I don't think a public need is being served that cannot be served (or made simple) in another way besides the Government's facilitation of a Religious institution.

And at the same time, it creates church-state dilemmas which require hours upon hours of court/legislature/taxpayer time to argue endlessly about.

[MannyIsGod]

it has absolutely weakend marriages in countries that allow it. Use France as an example, Marriage means almost nothing in that country.

However, ultimately where you and I will disagree is that strong marriages produce a better and happier society.:lol As opposed to the US?

Feel free to provide examples how Homosexual marriage has impacted society in a negative way Pete.

[2centsworth]

:lol As opposed to the US?

Feel free to provide examples how Homosexual marriage has impacted society in a negative way Pete.would you even consier the evidence or is your mind already made up? Is your opinion based in fact or personal experience?


As a side note Manny because invariably someone who's not opened-minded (I'm not saying you) would automatically consider me a homophobe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My uncle who was gay has a long time partner who is like family. as a matter of fact, the last time I was in NY (last April) my wife and I stayed with him for a few days. I love him to death and hug and kiss him every time I see him.

Plus, I have another older gay cousin in Miami who I stay with every time I'm there too. Her and her "wife" take care of my kids and I love them to death too.

I'm not big on mentioning my relationships with them because I don't treat them differently than I treat any other relative.

Just FYI.

[MannyIsGod]

Pete of course I would consider the evidence. I don't by any means consider you a homophobe nor has the thought ever crossed my mind. Theres no need for you to prove yourself to me, I know you're a very good man.

[2centsworth]

Pete of course I would consider the evidence. I don't by any means consider you a homophobe nor has the thought ever crossed my mind. Theres no need for you to prove yourself to me, I know you're a very good man.
I know there are other readers that hopefully I can influence too.

I'll go through some of the books I have at home so that I can accurately produce the evidence that I'm talking about.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]That you believe a marriage can be strengthened by laws making divorce dificult fully removes the marriage in discussion from the religous spectrum.
:spin I've never stated or insinuated that. If you believe that I have show me the proof!

That's twice in this thread someone has falsely attributed to me a position I've never taken in an effort to prop up their own arguements.
What's up with that?








With that in mind, there is absolutely no way you can say homosexual marriage is a weakining of any marriage.
:nope <sigh> That's not what I said. I clearly stated that it "degrades the institution of marriage".


And with yet another misinterpretation of what I've stated I'll refrain from commenting any further on this particular post of yours.
It's a total waste of time when I end up defending myself against positions that have been falsely attributed to me. I don't believe you're intentionally doing so but either way your arguement loses all integrity when it's done.

I'll move on in the thread and keep an eye out for a possible reply to this Manny.

[MannyIsGod]

Um, ok? You've given me nothing to reply to. Theres no substance there and you've choosen to ignore most of the points I've made in order to focus on minor details.

I'll await Pete's next post.

[IcemanCometh]

what a fucking stupid idea.

also i love 2centsworth rationalization, "i'm not a homophobe why some of my best friends are gay".

[Phenomanul]

what a fucking stupid idea.

also i love 2centsworth rationalization, "i'm not a homophobe why some of my best friends are gay".

You misread his 'rationalization'....

I believe the term was family.

[jochhejaam]

Um, ok? You've given me nothing to reply to. Theres no substance there and you've choosen to ignore most of the points I've made in order to focus on minor details.

Um, you've been replying right along :lol , and I've handled what few coherent points you've attempted to make on the issue quite handily.

The bulk of your previous reply mischaracterized my position on the issue to the extent that if you didn't have my post in quotes it would be impossible to figure out who's post you were addressing.

[MannyIsGod]

Why is the legislation a good idea?

[jochhejaam]

Why is the legislation a good idea?
A pointed question, and deserving of an answer, Manny.
I personally wouldn't canvass for the issue, but in discussion with friends, or if it made it to a ballot I would support it. If it had been around when my wife and I married, I would venture to guess that we would have entered into it as long as there weren't exhorbitant legal expenses tied to it.
My wife and I take our marriage commitment quite seriously (25 years this Feb), and the legislation mirrors our sentiments. I would think the divorce rate with those that enter into the Covenant would be much lower than those that don't, not because the Covenant in and of itself provides the impetus to stay married, but rather that those entering into it are already of the disposition that marriage is sacred, and should be a lifetime commitment. It seeks out those that already feel strongly about it and could be educational or enlightening to those that don't.
It trumpets the sacredness of the union of marriage, and can serve as a beacon for the seriousness of the institution of marriage.

I see very little reason for dissent. It's an option, and those that oppose it aren't in any way compelled by the State to enter into it.

[IcemanCometh]

You misread his 'rationalization'....

I believe the term was family.


i read it just fine, its the same bullshit

[Phenomanul]

i read it just fine, its the same bullshit


Not quite... Maybe to you.