Judge: Colorado Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Legal marriage simply isn't "marriage" as most people think of it. The law treats marriage as a financial partnership, nothing more. Legal marriage is an obligation to provide support to one'sspouse and children. Whatever legal marriage started out to be when laws were first passed in this country, it isn't that anymore. The legal system doesn't care about marital fidelity or even promoting the conditions that help couples raise children. It's all about money and power. Just go through a divorce and you'll see what I mean.

I think it's high time people give up legal marriage and go back to the church or other traditions that make marriage meaningful. Leave it to the courts to dictate the terms of an institution that noone uses. If courts can redefine marriage into something noone ever intended by putting words into the Constitution the drafters never said, we live in a dictatorship. Act accordingly.

PrintSmith wrote: Since when was any level of government empowered to decide what is or is not a marriage? Anyone who is, or has been, married knows that a marriage is a heckuva lot more than a legal tie between two people. Since when did the government get to weigh in on anything other than the legal relationship between two or more individuals?

For centuries? And as government controls more and more of our lives, it will become even more common to have civil marriages and many fewer religious marriages.

On a more pragmatic note........Men have always gotten screwed in a divorce. What happens now?

OmniScience wrote: On a more pragmatic note....Men have always gotten screwed in a divorce. What happens now?

She/He who makes the most money will pay.Since the female gender does not have parity...generally
THAT is the male.(=highest wage earner)

And the point...LEGAL STATUS for all,THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION,it's about love and allowing the
loved one to maintain piece of mind thru a LEGALLY binding process.

homeagain wrote: And the point...LEGAL STATUS for all,THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION,it's about love and allowing the loved one to maintain piece of mind thru a LEGALLY binding process.

Civil recording of a legal relationship between two (or soon to be more) people has absolutely nothing to do with love home. You are projecting into the discussion something that is completely outside of the parameters of the discussion. Though that, too, is part of why this is such a watershed issue for so many as they seek to promote an agenda. The "marriage" license issued by the government is nothing more, or less, than an official recording of a contract voluntarily entered into by two (soon to be more) individuals. The marriage records that churches and other religious institutions maintain denote the binding of two into one in the eyes of the congregation and God. The two always have been, and always will be, totally different documents covering totally different areas.

I completely agree. It is a sign of the absurdity our government has brought to this issue that we have the County Clerk telling us her position on what marriage should be. The solution to this problem, of having courts sweep away the vote of the people, dictating our culture through strained arguments is to OPT OUT of legal marriage. A prenuptial agreement does just that. It allows the couple to say what their marriage is, and what it is not. The law says marriage is a financial partnership between two people, so deny it in a prenup and then go on to solemnize your marriage in church or by whatever cultural or religious means you wish. There is no reason to give the courts jurisdiction over your marriage when you can opt out.

jf1acai wrote: They might hang their hat on science to prohibit marriage between siblings, but prohibiting marriage among 3 or more people is purely discriminatory. There is no reason for it, and there is historical precedent in favor of it.

I don't think they can even do that given that with this court legislated, and invented, "right" to marry whomever you choose the argument that the government has an interest in this because of the children that the "marriage" may yield has vanished because, as we all know, two of the same sex cannot produce any offspring in our species. No, what the statists have done in this instance is to reduce the governmental interest solely to issues of property and people cannot be property in the Union since the adoption of the 13th Amendment.

homeagain wrote:

OmniScience wrote: On a more pragmatic note....Men have always gotten screwed in a divorce. What happens now?

She/He who makes the most money will pay.Since the female gender does not have parity...generally
THAT is the male.(=highest wage earner)

Actually, homey, that was a rhetorical question. Anyway, I heard a comedian say they were all for gay marriage, "I think it's funny that homos will now get to be as miserable as those who are married". As a devout bachelor, who cherishes independence and freedom, I couldn't agree more, and others seem to be catching on. Those who are married are now in the minority in this country. The way I’ve always looked at it is 50+% of marriages fail, so I have about a 50% chance of getting financially hosed. Never liked those odds. I've known far too many people who were unhappy or felt trapped in a marriage. I'd rather go through life wanting what I don't have than having what I don't want.

FredHayek wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Since when was any level of government empowered to decide what is or is not a marriage? Anyone who is, or has been, married knows that a marriage is a heckuva lot more than a legal tie between two people. Since when did the government get to weigh in on anything other than the legal relationship between two or more individuals?

For centuries? And as government controls more and more of our lives, it will become even more common to have civil marriages and many fewer religious marriages.

Not sure I agree with you Fred. Prior to the Union, most of the countries were in practice theocracies of one stripe or another. The Church was the State.