I’m proud to be from Arkansas. The further away I get, the prouder I am.

If the state is removed it is left to religious institutions to decide the approval of these relationships. Non-religious people can develop a contractual agreement about their monogamous or non-monagamous relationships, can have commitment ceremonies-which would be more of a civil union and not marriage.

Thanks Thomas, individualists like us have to stick together.

/irony

I personally believe everyone is better off not getting a marriage license. Be with someone forever if you want, but having to get a license from the government to essentially prove that you are a really in love is insulting to everyone.

I don’t think it’s that simple. People always say that the state “rewards” marriage by giving married couples privileges (inheritence rights, hospital visitation etc.), but I think it’s just that the state recognizes the reality that marriage is the creation of a familial bond between two people which necesitates legal protection and privileges similar to the ones enjoyed by parents/children and siblings.

In that sense, I think it’s very clear cut that the law needs to recognize marriage, i.e. not treat a married couple as though they were strangers. Once you do this, then the question becomes whether you will allow the same recognition for gay couples. So its not as easy as saying the gov should just stop dealing with the idea of marriage altogether.

This vote is an embarrassment for the state of AK, and I shall now feel free to perpetuate every stereotype about people that come from that crappy state.

As an anedote, I know a lesbian woman who has adopted 2 children (first a young boy and then his little sister) with her partner. She is a great person and, by the look of it, a fantastic parent and those kids are so lucky to have her in their lives. Sad.

On a positive note, citizens here in MA voted to decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana! Yay!

We are of like mind.

#7 | Chance | November 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am

According to what I read, the ban technically applies to opposite sex as well as same sex couples. How would you even enforce this? Basically no single person may adopt, unless they *don’t* have a open, healthy sexual relationship with another adult.

Like Chance said, no UNMARRIED person or couple, be it heterosexual or homosexual, may adopt in Arkansas. The law is not anti-gay couple, it’s just pro conservative-think (thinking that a kid is better off with the state than a loving person who will care for him/her but is not married and, therefore, has no values to pass along).

It’s a dumb law.

Congratulations on re-electing the government, voters!

Best,

Marta

You can separate marriage from religion, though. As far as the state (Which is the controlling legal entity) is concerned, it’s irrelevant whether your marriage came from some guy in a robe or a clerk at the county court house.

The problem arises when people actually believe that some fictional character ‘approved’ of their marriage, and doesn’t ‘approve’ of the marriages of other people, even though both marriages carry equal weight legally.

I understand what you’re saying, but ‘contract’ implies ‘obligation’ and I’m just at a loss for why the citizen or the state should be under obligation when it comes to someone’s domestic arrangement. This is horribly entangled and I see it as another reason (opportunity?) to begin removing the state’s tentacles from our private lives and for us not to be on the hook for each others’ domestic arrangements.

To me, the best arrangement is to have the state leave it alone completely.

Best,

Marta