<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Twitter Discussion on Gay Marriage &#8211; A Reply</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tabin.net/2010_01/twitter_discussion_gay_marriage/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tabin.net/2010_01/twitter_discussion_gay_marriage</link>
	<description>life. liberty. and the pursuit of ice cream.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:23:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tabin</title>
		<link>http://www.tabin.net/2010_01/twitter_discussion_gay_marriage/comment-page-1#comment-1419</link>
		<dc:creator>tabin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabin.net/?p=1932#comment-1419</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;does it not follow that marriage would be, at that point, only a religious matter?&gt;&gt;

No. Because many societies have marriage that are not religious.  Thus, anyone can get married. The only difference would be that it doesn&#039;t matter to the government.  This would be for both straight and gay couples, religious and non-religious couples.  

Hence, agreements between the individuals themselves regarding their rights would govern when it comes to state enforcement.  What you call your commitment is your decision, not the government&#039;s.

Why is a marriage certificate important? Because it is the piece of paper you file with the state that gives you all these rights and obligations under the law.  If the state no longer is involved with marriage, then the marriage certificate loses its importance.  You can still have the commitment without the certificate.  

The government should not be the thing you look towards to validate your relationship. Isn&#039;t this what same-sex marriage proponents argue? &quot;You can&#039;t tell me who I can love and who I can marry.&quot;  Well, then fine. If no one&#039;s marriage is recognized, then the state can&#039;t tell you who you can marry because it won&#039;t care.

Which goes into the next point that you can still be a family without the government recognizes the &quot;foundation&quot; of the family (i.e. &quot;married parents&quot;).  Parents will still be responsible for the welfare of their children, as it ought to be.  

Can&#039;t answer your question about meaningless &quot;non-religious marriages&quot; because it&#039;s based on an assumption I didn&#039;t make.

Divorce? Again, that should be dealt with by individual agreement.  It happens now even with marriages, for example - prenups and other agreements made during marriage.

The family as a unit is more than just whether the mom and dad are married.  The state has an interest in protecting the welfare of the children that can be separated from &quot;divorce&quot; proceedings.  This is obvious by the fact that there are many procedures already in place regarding the children of unmarried couples now.  So, not much would change.

I don&#039;t need the government to validate my relationships.  And there are mechanisms available to me to ensure that the people I care about are taken care of without having to rely on things outside contract, trust, and wills law.  

I am not saying that my way is the &quot;right&quot; way, but it&#039;s the clearest way, to me, of getting everyone the same rights and obligations under the law, as is meant by equal protection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>>>does it not follow that marriage would be, at that point, only a religious matter?>></p>
<p>No. Because many societies have marriage that are not religious.  Thus, anyone can get married. The only difference would be that it doesn&#8217;t matter to the government.  This would be for both straight and gay couples, religious and non-religious couples.  </p>
<p>Hence, agreements between the individuals themselves regarding their rights would govern when it comes to state enforcement.  What you call your commitment is your decision, not the government&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Why is a marriage certificate important? Because it is the piece of paper you file with the state that gives you all these rights and obligations under the law.  If the state no longer is involved with marriage, then the marriage certificate loses its importance.  You can still have the commitment without the certificate.  </p>
<p>The government should not be the thing you look towards to validate your relationship. Isn&#8217;t this what same-sex marriage proponents argue? &#8220;You can&#8217;t tell me who I can love and who I can marry.&#8221;  Well, then fine. If no one&#8217;s marriage is recognized, then the state can&#8217;t tell you who you can marry because it won&#8217;t care.</p>
<p>Which goes into the next point that you can still be a family without the government recognizes the &#8220;foundation&#8221; of the family (i.e. &#8220;married parents&#8221;).  Parents will still be responsible for the welfare of their children, as it ought to be.  </p>
<p>Can&#8217;t answer your question about meaningless &#8220;non-religious marriages&#8221; because it&#8217;s based on an assumption I didn&#8217;t make.</p>
<p>Divorce? Again, that should be dealt with by individual agreement.  It happens now even with marriages, for example &#8211; prenups and other agreements made during marriage.</p>
<p>The family as a unit is more than just whether the mom and dad are married.  The state has an interest in protecting the welfare of the children that can be separated from &#8220;divorce&#8221; proceedings.  This is obvious by the fact that there are many procedures already in place regarding the children of unmarried couples now.  So, not much would change.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t need the government to validate my relationships.  And there are mechanisms available to me to ensure that the people I care about are taken care of without having to rely on things outside contract, trust, and wills law.  </p>
<p>I am not saying that my way is the &#8220;right&#8221; way, but it&#8217;s the clearest way, to me, of getting everyone the same rights and obligations under the law, as is meant by equal protection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.tabin.net/2010_01/twitter_discussion_gay_marriage/comment-page-1#comment-1418</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabin.net/?p=1932#comment-1418</guid>
		<description>I didn&#039;t mean to &quot;reinterpret&quot; what you said.  If the state is removed from the institution of marriage, does it not follow that marriage would be, at that point, only a religious matter?  Perhaps a marriage certificate is only a piece of paper (and I know as well as anyone that that piece of paper doesn&#039;t mean much to a lot of people these days), but that piece of paper still, to many, represents a commitment that two people have made to each other.  In this day and age, when so many children are being raised without fathers, do we really want to water down the family institution even further by declaring non-religious marriage meaningless?  

Further, if the state removes itself from marriage, what then of divorce?  How will the disollution of a family be delt with when there is no state interest in the family as a unit?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I didn&#8217;t mean to &#8220;reinterpret&#8221; what you said.  If the state is removed from the institution of marriage, does it not follow that marriage would be, at that point, only a religious matter?  Perhaps a marriage certificate is only a piece of paper (and I know as well as anyone that that piece of paper doesn&#8217;t mean much to a lot of people these days), but that piece of paper still, to many, represents a commitment that two people have made to each other.  In this day and age, when so many children are being raised without fathers, do we really want to water down the family institution even further by declaring non-religious marriage meaningless?  </p>
<p>Further, if the state removes itself from marriage, what then of divorce?  How will the disollution of a family be delt with when there is no state interest in the family as a unit?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kj</title>
		<link>http://www.tabin.net/2010_01/twitter_discussion_gay_marriage/comment-page-1#comment-1259</link>
		<dc:creator>kj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:37:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabin.net/?p=1932#comment-1259</guid>
		<description>I love you to pieces :) Thanks for throwing some legal precedent &amp; theory into the mix.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love you to pieces :) Thanks for throwing some legal precedent &amp; theory into the mix.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

