BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Current Events Marriage Amendment

And with that sentence you are saying that My marriage is a failure due to the lack of children.
(Not forgeting the implication there that Women are just baby-machines.)


A perversion in your eyes perhaps.

The one thing I do agree with; is I think the marriage laws should be nationwide.

It is not fair to couples who get married in one state (gay, straight, common-law, whatever) then move to another and all of a sudden have no rights anymore.

If you are married in one state you should be married in all.

With very great, (and justly due) respect to Familychoice, I love the way these self-righteous, pompous over-inflated men come onto a predominantly women's forum and start telling us how they think Marriage should work - !!


I suggest you go tell it to the marines....
(No doubt some of them may be Gay - at least you'd get a testosterone-laden response..... many of us here are just hormonal...take no notice.....!! ) <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

heehee @ Alexandra. When I'm hormonal (as in now), I'm ten times worse than any Marine. Just ask my hubby. <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I think civil unions are a great idea, and they're working fine in Europe.

In fact, I think some folks who rush into marriage might want to try a civil union first. It would be just a contract as to how expenses will be shared, grants you right to inherit and derive other couple benefits, and spells out how a split will be handled. Civil unions should be available to all adults, no matter what gender. Could highly transform the overburdened divorce courts.

Historically, marriage was a contract between two people that existed to insure the line of inheritance. That's still a very valid purpose. But civil unions could serve the same purpose. The presence, or lack of, children isn't a major obstacle in the line of inheritance in the current times. You can gift or leave property to anyone you choose (family or not), generally without penalty.

I agree with Darling. The benefits of a contractual union should be made available to everyone--even to those who choose to cohabit long-term rather than officially "marry."

I have to disagree with this from a States' Rights perspective. The Constitution specifically states that all rights not granted to the federal government therein are reserved for the states to decide.

Surely, 50 states can figure out better than 1 governing body how to work out various problems that arise in communities. 50 states makes a broader base for human problem solving than 1 can.

Lastly, most states have recognition laws whereby they don't undo what other states have done to regulate commerce, etc. A marriage is not invalid just because you step over a boundary. It may not work for state taxes, but your fed taxes would be the same, and virtually all companies now already recognize significant others for purposes of beneficiary status.

There is really no such thing as same-sex sex marriage. Marriage exists for the purpose of having children and raising them in a secure family environment.

so a woman who cant have kids should not be married? Do you picket funerals too? how bout burn crosses?

why are some people so.......asinine?

Actually, the percent of corporations providing benefits to domestic partners in the U.S. is generally less than 50 percent, depending upon which survey you look at. See the (hrefBellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!