One of the arrows that brought GOP victory in NY

[Danno 1,228]

New York election: Winners and losers

WINNERS

National Organization for Marriage — The socially conservative organization helped to sow unrest with Weprin and Orthodox Jewish Democrats over his support for same-sex marriage. The organization dropped $75,000 on mailers highlighting Weprin’s position and dispatched Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein to record an anti-Weprin robocall. The National Organization for Marriage wasn’t the only conservative group involved in the race — the Family Research Council also hammered Weprin in a New York City district that is more socially conservative than its neighboring seats.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63492.html#ixzz1YAgPxh13

Edited September 17, 2011 by Danno

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't believe government needs to be involved in marriage at all (for what?) but then again, I really don't care WHY someone doesn't vote for a Democrat

[Danno 1,228]

I don't believe government needs to be involved in marriage at all (for what?) but then again, I really don't care WHY someone doesn't vote for a Democrat

The problem with your concept is it opens up way more problems than it solves.

Every thing from Inheritance, child custody, tax laws, property rights. IF there is no control over what a marriage is.... do you also control when and what a divorce consists of.. or when a legal separation takes place?

When there is no definition what a marriage is, how does one enforce law?

If we still lived in such a society where everyone pretty much married the same way ... willingly, your idea might work but I think it's quite unrealistic to think the Government is going to make all these changes at once to handle the legal fall out of everyone defining marriage for themselves.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The problem with your concept is it opens up way more problems than it solves.

Every thing from Inheritance, child custody, tax laws, property rights. IF there is no control over what a marriage is.... do you also control when and what a divorce consists of.. or when a legal separation takes place?

When there is no definition what a marriage is, how does one enforce law?

If we still lived in such a society where everyone pretty much married the same way ... willingly, your idea might work but I think it's quite unrealistic to think the Government is going to make all these changes at once to handle the legal fall out of everyone defining marriage for themselves.

I didn't say there was NO control, I said there should be no government control. A marriage is a contract and like any other contract can be adjudicated at the party's expense in the courts provided by the government. Or settled by agreement amongst themselves.

There does not need to be "a law" TO enforce. A marriage is what two people make it. Obviously people are making marriage what they believe anyway. The paper itself is only so much BS if one does not wake up every day and live that promise they made to the other and if they do, ####### use is the paper anyway? A marriage is simply a lifelong promise to each other between two people. For that matter it could be between 3 people or 9 people, who really cares?

You fall into the same hole that liberals do...beginning from government. Bad. Begin from NO government.

The only difference between you and, say, DFH or Rob & Mel is WHAT you want the government to control. But, like them, you define it to your own purpose. You want allowed and protected what YOU like and you want banned what you don't like. Freedom doesn't mean you need to like everything. In fact, it pretty much guarantees you won't like everything. But you can do what you want, live your life how you want, teach your children as you see fit.

You yourself, and I, are in a type of marriage a lot of people would like to see ended by the government. Everyone just needs to live their own life and stop imposing their beliefs on others, if we do that, we do not need the government for this.

I do not suggest I have no morals, in fact I have extremely strong morals and beliefs, I just do not think anyone else needs to be forced to share them

[scandal 951]

dispatched Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein to record an anti-Weprin robocall.

Wallerstein is right up your alley, Danno. You two would get along wonderfully.

He blames earthquakes (and in particular the recent East Coast earthquake) on gays.

[Danno 1,228]

I didn't say there was NO control, I said there should be no government control. A marriage is a contract and like any other contract can be adjudicated at the party's expense in the courts provided by the government. Or settled by agreement amongst themselves.

There does not need to be "a law" TO enforce. A marriage is what two people make it. Obviously people are making marriage what they believe anyway. The paper itself is only so much BS if one does not wake up every day and live that promise they made to the other and if they do, ####### use is the paper anyway? A marriage is simply a lifelong promise to each other between two people. For that matter it could be between 3 people or 9 people, who really cares?

You fall into the same hole that liberals do...beginning from government. Bad. Begin from NO government.

The only difference between you and, say, DFH or Rob & Mel is WHAT you want the government to control. But, like them, you define it to your own purpose. You want allowed and protected what YOU like and you want banned what you don't like. Freedom doesn't mean you need to like everything. In fact, it pretty much guarantees you won't like everything. But you can do what you want, live your life how you want, teach your children as you see fit.

You yourself, and I, are in a type of marriage a lot of people would like to see ended by the government. Everyone just needs to live their own life and stop imposing their beliefs on others, if we do that, we do not need the government for this.

I do not suggest I have no morals, in fact I have extremely strong morals and beliefs, I just do not think anyone else needs to be forced to share them

Simple question: How do we know if people are married or not?

Obviously people can do contracts if they like but many many would not even bother.. how do we know if they are married?

Wallerstein is right up your alley, Danno. You two would get along wonderfully.

He blames earthquakes (and in particular the recent East Coast earthquake) on gays.

Apparently one of those Earthquakes he speaks of happened in his district on election night.

[SMR 368]

I agree with you, Gary, on the level of principle and fundamentals. But Danno is right to point out how many parts of our society are based on the interplay between marriage and government. You can't just take that away and expect the system to work the way you want it to without a government definition of marriage. From a practical standpoint, you can only remove government restrictions and controls on marriage if you also deal with all of the attached issues.

I think that taxes are probably the biggest issue but for those on this board immigration is a huge issue as well. I can't sponsor somebody to come to the US because they're a nice old lady or a good buddy or a cute kid or whatever else. And no lawyer can draft me a contract that would allow it. I am only allowed to bring my 'wife.'

Inheritance, property rights, custody rights, calculations of assets for means tested benefits, medical decision making and hospital visitation rights, certain legal rights (such as the fifth amendment applying to spouses not testifying against each other), etc. and other rights are all intertwined with marriage. Under the present legal system, you cannot emulate a marriage with respect to these issues without actually being married. Perhaps certain of these could be resolved in a straightforward manner by changing the minutiae of contract law.

But for things like immigration and taxes, the government has an interest in restricting certain things to 'marriage' and not allowing these relationships to be emulated by simple contracts. Bottom line, Gary, is that if the government didn't treat marriage differently, most of us would be in a very different situation in regards to the immigration of our [what we call] spouses.

Edited September 18, 2011 by SMR

[Danno 1,228]

I agree with you, Gary, on the level of principle and fundamentals. But Danno is right to point out how many parts of our society are based on the interplay between marriage and government. You can't just take that away and expect the system to work the way you want it to without a government definition of marriage. From a practical standpoint, you can only remove government restrictions and controls on marriage if you also deal with all of the attached issues.

I think that taxes are probably the biggest issue but for those on this board immigration is a huge issue as well. I can't sponsor somebody to come to the US because they're a nice old lady or a good buddy or a cute kid or whatever else. And no lawyer can draft me a contract that would allow it. I am only allowed to bring my 'wife.'

Inheritance, property rights, custody rights, calculations of assets for means tested benefits, medical decision making and hospital visitation rights, certain legal rights (such as the fifth amendment applying to spouses not testifying against each other), etc. and other rights are all intertwined with marriage. Under the present legal system, you cannot emulate a marriage with respect to these issues without actually being married. Perhaps certain of these could be resolved in a straightforward manner by changing the minutiae of contract law.

But for things like immigration and taxes, the government has an interest in restricting certain things to 'marriage' and not allowing these relationships to be emulated by simple contracts. Bottom line, Gary, is that if the government didn't treat marriage differently, most of us would be in a very different situation in regards to the immigration of our [what we call] spouses.

Even simple things like age restrictions on who can get married or if a man takes 2 or 3 wives, when he dies, who gets his social security?

Since he a postal worker, is the Gov. requires to cover all the wives with health insurance?

If he is on his death bed in the hospital, the "next of kin" decide his care.. do his kids make this decision of the women he was living with who claims they got married on a beach one night?

Who will inherit this mans estate ( minus a will), this women who claims they were married? Or the kids who doubt any such marriage was serious if it even took place.

How many dependent husbands can one women deduct for on her taxes?

Do people get to decide for themselves how they divorce?

Alimony would be a thing of the past except for those few people who do a pre-nupt.

I suppose the charge of bigamy would vanish as well.

I contend the state still has a need to promote that which is fundamental is maintaining a cohesive society, in the past we nearly all agreed this was a necessary guard rail.

In the same way that we heard all about the wonders of the generous social programs and benefits in Europe.... until they started collapsing.... so to will we see the fruit of those societies which embrace new definitions of marriage. (most of which are, withering in population and due to be put on the endangered species list before long).

[Danno 1,228]

Gary and Alla, I threw up a few questions that I hoped you'd answer.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I agree with you, Gary, on the level of principle and fundamentals. But Danno is right to point out how many parts of our society are based on the interplay between marriage and government. You can't just take that away and expect the system to work the way you want it to without a government definition of marriage. From a practical standpoint, you can only remove government restrictions and controls on marriage if you also deal with all of the attached issues.

I think that taxes are probably the biggest issue but for those on this board immigration is a huge issue as well. I can't sponsor somebody to come to the US because they're a nice old lady or a good buddy or a cute kid or whatever else. And no lawyer can draft me a contract that would allow it. I am only allowed to bring my 'wife.'

Inheritance, property rights, custody rights, calculations of assets for means tested benefits, medical decision making and hospital visitation rights, certain legal rights (such as the fifth amendment applying to spouses not testifying against each other), etc. and other rights are all intertwined with marriage. Under the present legal system, you cannot emulate a marriage with respect to these issues without actually being married. Perhaps certain of these could be resolved in a straightforward manner by changing the minutiae of contract law.

But for things like immigration and taxes, the government has an interest in restricting certain things to 'marriage' and not allowing these relationships to be emulated by simple contracts. Bottom line, Gary, is that if the government didn't treat marriage differently, most of us would be in a very different situation in regards to the immigration of our [what we call] spouses.

Again, we have people here who want government control, just of different things. Tax?

END INCOME TAX. All of it. None, nada. Replace it with a sales tax and who gives a rat's @ss who is married or not? See?

Government should control immigration since it involves protecting our soveriegnty and that IS a role of government. Why do they have to control marriage to regulate the immigration of your spouse? How would it affect the 5th amendment? A person is your spouse, you are married. What is the problem? You make a lifelong committment to someone, what is the mystery here? we already recognize that people can write their own vows, we even allow (in Vermont) ANYONE to be an "officiant" You can be married by your mother, father, brother, a homeless person, or you can do it yourself! Why would that be OK and not what I am suggesting? You fill out the papers, you both sign them and you file them with the state that you are married. Done. You do not ask permission, you just tell the state "This is my spouse, here is the official document we signed" You do not need any vows at all. Most of the JPs are quasi-hippies that make up their own wacky vows and charge $25 for their service. Far out, man! Worked perfectly well for immigration purposes.

Begin with the concept of NO government and add only as needed. You say we need regulation of marriage because it is tied to...(insert here) Well end the government control of THAT also

Gary and Alla, I threw up a few questions that I hoped you'd answer.

I will.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Even simple things like age restrictions on who can get married or if a man takes 2 or 3 wives, when he dies, who gets his social security?

Since he a postal worker, is the Gov. requires to cover all the wives with health insurance?

If he is on his death bed in the hospital, the "next of kin" decide his care.. do his kids make this decision of the women he was living with who claims they got married on a beach one night?

Who will inherit this mans estate ( minus a will), this women who claims they were married? Or the kids who doubt any such marriage was serious if it even took place.

How many dependent husbands can one women deduct for on her taxes?

Do people get to decide for themselves how they divorce?

Alimony would be a thing of the past except for those few people who do a pre-nupt.

I suppose the charge of bigamy would vanish as well.

I contend the state still has a need to promote that which is fundamental is maintaining a cohesive society, in the past we nearly all agreed this was a necessary guard rail.

In the same way that we heard all about the wonders of the generous social programs and benefits in Europe.... until they started collapsing.... so to will we see the fruit of those societies which embrace new definitions of marriage. (most of which are, withering in population and due to be put on the endangered species list before long).

Perfect examples of what I am speaking of regarding government control, let me begin and explain what I would suggest.

Marriage is a contract and you have to be at the age of majority to enter into contracts...a necessary government control. Age 18 has already been established, we will stay with that. So far we have ONE government regulation.

There is no social security, he decides who gets his personal retirment account.

He provides his own health insurance, it should not be tied to employment. Government or otherwise. "Refund" the money of the benefit to him in his pay and allow him to shop competitively for insurance. I want to see Geico and Progressive health care commercials on TV! THEN we will have affordable insurance.

On his deathbed...he decides. If he is unable to and has not provided for that in a will , then he will die all by himself. He can do it. People do it everyday.

His family can fight over his estate in court and pay for it themselves. Why does the government need to settle this? Stay out of it. The government does not own it and there are no tax implications (see FAIR TAX below) so why on earth does anyone outside the family and privately paid attorneys need to get involved?

There is no income tax and no deductions. FAIR TAX! Who cares how many wives you have, they all pay tax when they buy stuff

Alimony SHOULD be a thing of the past, yes. It pretty much is already. Of course they decide their own divorce, just like they do now.

What is bigamy? There are no regulations of who or how many you can marry. We will call it polymorous

You contend the government needs to control my life, I contend they do not. You are the same as DFH or any of the other so called "liberals" you just want to make me comply with YOUR beliefs the same as they want me to comply with THEIR beliefs. ####### off!

There, we now have ONE government control. You have to be 18 to enter into a marriage contract.

make illegal immigration economically impossible by imposing huge (read: HUGE!) fines for employing them. Illegal Immigration problem solved. It has nothing to do with marriage. Whoever you marry can live with you in the US. Provided they are not criminals or terrorists or otherwise a threat to the rest of us, who cares? They are not eligible for any welfare programs so who cares if you have enough money to support them? That's your bed, you make it, you sleep in it. It is the government's job to preotect me from your bad decisions, so this is fine. If your spouse is a good person...welcome to America!

[Danno 1,228]

Again, we have people here who want government control, just of different things. Tax?

END INCOME TAX. All of it. None, nada. Replace it with a sales tax and who gives a rat's @ss who is married or not? See?

Government should control immigration since it involves protecting our soveriegnty and that IS a role of government. Why do they have to control marriage to regulate the immigration of your spouse? How would it affect the 5th amendment? A person is your spouse, you are married. What is the problem? You make a lifelong committment to someone, what is the mystery here? we already recognize that people can write their own vows, we even allow (in Vermont) ANYONE to be an "officiant" You can be married by your mother, father, brother, a homeless person, or you can do it yourself! Why would that be OK and not what I am suggesting? You fill out the papers, you both sign them and you file them with the state that you are married. Done. You do not ask permission, you just tell the state "This is my spouse, here is the official document we signed" You do not need any vows at all. Most of the JPs are quasi-hippies that make up their own wacky vows and charge $25 for their service. Far out, man! Worked perfectly well for immigration purposes.

Begin with the concept of NO government and add only as needed. You say we need regulation of marriage because it is tied to...(insert here) Well end the government control of THAT also

I will.

So it seems like you agree, without major overhaul to many parts of the law, people making this marriage stuff up on their own... ain't gonna work.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So it seems like you agree, without major overhaul to many parts of the law, people making this marriage stuff up on their own... ain't gonna work.

Gotta start somewhere. But I am not going to support government intervention into people's private lives in the meantime. I leave that to you and Steven.