Alan Dershowitz wrote a Los Angeles Times editorial titled "To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business." More so than commentators from the right, Dershowitz frames his view on the topic in terms of church-state separation; unlike libertarian leaning discussions Dershowitz maintains that the state does have an interest in the secular rights of marriage. Dershowitz proposes that civil- unions as a secular replacement for state sanctioned marriage, be extended to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Under Dershowitz's conception of privatization, couples have a choice as to whether or not they wish to be married by a clergy willing to perform a marriage ceremony or to exclusively partake of secular/state-sanctioned civil unions. Dershowitz writes: Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.
On Mar 1, 6:59 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Why would Government need to 'acknowledge' marriages (or their facsimiles) in > the first place? > Group A having the Government stick its nose into the matter to provide > advantage is where the 'problem' began. > Regard$, > --MJ > "The real threat to the institution of marriage is not homosexuals wanting > heterosexuals to recognize their same-sex marriages, it is Christians > standing in a church and saying 'for better for worse, for richer for poorer, > in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part' and > then getting divorced a few years later," -- Laurence VanceAt 05:49 PM > 2/27/2013, you wrote:How about this ... make all unions that the Gov't > acknowledges, civil unions with all the same rights, not something like 60% > and then if some flying spaghetti monster wants to bless your union, call in > marriage ... but it's not a legal thing, only a religious thing ... not > recognized by the state!!! > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@ges > mail.com> wrote:Changing the "definition" of the word marriage to > includehomosexuals is an absolute INSULT to most heterosexuals.---hogwash ... > it's only an insult to religious myth believers whopersecute > homosexuals.their days of morality policing is over.On Feb 26, 8:26 am, > NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:> MJ: As I've explained several > times, the primary issue shouldn't be> whether or not gays have a right to > form contractual, significant-> other relationships, and have the same > benefits as a heterosexual> spouse. It should only be about prohibition of > the use of the WORD> married. Changing the "definition" of the word marriage > to include> homosexuals is an absolute INSULT to most heterosexuals. My > "NC"> requires that 'pair bonded gays' say that they are "gayged" rather> > than married. And requires that they use the word "gaygement" rather> than > marriage. Other than for that, no "do-gooders" in the USA have a> right to > tell anyone how they choose to live their personal lives; and> any 'law' > saying otherwise is UNCONSTITUTIONAL social engineering! —> John A. > Armistead, author of the 'New Constitution of the United> States of > America'—the updated, strengthened, clarified, and expanded> Big Brother of > the original Constitution.>> On Feb 25, 12:49 pm, MJ <[email protected]> > wrote:>>>>>>>> > What about the OBVIOUS AIVS1C1?> > Regard$,> > --MJ> > "But > whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is > certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or > has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --L. > SpoonerAt 12:20 PM 2/25/2013, you wrote:Obama Administration Urges Supreme > Court To Strike Down DOMA> > By Sakib Ahmed on February 25th, 2013 (1 hour > ago)> > The Obama administration seems to be serious with this whole, new-> > > found support of gay marriage.> > On Friday, the administration filed a legal > brief with the Justice> > Department that urges the Supreme Court to strike > down a key part of> > the Defense of Marriage Act. The brief formally asks > the court to> > declare Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional—the part that > bars> > recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of federal benefits> > > such as income taxes or federal employee benefits. The brief points> > out > that there are more than 1,000 federal statues and programs that> > come into > play depending on a person’s marital status.> > The Obama administration > notes that some of these couples are legally> > married so targeting them is > “a harsh form of discrimination that> > bears no relation to their ability to > contribute to society.”> > Moreover, the brief states it violates the > constitutional guarantee of> > equal protection.----Thanks for being part of > "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.For options & help > seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum* Visit our other community > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/* It's active and moderated. Register and > vote in our polls.* Read the latest breaking news, and more.---You received > this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" > group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email [email protected] more options, > visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- > brinehttp://brineb.blogspot.com/ > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
