Please help Rick Santorum

Fully 2,000 or so people from across the nation and the world turned out for the massive March for Marriage rally in Washington DC last Thursday. Among the speakers who showed up was Rick Santorum, who said the following:

Could someone please map out for me the the cause-and-effect relationship between allowing same-sex couples to marry and, less marriage, weak families, and society suffering socially, economically, and morally? Not to mention how children are harmed? And how is it saying that marriage is, "not significant". Santorum says that the case for all that needs to be made. From what I've read, I don't think he's the one to do it. Could someone here help him? I really want to know.

Or is it possible that these pathetic idiots are really basing their views on nothing but their selective reading of the laws of The Sky Troll, which is another way of saying that they are based on nothing at all?

https://www.marriagemarch.org/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...and_friends_lead_a_group_therapy_session.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/...-undermines-family-as-a-viable-economic-unit/

 

Probably the best solution to the whole thing is for the government to completely stay out of the "marriage licensing" business. If two people (or three people, four people, etc.) want to form a partnership, go through a lawyer. The government could still be the repository for the records, but perhaps they should just get completely out of the "licensing" business altogether.

 

Why? We have a perfectly good system for marriage as it is. It's a civil institution. A huge number of rights and obligations are codified and there is some uniformity from place to place. And its validity is universally recognized. At least if you're straight. All that needs to happen is that religions need to get over the idea that they own it and that they can impose their particular God's particular version of it on everyone.

 

I prefer the idea of a so-called marriage being an entity not unlike a corporation as opposed to a "civil institution". In fact, I don't really even like the word "marriage". I prefer "partnership" or "incorporation" just like a business might be. After all, it's a contract between two (or more) people and should be kept on a legal, professional level. Isn't that really the issue that's being fought in this country right now? To legalize an incorporation of people? Love, emotion, sexuality and religion have no place in the equation.

 

Interesting.

 

That's what we have now. A corporation is a legal construct. So is marriage. When you initiate a marriage the state does not ask the people involved whether they love each other, or what their sexuality is, and the state isn't interested in their religion or lack thereof. Nor is it interested in their reasons for getting married. All the state does is establish that they are legally able to enter into the contract that establishes this relationship.

If the couple want to add a bunch of fairy dust and religious crap on top of it the state accommodates them by allowing the clergy to act as agents of the state in formalizing the contract. Otherwise the couple can go to a judge. But all that is up to the couple. So I don't see what your problem with the current system is or how what you propose is any different.

 

But, states DO ask for identification and will not allow persons of the same sex to enter into the contract. I'm speaking, of course, of the states which do not allow same-sex marriage.

Therein lies the problem. Toss out the old "marriage" garbage and replace it with a corporation or legal partnership. The state would not be involved in issuing any sort of license and would have absolutely no say in who can incorporate. A Certificate of Incorporation would be issued once the paperwork is filed and you and whomever would be entered into a legal contract. You could have as many partners in your corporation as you want. You can put them on your life insurance policies and give them rights to visit you in the hospital. You can give them power of attorney and add them to your will or trust. If children are produced or adopted, simply add them to the corporation or trust. Divorces would become a thing of the past. If the partners in the corporation no longer want a certain member, kick them out of the corporation. If there are only two partners, file a Certificate of Dissolution of a Corporation. If there are disputes over custodial or property rights, the courts would handle it as they do now with marriages.

The clergy need not be involved at all. In fact, I would discourage the clergy from being involved in the formation of a corporation unless, of course, the person is also a lawyer. Otherwise, simply fill out a form to incorporate, pay the paperwork processing fee and... TA DA... you're incorporated. There's no need to even involve a judge as you pointed out. Go online and print out a form yourself or, if you're so inclined, hire a lawyer to file it for you.

If one or more persons are so inclined to enter into a legal contract with one another which provides them with all the rights and responsibilities currently reserved for only those persons who are "married", I say unto you: GO FORTH AND INCORPORATE!!!

 

Okay, so what's stopping people from doing all that now? If they'd rather go to all that trouble rather than just going down to the court house and getting the paperwork taken care off in a half an hour's time for under $100 then they can go for it.

 

Incorporation for the purposes of creating a household is really a fascinating idea. I would love to see a trial balloon. The tax implications will be the sticky part. Can you expense the rent and car. Will pay checks be made to the corporation or individual. The main issue is what defines a household. To put it in words they can understand, just like trucking, you need to deregulate marriage.

Politics 101: You need to remove the words same sex or set-up a side line cause to push the agenda. The opposition get all nervous, weird, and twitchy when they hear the words and it is usually followed by fits of vomiting, rants, and massive doses of self righteousness. This is primarily a tax and insurance problem so approach it from a different angle. What defines a household. I was raised by an Uncle who was audited by the IRS every year because it was not a legal adoption. There are many instances that I can think of that can be used to redefine what constitutes a household. If I am providing total care for my best friend, who was wounded by an IED, shouldn't I be able to declare him as a dependent for tax and insurance purposes. If I take in my sisters kids so don't wind up on the street, or provide shelter to a homeless friend until they can get back on their feet. Shouldn't I be able to declare them as part of my household. Put a crack in that foundation and then go for the wall.

 

That's a really good question. What is stopping them? Perhaps they haven't thought about it. I doubt you thought about it until I mentioned it. Correct?

The last time I set up a corporation, I think the cost was around $50 or so. The cost may have gone up, but I haven't checked recently. My point is that we should just dissolve "marriage" as it stands now and simply have everyone start a corporation instead. The state couldn't care less if a corporation is made up of opposite-sex, same-sex, no-sex or all-night sex individuals.

 

I'd like to see someone try it, too. Takiji, are you listening? The tax laws for corporations are already in place, so not much would have to be changed. The laws might have to be tweaked to include children or dependents, child care, some tax credits etc., but not much would have to changed.

 

I'm going to have to report this thread to the moderator for the flagrant use of the disgusting word Santorum. What about the kids?

 

You guys, you can hire a lawyer and get this taken care of now if you want to go to the time and the expense. You don't have to get married, you can create your own approximation of marriage from scratch using existing legal avenues and options if you want to. We know how this works since we've been through it.

And when we had the opportunity we still got married. We got married for our own protection even though we aren't yet as well covered geographically as you are or could be if you wanted to be. I don't understand your determination to re-invent the wheel. What are you trying to accomplish here?

 

I'm glad somebody is paying attention. The fact that I have not been reprimanded for this shows a disturbing lack of rigor on the part of the board authorities.

 

You got married for "legal" protection, correct? You didn't get married for love or sex or anything like that since you can have those things without marriage anyway. The current "marriage license" is simply a legal contract which same-sex proponents across the country are trying to standardize. Well, take sex out of the equation completely and use the law that already exists to form a legal union.

Like I said before, you don't need a lawyer, but you can use one if you want. It would be similar to marriages today where the parties file a pre-nuptial agreement. But, you don't need one. Just file the paperwork. It's not really any more difficult than applying for a marriage license. In fact, it's probably less time consuming since you don't need to take a blood test, undergo pre-marital counseling, etc. Go online, print the incorporation form and there you go! No more clergy members need be involved (unless the parties want that, of course) and no more judges are involved to officiate. The parties simply file their paperwork and go about their (hopefully) happy incorporation together.

I say abolish "marriage" entirely and switch to incorporation for EVERYONE. The equality already exists. The state has no say in the matter. Religious groups can't object to incorporation. There's nothing in the Bible that says who can incorporate and who can't. If you incorporate, you'll be "covered geographically" (as you say) everywhere... right now... right this minute... today!

I don't understand your opposition to incorporation. It's a legal contract which is, at least, equal to a marriage license. Love, sex, emotion, religion.. ALL of that is removed from the equation and it's available to everyone right now.

 

I have no opposition to incorporation. Again, if you want to reinvent the wheel, feel free. The option has always existed for people to create legal obligations and responsibilities between themselves in just about any way they'd like. You can be married and still do that if you feel what you have needs fine-tuning. People do that all the time.

But me, I'm essentially good with the existing legal structure. All I ask is that my partner and I and others like us have access to it. And to an ever increasing degree we are getting access to it, both here and abroad. All I want is to see that continue. If you think that you can make a better legal structure to replace the existing one then I wish you well. But I'm not convinced that you have any idea what you're talking about.

 

No reinvention of the wheel. The structure already exists.

But, what's the point of being "married" in the first place? Legal protection, right? You get the same thing with incorporation and it's available to all.

You DO have access to it. Incorporate!

I don't have to "make" a better legal structure; it already exists. Abolish "marriage". All these current cases tying up our courts would dissolve. There would be no more bickering between religious groups and secular groups. The equality would be instantaneous. You would have all the rights in a corporation that you have under the auspices of a marriage. You can have as many people in your corporation as you want. That's even MORE equality than you get with a marriage.

So, let me summarize my argument in favor of incorporating and abolishing marriage:

1. No more religion involved

2. No sexuality involved

3. No emotion involved

4. Equality for all (even MORE equality than marriage)

5. The laws of incorporation already exist

6. Incorporation is recognized everywhere

7. Rights under incorporation are, at least, equal to the rights under marriage

8. Cases tying up our courts would disappear

9. Arguments between religious groups and secular groups would disappear

10. As easy (perhaps easier) and as fast to file as a marriage license

Same-sex marriage proponents would no longer have to focus on the hate and bigotry of those who are opposed to them. Nor would they have to espouse hate toward their opponents. A very peaceful resolution can be accomplished simply by abolishing marriage.

 

Let me ask you something, Takiji. Why did you get married instead of incorporating?

 

Well Coin, you may be right. I doubt it, though. Like I said. We've been down the marriage substitute road already and found it lacking. And marriage is working just fine for us, or it has so far. But again, maybe your corporation idea is worth trying out.

Are you married? If so, I think you should dissolve that marriage and get incorporated instead. If incorporating would be such an improvement over marriage then you'd be doing yourself and your spouse a favor. Encourage your friends and family members to do the same. Surely once you've explained the benefits to them they'll be on board, I know they will. You owe them that. Then you could give us periodic updates on how you find that it works for everyone. I'd be interested to find out how things go. Like I said, I'm open, just not convinced.

 

Actually, marriage ISN'T working for you.. at least so far. You said it yourself: You aren't well covered geographically. But, I agree that the change is coming... eventually. It could be months or it could be years.

Even then, there will still be people opposed to the idea even if it's legal. The "incorporation" idea does away with all that "gay marriage" stigma that a lot of people have. It would shut people like Rick Santorum up and would stop the hatred being slung at him ("pathetic idiots" and all). A peaceful resolution to the marriage debate should be the ultimate goal and I believe I've proffered one.

Everyone has basically the same response as you. They say things like, "I hadn't thought of that, but it's time I thought outside the box".

Same-sex proponents would no longer have to fight the battle currently being waged by them against "bigots" and "hatred" insofar as the "gay marriage" issue is concerned. EVERYONE would be on a level playing field.

Also, this isn't a "marriage substitute". So-called "marriage" would no longer exist; just incorporated entities. Very legal, very fair and very professional. And might I add "very modern", too. Marriage is such an ancient ritual steeped in religious overtones it's probably time for a change.