KO on Prop 8
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, November 14, 2008 13:30
VIEWED: 7790
PAGE 7 of 10
Hello Signy,
I think you sidestepped the point of my commentary.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think so.
Marriage has legal, tax, benefit, and other implications. It IS a contract. But it's a contract with the benefit of being recognized in all 50 states, by the Federal government, and by hospitals, insurance companies, probate judges etc etc.
All of those laws and contracts: the ones adopted by the Federal government, by the states, and so forth... refer specifically to marriage. In order to get the same recognition for civil unions you'd have to rewrite all of the laws which refer to marriage to include "civil unions".
Now, since marriage is a contract, isn't it convenient to have this contract have legal standing in all 50 states? Or do you feel that there should be no such contract between people, or that the state has no business recognizing it?
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I'll review my position.
Marriage is a religious institution that has been adopted by the government as a legal contract between a man and a woman.
Civil Unions are a legal contract between consenting adults, adopted by some governments to avoid using the term marriage.
I would like to see all U.S. governments completely disassociate themselves from marriage, and make Civil Unions the new legal contract between consenting adults of all stripes. Obviously there will be a strong movement to expand the definition of Civil Unions to incorporate all benefits of the former Marriage, but avoiding that messy religious expectation of 'husband and wife.'
Those who want to be united before a divinity can still do so at will, and the government need have nothing to do with it.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But that's what we have now. Those who wish to marry in a civil ceremony can, and those who want to marry in a religious ceremony can. The two have little to do with each other except they are BOTH recognized by the state, and it seems a pointless exercise to go thought and rewrite all of the laws because some religiously sensitive peeps have a notion that "marriage" is exclusively religious. Why not call a religious marriage a "consecrated union" instead?
FWIW I never thought, for example, that our civil marriage was in any way less than a religious marriage. We both feel that marriage is not an expression of "love" as much as "commitment" and we've been married more than thirty years through thick and thin.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
The reason we have all this controversy over marriage is because marriage has been around for a long, long time. And it is a religious word.
The Christians (of which I am one) and other Monotheists believe that by re-defining 'marriage' you are soiling a religious precept that they were raised to believe was morally correct. They don't want government messing with their marriage.
To which I say, "I Agree!"
Shame on government for Ever having Anything to do with marriage. Now we can set things right. Take government's grubby little hands off of the religious purity of marriage...
By discontinuing any reference to marriage in the laws of government.
Civil Unions were always designed to be non-religious. They are purely legal constructs to serve an economic purpose, and have no religious overtones.
So, government should divorce itself from marriage, a concept polluted by religious ideas, and embrace a Civil Union absent of religious verbiage or moralizing. Civil Unions need not even involve sex at all! They would become the purely legal and economic union that government needs, and the rest can be left to people's faith and personal morality.
The fact that everyone can have a Civil Union but not everyone can have a marriage makes it blindingly clear which of the two is the more correct institution for an unbiased government.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How is marriage a religious word? And, even if it is, can it not also be a non-religious word as well? Just like there are two different versions of Christmas - the secular celebration with Santa Claus, etc., and the religious one involving the birth of Jesus - can't there be a secular marriage and a religious one? Because I for one don't think that the religious own the word marriage, nor should they.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The ideal outcome would be for any human couple to get married in the church they choose.
Originally posted by yinyang:
How is marriage a religious word? And, even if it is, can it not also be a non-religious word as well? Just like there are two different versions of Christmas - the secular celebration with Santa Claus, etc., and the religious one involving the birth of Jesus - can't there be a secular marriage and a religious one? Because I for one don't think that the religious own the word marriage, nor should they.
Anti gay marriage people have suggested that gays create a gay church and marry there.
The problem with that is...being told you can't get married is not much better than being told where and how you must get married. It is a human rights issue.
The whole thing is compounded by an issue involving the Mormon Church's alleged involvement in the Yes on 8 campaign that could jeopardize thier status as a tax exempt organization.
The Mormon Church is under seige, and with all the adversity they've faced over the years, especially involving Polygamy, they wouldn't be the way they are becomming.
Shit...Mitt Romney was for gay marriage when Governor of Massachusettes. So Mormons supporting basic human rights is possible
Trolls against McCain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
They do think they own the word marriage. Obviously they believe this, because they are busy being the arbiter of who can and cannot get married. Because such divisiveness and double standardization are not the function of the government, I propose we let the religious personages of the world keep their word 'marriage' and allow government to discard it in favor of the superior Civil Union, a title with no religious connotations whatsoever.
Otherwise, the religious people of the nation are liable to get confused, forget to separate church and state, and accidentally discriminate against a class of people.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Rue,
Its not a right to get married.
They can have civil unions. Maybe.
You, nor the liberal ilk, can force churches to marry people. Separation of church and state remember?
There is a difference between:
The gays have the right to get married.
And:
Churches are forced to marry anyone that can legally get married.
You seem to have confused the two. The latter is the boogy-man that the religious nutters use to get people to back them.
Point of fact, churches of any religious don't have to marry anyone that they don't want to. Catholicism is a good example of this. Many (most?) of those churches will refuse to marry a couple unless BOTH are Catholic. This is legal. Similarly, with many other religions.
Basically, the point of all this is _not_ to force anyone to marry gays against there will. It's rather that the gays are allowed to get married by the people who wish to marry them.
----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
They do think they own the word marriage. Obviously they believe this, because they are busy being the arbiter of who can and cannot get married. Because such divisiveness and double standardization are not the function of the government, I propose we let the religious personages of the world keep their word 'marriage' and allow government to discard it in favor of the superior Civil Union, a title with no religious connotations whatsoever.
Otherwise, the religious people of the nation are liable to get confused, forget to separate church and state, amd accidentally discriminate against a class of people.
It is a nice, neat, simple solution, I'll admit. But (and here I may be playing devil's advocate a little bit), why should the government change to accommodate people who have a problem separating church and state? Because same-sex marriage isn't an issue that should ever have been up for a vote in the first place. If that had been remembered by The Powers That Be, then religious people would not have had the ability to act on their confusion and legalize unfair discrimination. Instead, The Powers That Be, as non-confused people (I hope), recognizing that whether the government should "marry" people or "civil union"-ize them is something to be considered separately from the matter of giving same-sex couples their equal rights, should be left to make the decision.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME