Adam Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 Where did that come from? No. A single civil institution for everyone. What is the problem?. Say my wife and I, we are now a civil union in the eyes of the state, in the eyes of the Catholic church it is still a marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. There would no benefits tacked onto marriage outside of whatever relgion you are with. Don't believe in religion? The you are a civil union. Again, what is the problem?... Everybody/anybody (no matter what sex) who wants to be united can go to the state and get a civil union. I am assuming then, you wouldn't mind if atheists got married then. They could claime to be a religion and then marry
Booster4324 Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 I am assuming then, you wouldn't mind if atheists got married then. They could claime to be a religion and then marry I like the Aphrodite idea better. It seems way more fitting.
Adam Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 I like the Aphrodite idea better. It seems way more fitting. Either way. Do you see any problem with either scenerio
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 I am assuming then, you wouldn't mind if atheists got married then. They could claime to be a religion and then marry I wouldn't care... Because it wouln't be recognized by the state. The state shouldn't be in religious business... That is where the offending nature to people occurs (at least me).
Adam Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 I wouldn't care... Because it wouln't be recognized by the state. The state shouldn't be in religious business... That is where the offending nature to people occurs (at least me). Ok, I think I understand your viewpoint- as long as the word marriage means zero to the government, anyone who wants to marry can, and if they are obstructed, they are free to create their own religion to do so. I think I would be ok with that, and I think it would financially motivate churches not to deny them
Booster4324 Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 Either way. Do you see any problem with either scenerio Nope
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 Ok, I think I understand your viewpoint- as long as the word marriage means zero to the government, anyone who wants to marry can, and if they are obstructed, they are free to create their own religion to do so. I think I would be ok with that, and I think it would financially motivate churches not to deny them The US Constitution gives the right to freedom of religion... So sure, but what people create religionwise still has to pass the same test that has existed for over 230 years. And also, plural marriges should be okay to (religionwise)... I really don't care. Why discriminate at allowing only couples. Again, I do not agree with the lifestyles but I can respect them and recognize them under civil union circumstances just as others would do with my civil union. Within my religion that can be srcutinized as the group sees fit. Anyway... There are plenty of Christian denominations and other whole religions that recognize gay marriage.
Alaska Darin Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 That is all I have been saying ALL ALONG. No you haven't, "societal norm", "the gay lifestyle should come at a premium", and "should brothers and sisters be allowed to marry for health benefits" guy. This is just another veiled attempt to hide your bigotry and ignorance. No one should be buying it.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 No one has a problem overriding states' rights (and pretty signifncantly, actually) with a federal law designed to provide a single civil institution to a decided minority of the population? If the states, and you know there will be at least 20, have the right to not recognize a gay civil union, doesn't that invalidate the whole thing? What is the point of California recognizing gay marriages, if none of the states around it do, and if the Federal government doesn't? Isn't it reasonable to assume that, given the 45 current state laws against, only a very few states will recognize another state's gay marriage? Isn't that also an equal protection violation? Doesn't that lead to "gay reservations" or something similar? Moreover, what about the Federal income tax, business taxes, inheritance, all the stuff GG and Chef talked about(3-4? threads ago)regarding financial issues, etc.? These are not state issues.
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 If the states, and you know there will be at least 20, have the right to not recognize a gay civil union, doesn't that invalidate the whole thing? What is the point of California recognizing gay marriages, if none of the states around it do, and if the Federal government doesn't? Isn't it reasonable to assume that, given the 45 current state laws against, only a very few states will recognize another state's gay marriage? Isn't that also an equal protection violation? Doesn't that lead to "gay reservations" or something similar? Moreover, what about the Federal income tax, business taxes, inheritance, all the stuff GG and Chef talked about(3-4? threads ago)regarding financial issues, etc.? These are not state issues. Letting the states define it changes the federal issue to enforcing the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution. Basically, the federal government's job becomes not determining "this is what marriage is", but telling the states "you are not allowed to say another state's definition of marriage is invalid under YOUR law." And yes, that means an ultimate result of a gay couple in TX traveling to Vermont to get married, and TX being forced to recognize the marriage. I'm good with that. Hell, I'm great with that, since it 1) maintains separation of powers, 2) removes the need for the ridiculous federal DOMA, 3) removes all those insanely unconstitutional "Our state doesn't have to recognize out-of-state marriages if we think they're icky" laws, and 4) actually upholds the friggin' Constitution, rather than poking yet another hole in it as a "feel good" measure.
bartshan-83 Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 Then the question remains: is batting 1-45 an example of using "good political judgment"? Would you hire a lawyer with that record to represent your interests? Or, would you come to the rational conclusion that this lawyer either doesn't know the job, or isn't doing it properly? I'm not going to lie and say that I'm familiar with each individual fight in each of those 45 states. But if the point of contention is "whether or not to call it marriage" and that is a very important point to many gay people, then I don't equate refusing to capitulate with poor representation. If calling it marriage is a very important point of the argument, then surrendering that "isn't doing it properly." If I'm negotiating something and I tell my lawyer that there is something that I just won't budge on, you better believe he better not budge. And while many might find the word argument trivial, it obviously isn't to many people since it is hotly contested on both sides. Perhaps, but it won't change a thing. Saying that a state cannot prevent a church from performing a ritual is not the same thing as saying that ritual must now be recognized both in state and nationally as a legal agreement in civil matters. The question remains: which one of our, stated, in my case, and implied, in yours, extrapolations is more likely to be the case? Mine is based on logic, plain and simple. What's yours based on? Maybe I'm not understanding you, but how are those things opposites? I think that all religious marriages should also have to be certified civilly. So I think I'm agreeing with you there. If you are saying that you have a problem with any religion being allowed to perform a legally recognized marriage, then I'd agree with you. But I don't see how that is important when discussing the topic at hand. It's a different fight. I am not a lawyer and am not familiar with this case. So basically I have no idea how to answer this question. What I can say is: the minute you change from marriage being an option, to a right protected by law, then everything changes. If we passed a law that guaranteed the right to interracial marriage, instead of leaving it as it is now, an option, that would clearly change the game and knock over a domino. Wouldn't we then have to pass a law that guaranteed same-race marriages? Again, due to equal protection? And on and on? What do you mean when you say marriage is an option, not a right? I consider marriage a right. Many courts have agreed. Now this is a very tricky argument I think, and not a brush off for either side. Because this will always inevitably lead to a "where do we draw the line?" discussion. Everyone has their lines. I'm no better. But understand that what Loving did was make it illegal for states to criminalize interracial marriage. So there was never a proclamation or statute that read "Interracial marriage is now a right." It was done in reverse by stopping the bans. That is what would happen with the gay marriage stuff. There would never be (I think) a statute saying "Gay marriage is a right." Rather, states simply would not be able to prevent legally recognizing them. Nothing, if we took the legal/tax attributes away from marriage and stuck them onto whatever new civil thingy you and your lawyer friends come up with. Everything, if you insist on re-defining marriage for everyone. Look, if you want to fix this, you can't take what was already tried, paint it a new color and add wheels. You have the dolts who caused 45 state laws to be passed to thank for the difficulty that we now face. That is reality. Now, it's time to get serious about making something that will work, or, it's time to accept waiting 10 years. I do, and that's what I mean when I say: universal civil union that replaces marriage as the legal/tax vehicle. Then, let traditional marriages "count" as that legal vehicle. And, let gay marriages performed by religions that allow it also "count" as a civil union. You could define the legal thingy as only between 2 people, but again, I see that as having equal protection problems. It's interesting that you bring up driver's licenses. You may not be aware that many of our state driver's licenses are not accepted in other countries. New York always is, because we actually make it a real process. Other countries know that and act accordingly. I wonder: if we can't get them to recognize all of our driver's licenses uniformly, how in the heck are we supposed to get them to recognize our gay marriages? Which brings up the Federal law thing all over again. I think this goes back to the heart of the argument over whether or not to call it "marriage." I believe that fight is significant enough for gay people that they will not abandon it (I'm speaking so generally I know this). I think I'm basically agreeing with you with some minor exceptions. Let me revise my plan: - All church marriages have no independent legal meaning. The meaning they have is contained within the church and its convocation. - The state cannot prevent any church from marrying or refusing to marry anyone they want. And why would they if it carried no legal status? - All church marriages need to be certified civilly for legal recognition and the rights that come with it. - And the kicker, we will call these civil unions.....(drum roll please)....marriages! Now, no church needs to redefine their beliefs. No church is interfered with by the state. Everybody gets "married" by civilly. And we don't have to re-write everything to accommodate civil unions. So the all this discussion comes down to a single word. Just as it always has been. I'd be inclined to agree with you that this portion of the fight is what has clogged the entire movement and that it is insignificant in comparison to the bigger picture. But I am unwilling to make that decision for a class of people who are fighting for it.
Adam Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 If it has to be a right defined by the government, I propose this: "Any one citizen of the United States or legally defined immigrant has the right to marriage to any other one citizen of the United States or legally defined immigrant, which is not a direct familial relation (sibling/parent). I think that greatly simplifies things
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 If it has to be a right defined by the government, I propose this: "Any one citizen of the United States or legally defined immigrant has the right to marriage to any other one citizen of the United States or legally defined immigrant, which is not a direct familial relation (sibling/parent). I think that greatly simplifies things Even easier: the federal government will recognize states' individual definitions of "marriage" as marriage. The federal government will require states to accept as legal certificates of marriage from other states. Because really...why should the federal government even give a flying !@#$?
Adam Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 Even easier: the federal government will recognize states' individual definitions of "marriage" as marriage. The federal government will require states to accept as legal certificates of marriage from other states. Because really...why should the federal government even give a flying !@#$? Why should anyone even give a flying !@#$?. People should mind their own business on some things
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 Why should anyone even give a flying !@#$?. People should mind their own business on some things There ARE practical legal ramifications. But beyond those, I agree with you.
GG Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 I think I'm basically agreeing with you with some minor exceptions. Let me revise my plan: - All church marriages have no independent legal meaning. The meaning they have is contained within the church and its convocation. - The state cannot prevent any church from marrying or refusing to marry anyone they want. And why would they if it carried no legal status? - All church marriages need to be certified civilly for legal recognition and the rights that come with it. - And the kicker, we will call these civil unions.....(drum roll please)....marriages! I think everyone is in agreement here, and most of this is already happening. AFAIK, you are not deemed legally married unless you get a marriage license in every state. The caveat is that clergy are allowed to officiate a marriage, which is recognized by law. There is no reason to chnage nay of those laws. But the battle is about the word, and I think people are having a hard time accepting that marriage as a concept is deeply rooted as a religious institution, and that's why religions are up in arms about same sex marriage. I don't think that people would give two ***** if the debate was about civil unions that conferred the same rights & privileges as to marriage.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 13, 2010 Posted August 13, 2010 No you haven't, "societal norm", "the gay lifestyle should come at a premium", and "should brothers and sisters be allowed to marry for health benefits" guy. This is just another veiled attempt to hide your bigotry and ignorance. No one should be buying it. Yes. Very much so if they attempt to tack onto an already messed up institution like what the gov't did to marriage. It very well should come at a premium because of the abuse. Now if they (gov't) wants to revamp the whole thing (unions) and get out of the "marriage" business... That is the road to go. I know I am making myself clear... You just don't want to listen... Try again... Maybe it will sink in.
GG Posted August 14, 2010 Posted August 14, 2010 I know I am making myself clear... You just don't want to listen... Try again... Maybe it will sink in. If you translate that into coherent, maybe it can sink in.
Alaska Darin Posted August 14, 2010 Posted August 14, 2010 Yes. Very much so if they attempt to tack onto an already messed up institution like what the gov't did to marriage. It very well should come at a premium because of the abuse. Now if they (gov't) wants to revamp the whole thing (unions) and get out of the "marriage" business... That is the road to go. The government didn't "mess up" anything that constituents didn't ask for. If you zealots want some ridiculous union with your spouse and a flying spaghetti monster, YOU change. The law is settled and it's not changing because you need to discriminate so you can life happily ever after in the spirit world. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. I know I am making myself clear... You just don't want to listen... Try again... Maybe it will sink in. You've more than made your bigoted opinion clear, no matter how hard you try to distance yourself from it with whatever word jumble you're using this week.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 14, 2010 Posted August 14, 2010 If you translate that into coherent, maybe it can sink in. Such is life in Eric's shoes! Some people just see an "opening" and want to jump on the attack before people can fully explain their argument. The gay marriage argument is a very complex thing, just like the abortion issue. I believe there can be middle ground and compromise. Gotta admit, marriage has been pretty effed up by the gov't... And now they want to tack on more... IMO, It is better to start with a clean slate or do nothing at all. Opening up Pandora's Box for years of bitterness if they go down this piece meal road. I am not backtracking one bit. I am against gay marriage and the effects it has on society. Just do this right and people can't say boo because it will be the fair and equal thing to do. Again... Pretty incoherant...
Recommended Posts