Now that marriage equality is secured, says Professor, next "disestablish marriage"

[GFR7]

Now that marriage equality is secured, says Professor, next "disestablish marriage"

From a World Net Daily piece of this morning.

Somehow seems disingenuous to redefine marriage, then seek to dismantle marriage altogether.

But as the piece says, marriage was just a "step toward total social transformation". :think:

The next phase: ‘Disestablish marriage’

Tamara Metz, associate professor of political science and humanities at Reed College and the author of “Untying the Knot” wrote a portion of the article under the subtitle, “What’s Next? Disestablish Marriage!”

Now that marriage “equality” is the law of the land, the next phase of the struggle is to work toward the elimination of marriage as an institution, Metz argues.

“Abolish the legal category. Even as we savor the victory for civil equality this week, we should start to push for disestablishing marriage. Freedom, equality and the health of our liberal democratic polity depend on it.

“Get the state out of the business, and let couples (and groups, for that matter) marry under the auspices of what are for them real ethical authorities. In these hands – of their church, their family, their urban tribe, their garden club – the power of the status to transform would be invigorated.”


http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/lgbt-activists-marriage-was-never-the-end-game/#uxY6Rydy0eB3zzLC.99

 

[Angel4Truth]

I disagree, the next step will be to try to dismantle the church, and/or legalize polygamy to further weaken the meaning of marriage. Strike down what mirrors our relationship with God, then strike down God. (their thinking) Just another way to remove oneself from accountability.

 

[GFR7]

I disagree, the next step will be to try to dismantle the church, and/or legalize polygamy to further weaken the meaning of marriage. Strike down what mirrors our relationship with God, then strike down God. (their thinking) Just another way to remove oneself from accountability.

Yes, all of it, no matter the angle, aims for a radical transformation and inversion - a revaluation of all values.

 

[rexlunae]

... World Net Daily ...

Previously know for publicizing birther conspiracy theories and other thoroughly debunk nonsense.

 

[HisServant]

I agree with him... Marriage as a governmental institution is in my opinion un-constitutional because before the law married individuals are treated differently by the government solely based on their income.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Tamara Metz, associate professor of political science and humanities at Reed College and the author of “Untying the Knot” wrote a portion of the article under the subtitle, “What’s Next? Disestablish Marriage!”

Now that marriage “equality” is the law of the land, the next phase of the struggle is to work toward the elimination of marriage as an institution, Metz argues.

“Abolish the legal category. Even as we savor the victory for civil equality this week, we should start to push for disestablishing marriage. Freedom, equality and the health of our liberal democratic polity depend on it.

The associate professor doesn't know what she is talking about.
She probably had taken and taught too many courses in "Women's and Gender Studies" to be able to think straight.

The reality is that marriage "equality" only became the law because marriage had already been disestablished enough through no-contest divorce laws (and other marriage laws) to the point that the people were even able to consider an abomination like homosexuality as being the same thing as a marriage.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I disagree, the next step will be to try to dismantle the church, and/or legalize polygamy to further weaken the meaning of marriage.

The steps to disestablishing marriage began with criminalizing polygamy, setting an "age of consent", and creating no-contest divorce.

Polygamy will not be legalized because that would undermine the whole marriage "equality" movement.

 

[GFR7]

The associate professor doesn't know what she is talking about.
She probably had taken and taught too many courses in "Women's and Gender Studies" to be able to think straight.

The reality is that marriage "equality" only became the law because marriage had already been disestablished enough through no-contest divorce laws (and other marriage laws) to the point that the people were even able to consider an abomination like homosexuality as being the same thing as a marriage.

Agreed.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Polygamy will not be legalized because that would undermine the whole marriage "equality" movement.

Polygamous living is legal in Utah after judge overturns cohabitation ban in favor of ‘Sister Wives’ family

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that the Utah law that prevented Kody Brown and his four wives from living together was unconstitutional. He also found that the Browns’ rights were violated by years of investigations into their polygamous lifestyle.

 

[Jose Fly]

From your article...

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups found that the cohabitation ban violated the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

However, it is still illegal to obtain multiple active marriage licenses. But this isn’t a problem for most polygamous families, Buzzfeed reports. After the first marriage, most families perform “spiritual” or religious ceremonies without needing official state approval.

So polygamous marriage is still illegal, but you can cohabitate with other adults. I can't imagine the conservative outcry if the federal government had ruled that multiple adults can't live in the same house with each other.

 

[Angel4Truth]

From your article...
So polygamous marriage is still illegal, but you can cohabitate with other adults. I can't imagine the conservative outcry if the federal government had ruled that multiple adults can't live in the same house with each other.

Which has nothing to do with what i posted. I posted that to show that legalizing polygamy is on its way. You do know what context means right?

 

[drbrumley]

on gay marriage: blame the libertarians!

 

[rexlunae]

Also, news flash, it's conservative bigots who have been threatening to end marriage, so that gay people can't have it.

 

[drbrumley]

Also, news flash, it's conservative bigots who have been threatening to end marriage, so that gay people can't have it.

You mean government marriage? Wouldn't that be great?

 

[bybee]

I disagree, the next step will be to try to dismantle the church, and/or legalize polygamy to further weaken the meaning of marriage. Strike down what mirrors our relationship with God, then strike down God. (their thinking) Just another way to remove oneself from accountability.

What about the children? Is anyone thinking about the children at all?
It takes a man and a woman to make a baby. It takes a man and a woman to raise, nurture, protect, educate and prepare the child for his/her pathway in life.
I realize there are often impediments to this plan but it is a good plan and best meets the needs of children.

 

[Jose Fly]

Which has nothing to do with what i posted. I posted that to show that legalizing polygamy is on its way. You do know what context means right?

It may be, but there's a very significant legal difference between the government telling adults they can't even live together, and the government not granting multiple marriage licenses to one guy.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It may be, but there's a very significant legal difference between the government telling adults they can't even live together, and the government not granting multiple marriage licenses to one guy.

Again, not the point, make a thread on that if you want to discuss it.

 

[Jose Fly]

So if a judge ruling that the government can't prohibit adults from living together isn't the point, why did you post it?

Ah....never mind.

 

[bybee]

So if a judge ruling that the government can't prohibit adults from living together isn't the point, why did you post it?

Ah....never mind.

The government can decide that persons are unfit parents and take children from any home it deems unfit.
Who sets the criteria for a "fit" home?

 

[Jose Fly]

The government can decide that persons are unfit parents and take children from any home it deems unfit.
Who sets the criteria for a "fit" home?

I don't have any experience with this, but I believe they rely on the opinions of experts in the field and case workers who have spent time with the family (and in some cases, testimony of friends, relatives, and maybe even the kids).