Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Marriage poll [View all]Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)179. So you would prevent Americans from marriage to those outside the country.
Because it is not 'if you want to marry an American' it is 'if an American wants to marry another national'. And I note that you speak of how to 'marry an American' when the rest of us are speaking about couples who meet here or abroad and wish to get married to each other. The implication that it is about marrying 'an American' rather than marrying the person you love seems like the tip of a bad hat.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
212 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So did your insurance company find out who your spouse is using telepathy?
Bluenorthwest
May 2012
#177
you're part of the problem because when the LGBT community was about to gain marriage rights
CreekDog
Feb 2016
#208
Marriage may predate all modern religions, but superstition has probably been around even longer
MNBrewer
May 2012
#189
So, you are agreeing that the government, and only the government, enforces collection?
eridani
May 2012
#100
And the alternative to the government for dealing with contract disputes is what?
eridani
May 2012
#116
Of course there are big common sense issues with it... But ideologically I'm with you.
napoleon_in_rags
May 2012
#10
Most personal matters, like faith and love are better without government involvement, yes.
napoleon_in_rags
May 2012
#13
The Romans ran an empire, and they did not impose their own religion onto
Bluenorthwest
May 2012
#178
I don't hate the idea, but I am against it, so I can't accurately vote in your poll. nt
ZombieHorde
May 2012
#23
So why not keep them available in the package they are in now? Why go fill out numerous forms, file
uppityperson
May 2012
#47
wtf? No. Here in WA it costs $35-65 for a license, depending on the county. License fees are much
uppityperson
May 2012
#60
So you would prevent Americans from marriage to those outside the country.
Bluenorthwest
May 2012
#179
Saying "get rid of civil marriage entirely" is a no sale argument, not to mention
Warren DeMontague
May 2012
#44
If all those legal things are available otherwise, I don't get why you don't want them available.
uppityperson
May 2012
#46
I do not believe marriage should have privileges not given to other types of relationships.
alarimer
May 2012
#58
Nope....I'm all for the civil union recognized by the government taking precedence
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
May 2012
#59
I vote "pass" though I agree in princple, in reality it doesn't work that way.
joshcryer
May 2012
#63
You didn't read the rest of my post. That's what society endows marriage, not some magical...
joshcryer
May 2012
#69
Yes. And we'd call it marriage, because that contract has, by our societal standards...
joshcryer
May 2012
#108
Your route requires institutions to stop recognizing the institution of marriage.
joshcryer
May 2012
#123
Can't have it both ways. Signing a legal document conveys rights that those who don't sign don't
uppityperson
May 2012
#73
DUers HELP please? I can never remember the difference between a strawman and a red herring.
uppityperson
May 2012
#85
It's a slippery slope. If you advocate for this (which is in theory more egalitarian)...
joshcryer
May 2012
#134
And yet you are personally married. As are all of the folks who claim they are 'against it in
Bluenorthwest
May 2012
#187
For starters, the right to inherit property and other such spousal rights.
uppityperson
May 2012
#74
Civil Marriage provides legal protections. It's a contract. So the govt has to be involved, if you
Honeycombe8
May 2012
#76
Of course not every contract demands a fee but laws and contracts are by civil, ie government, autho
uppityperson
May 2012
#86
And you are free to believe that "while legally binding and potentially court enforceable" has
uppityperson
May 2012
#92
Yes, gvt does approve participation of the parties. Can a 6 yr old sign a legal contract for S-corp?
uppityperson
May 2012
#93
It is sexual ORIENTATION, not "sexual preference". Orientation is hard wired, preference not
uppityperson
May 2012
#95
What? Take a doctor's advice over that of an anonymous internet forum poster?
uppityperson
May 2012
#125
This whole "burn it all down" thing seems to crop up any time progress is made for gay civil rights.
The Link
May 2012
#138
But you are yourself married, so clearly you don't have yourself in mind either....
Bluenorthwest
May 2012
#194
Marriage is still the most straightforward way to convey inheritance rights
OmahaBlueDog
May 2012
#167
Since laws are the government, how do you propose gvt getting out of anything to do with
uppityperson
May 2012
#170
How can you have legal things without the gvt? Laws are passed, implemented, upheld, BY the gvt.
uppityperson
May 2012
#172
So you just don't want to have to get "permission", not have gvt out of legal affairs.
uppityperson
May 2012
#174
That's utterly false. Many people make their own pre nuptial agreements which define the
Bluenorthwest
May 2012
#188
No, you said all marriages are made out of a preset contract to which the parties can only agree
Bluenorthwest
May 2012
#192
i've always felt that laws and policies promoting long-term, monogamous relationships would benefit
maggiesfarmer
May 2012
#181