First California gay couples wed

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, January 11, 2025 17:44
VIEWED: 9195
PAGE 3 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:06 PM

Read my above posts...and "so" angry is an overstatement.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Its not a minority issue either...

No, because Christians aren't in the minority.

So why do Christians get to call it marriage, Jews were there first and they're Gods chosen people. Christians should be happy with a civil union, they have the same rights. There's nothing intrinsically religious about Marriage, it was around before organised religion, and if organised religion ever vanishes there'll still be marriage. Homosexuals have the same right to call it marriage as anyone else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:09 PM

Okay, there ARE legal ramifications for using the term "marriage", "spouse", and "married"; those are NOT just religious terms or concepts.

And with your logic, you're essentially asking why black people can't just be happy with "separate but equal" treatment. Why? Because there's no such thing in reality; separate in point of fact becomes unequal. So it IS a minority issue.

For all your piety and pontification, I bet you change your tune when it comes time for divorce. Hey, the Bible says 'til death do you part, and let no man rend asunder, and all that good stuff. So let's outlaw divorce, too, since it's not religious to divorce your spouse.

Takin' Care of Business, Baby!

STORYMARK

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Read my above posts...

I did. I remain unconvinced.

Your stance that marriage is soly a religious institution seems a bit faulty. I asked for your support for this view, and you ignored it. So, forgive me if I fail to find your argument compelling.

I see no reason whatsoever that gays people should not be allowed the same rights - period.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RUE

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:14 PM

What I can't figure out is how the state can overrule any particular religion. There are lots of religions, sects, branches that have no problem with gay marriage. If THEY are willing to conduct a religious ceremony what interest does the state have in in saying those marriages aren't legal ? (So long as the marriages are between consenting adults, that is.)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I can't figure out is how the state can overrule any particular religion. There are lots of religions, sects, branches that have no problem with gay marriage. If THEY are willing to conduct a religious ceremony what interest does the state have in in saying those marriages aren't legal ? (So long as the marriages are between consenting adults, that is.)

Good question. Unfortunately, many states and the Feds have "Defense of Marriage" laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman, and refuse legal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in places where they are legal. So the gay couples getting married in California may file their State tax return as "Married filing Joint" but as far as the Feds are concerned, they're just two single people. Should be interesting for accountants and tax lawyers next filing season.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

WHODIED

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 7:07 PM

The only interest the state should have is if and how marriage affects tax collection. However, the Judeo-Christian voting block remains determined to force the government to interfere.

Just another example of conservative, big-government intrusion!

--WhoDied

_______________________

Oh, just your standard penance malediction is all.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Marriage is a religious institution.....how is it the governments business to define what can be a marriage or not?

Marriage is NOT a religious institution and hasn't been for a long long time. And even when it was, it wasn't for the purposes that you think it was. It was to ensure the rich were able to pass on there lands/etc to there children. Also, at that time, the commoners didn't get married. All that is very very recent.

Also, which religion? Because, there are many many religions that don't have an issue with this. Hell, there are many versions of Christianity that don't have a problem with it.

Please stop trying to shove your ideals down others throats.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

PONYXPRESSINC

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:34 PM

It is very cute and I am very happy for them.

My reaction to the debate above:

The most relevant definition I could find in the dictionary I had to hand (Encarta attached to word) is “a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners”.

So as far as the dictionary is concerned a civil ceremony is a fine and dandy marriage and religious bodies do not have dibs on its use.

That aside I guess it’s a matter of perspective. I can imagine that from a religious standpoint a civil ceremony does not a marriage make.

However, as an atheist and a person wed in a civil service I personally find the suggestion that I can’t or shouldn't use the word “marriage” faintly insulting, the implication being that what I have is obviously not as good, less valid because it didn’t take place in front of a religious dignitary.

Only faintly insulted though, because when it comes to the crunch it doesn’t actually matter to me what it gets called. What matters in my godless life is the legal recognition of my union and the fact that in my opinion, who you say the words in front of isn’t really relevant, it’s that you mean them.

RUE

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:06 PM

Amen !

From what I understand there is one invariant part to marriage which is the civil contract part. The religious portion is separate. Ministers, priests, and sea captains get the legal authority to make their ceremonies have the same legal standing as those of a judge. (By the power vested in me (by the state ...))

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE