View Full Version : A Tipping Point for Gay Marriage?
WASHINGTON — It’s not every day that a leading law firm fires a client for holding a position so extreme that it may be said to be unworthy of a defense. And it is rarer yet — unheard of, really — when that client is the House of Representatives and the position in question is a federal law.
Yet that is just what King & Spalding, a venerable Atlanta firm, did last week. Under pressure from gay rights groups and apparently fearful of criticism from the law students it recruits and the corporate clients it serves, the firm said it would not defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act against a challenge that it violates the Constitution.
The episode has so far mostly been discussed as a matter of legal ethics, and the firm has had a rough ride. But there is something larger going on, too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01gay.html?hp
Note: Published: April 30, 2011
frau kaleun
05-01-11, 06:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCWdCKPtnYE
Fish In The Water
05-01-11, 06:28 PM
Pardon the off-topic reply, but it's good to see you (and your news stories) back on-line. Best thoughts, prayers and wishes... :DL
Bakkels
05-01-11, 06:28 PM
"This video contains content from SME. It is not available in your country. Sorry about that."
Can't see it Frau...
And I second what Fish in the water said btw ;)
Sailor Steve
05-01-11, 06:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCWdCKPtnYE
:rock: Just this morning I was listing to part one of the Bootleg series, which contains his original demo, played on piano.
Can't see it Frau...
It's Bob Dylan's classic 'The Times, They Are A-Changin''
frau kaleun
05-01-11, 06:32 PM
"This video contains content from SME. It is not available in your country. Sorry about that."
Can't see it Frau...
Well, the video part was just a still picture, it was all about the song. At least I can get you the lyrics (I hope).
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/the-times-they-are-a-changin
Bakkels
05-01-11, 07:10 PM
Ah ok. No lyrics needed, I know them by heart ;)
Pardon the off-topic reply, but it's good to see you (and your news stories) back on-line. Best thoughts, prayers and wishes... :DL Thanks for that,:yep:
GoldenRivet
05-01-11, 09:47 PM
Let the gays marry for God's sake!
why should the happiness of single life be reserved for them?
they will get their right's to marry - and gay divorce lawyers will make a killing - gay people will grow to regret their desires to marry. :D
Stealhead
05-01-11, 10:40 PM
That was pretty damn funny Golden.
The odd thing is I recall reading someplace I think it was in some psychology or sociology book I read for college it mentioned that in studies homosexual men had the highest failure rate of any group when it came to maintaining a long term relationship of any form.
Penguin
05-02-11, 06:07 AM
Let the gays marry for God's sake!
why should the happiness of single life be reserved for them?
they will get their right's to marry - and gay divorce lawyers will make a killing - gay people will grow to regret their desires to marry. :D
Or like one of your best politicians, Kinky Friedman, said:
"I support gay marriage because I believe they have right to be just as miserable as the rest of us!" :D
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/19/sunday/main788935.shtml)
Gays get married here and there, which takes place in an open society, the difference is if you live in a communist country or a regime that does not allow stuff like this happens
Let the gays marry for God's sake!
why should the happiness of single life be reserved for them?
they will get their right's to marry - and gay divorce lawyers will make a killing - gay people will grow to regret their desires to marry. :D Like, they're like an ordinary couple who run into problems, in the event of divorce :yep:
Armistead
05-02-11, 07:55 AM
I'm long over it. A gay couple has lived in my neighborhood for over 15 years, if they got married I doubt I would notice any changes or that all the men here would turn gay. I can see two of my s8 married neighbors talking.
"I heard Bob and Bill got married"
"They did, now my marriage is over"
"You think that's bad, now I feel gay."
I tire of this give them unions, sort of marriage lite. If they want a union fine, but they deserve the right to a marriage as well in a church of their choice if wanted.
Some claim gay marriage would ruin traditional marriage, with a divorce rate of over 70% I highly doubt they could ruin it more. Like others say, if they want the misery of marriage, fine, make the misery binding.
but they deserve the right to a marriage as well in a church of their choice if wanted.
Actually no they don't. Even if they win the right to get a marriage certificate the government cannot force any religion to recognize it let alone perform the ceremony.
Armistead
05-02-11, 02:00 PM
Actually no they don't. Even if they win the right to get a marriage certificate the government cannot force any religion to recognize it let alone perform the ceremony.
Don't have to force, gay churches all over, mute point. The issue is unions over marriage, it should be their choice.
I do agree a church against it has the right to refuse, but that's legal already, no pastor or church can be forced to do this, but plenty will.
DarkFish
05-02-11, 02:03 PM
Actually no they don't. Even if they win the right to get a marriage certificate the government cannot force any religion to recognize it let alone perform the ceremony.This I do agree with. I'm a huge proponent of gay rights, but you can't force a religion to change its rules. Being a member of a church is optional and voluntarily, so the members should adapt to the wishes of the church. Being a member of society is obligatory and unavoidable, so society should adapt to its members.
At least that's what I think about it.
EDIT: so in conclusion, I'm for gay marriage, but only marriage in the legal sense of the word. Marriage in the religious sense of the word is something for churches to decide on.
EDIT: so in conclusion, I'm for gay marriage, but only marriage in the legal sense of the word. Marriage in the religious sense of the word is something for churches to decide on.
I'm not for government recognized marriage of any kind. There should be no government benefit or penalty associated with the institution.
DarkFish
05-02-11, 02:29 PM
I'm not for government recognized marriage of any kind. There should be no government benefit or penalty associated with the institution.I tend to agree with you here, but that still shouldn't justify denying gays the right to choose.
I tend to agree with you here, but that still shouldn't justify denying gays the right to choose.
What exactly are they being denied? They can enter into civil unions which have the same legal benefits.
GoldenRivet
05-02-11, 02:49 PM
I'm not for government recognized marriage of any kind. There should be no government benefit or penalty associated with the institution.
this brings an interesting concept into question.
Is marriage a religious concept?
as the Government provides tax perks etc to married couples, does this not become a separation of church and sate issue?
:hmmm:
It's different laws and regulations with regard to gays and their cohabitation, the Church has of course some countries rejected this pretty hard, because they do not like turning on gay anyway
Armistead
05-02-11, 03:47 PM
this brings an interesting concept into question.
Is marriage a religious concept?
as the Government provides tax perks etc to married couples, does this not become a separation of church and sate issue?
:hmmm:
What you're really saying is gays can't be religious. They're many gay churches and pastors, so they have the religion part covered should they desire a religious wedding.
Marriage isn't an institution of the church, DOA's can marry, ship captains, judges, etc..
Betonov
05-02-11, 04:06 PM
Actually no they don't. Even if they win the right to get a marriage certificate the government cannot force any religion to recognize it let alone perform the ceremony.
A religion can't be forced, but any priest can be bought.
[gay couple walks to a priest]
A: we'd like to get married
P: what ??? I can't marry you too, it's unholly
A: oh no, and we saved 3000$ for the ceremony
P: now now my children, the good Lord will make an exception
Marriage isn't an institution of the church, DOA's can marry, ship captains, judges, etc..
Well not now it isn't but it used to be. What exactly is the governments justification for requiring people to beg their permission to get married?
Perhaps, you have to show a decent A-hole :O:
Armistead
05-02-11, 04:56 PM
Well not now it isn't but it used to be. What exactly is the governments justification for requiring people to beg their permission to get married?
In different cultures, for the last 2000 years some marriage laws applied to government. Marriage itself existed before that dictated by the customs of the people.
Wwhen church and state shared power, many religious codes were written into secular law. This was mostly for the elite class, the poor still did things like jump over a brookstick or had sex and called themselves married, but then the man retained all the power. Women and children were often left in poverty after divorce, so more secular law was written in over time to protect them, much more in the last 100 years.
Like most things government got involved. They define it's legal status for our so called protection. If you want those legal protections and benefits you get a legal wedding. You can still call yourself married, just has no legal status.
Have to remember most of our secular law evolved from religious laws. Judges needed standards to apply for divorce, most of those standards however apply for divorce.
frau kaleun
05-02-11, 05:06 PM
In different cultures, for the last 2000 years some marriage laws applied.
Started when church and state shared power, Many religious codes were written into secular law. This was mostly for the elite class
And for the elite classes, marriage was often about little more than creating political or military alliances, the transfer of property and power, or the acquisition of it through a binding connection to another family or ruling dynasty. The use of the church to sanctify and validate such a union was incredibly useful at a time when people believed that to go against the church was to risk one's immortal soul, possibly through excommunication if the family of the party you offended had the right connections.
In different cultures, for the last 2000 years some marriage laws applied.
Started when church and state shared power, Many religious codes were written into secular law. This was mostly for the elite class, the poor still did things like jump over a brookstick or had sex and called themselves married, but then the man retained all the power. Women and children were often left in poverty after divorce, so more secular law was written in over time to protect them, much more in the last 100 years.
Like most things government got involved. They define it's legal status for our so called protection. If you want those legal protections and benefits you get a legal wedding. You can still call yourself married, just has no legal status.
Have to remember most of our secular law evolved from religious laws.
Exactly. Take the religious aspect out of it, like we're supposed to, and what is left is a lot more accurately termed a "Civil Union" than a marriage.
So maybe instead of allowing gays to get "married" the government should stop issuing marriage licenses.
Sailor Steve
05-02-11, 08:25 PM
Exactly. Take the religious aspect out of it, like we're supposed to, and what is left is a lot more accurately termed a "Civil Union" than a marriage.
So maybe instead of allowing gays to get "married" the government should stop issuing marriage licenses.
I could go for that.
gimpy117
05-02-11, 10:18 PM
as far as im concerned, Civil unions should be allowed to homosexuals, and under these they should be allowed every right that a married couple is allowed under law. to do otherwise is against the laws that that nation was founded on.
and I applaud that firm for not representing a law that is clearly discriminatory and in violation of the constitution
Armistead
05-03-11, 08:53 AM
Exactly. Take the religious aspect out of it, like we're supposed to, and what is left is a lot more accurately termed a "Civil Union" than a marriage.
So maybe instead of allowing gays to get "married" the government should stop issuing marriage licenses.
Do you really think divorce lawyers would allow that...:D
If the government isn't in the business of marriage, then who sets the marriage laws for property rights, parental rights, etc...Family law is a big business and the legal status of marriage is it's foundation. No legal marriage, no family law.?:06: Do we just let each decide his own marriage and leave it up to divorced couples to work it out on their own....
Guess we could let each church make it's own rules, but who decides legal recourse...Pastors...
Sorry, even I trust government more than the church on these matters. Just a fact, anything people can fight about needs legal laws and marriage is where most fighting takes place.
If the government isn't in the business of marriage, then who sets the marriage laws for property rights, parental rights, etc...Family law is a big business and the legal status of marriage is it's foundation. No legal marriage, no family law.?
Marriage is just a religious blessing on a Civil Union. The Civil Union covers all those things without bringing religion into it.
It's like using the term "Birth certificate" instead of "Baptism certificate".
DarkFish
05-03-11, 09:54 AM
Marriage is just a religious blessing on a Civil Union. The Civil Union covers all those things without bringing religion into it.
It's like using the term "Birth certificate" instead of "Baptism certificate".Does the law make a difference between "marriage" and "civil union"? Even if it's just the name, if there's a difference there's no reason we should deny it to gays.
Why are you so much against gay marriage August?
http://i.imgur.com/Lzf4r.jpg
The first legal gay marriage is now certified, January 14, 2001: signed, sealed, delivered.
http://i.imgur.com/3IcCz.jpg
Does the law make a difference between "marriage" and "civil union"? Even if it's just the name, if there's a difference there's no reason we should deny it to gays.
Why are you so much against gay marriage August?
Why do you ask?
DarkFish
05-03-11, 12:21 PM
Why do you ask?Just curiosity. Why don't you want to tell?
Anyway, answer the question: does your law make any differences between the words "marriage" and "civil union"? Even if it's just the word.
If, according to your laws, "marriage" is just another word for "civil union", then why do you oppose gay marriage if it's exactly the same as a civil union?
If it's something else, why do you deny gays the rights heterosexuals have?
Just curiosity. Why don't you want to tell?
Anyway, answer the question: does your law make any differences between the words "marriage" and "civil union"? Even if it's just the word.
If, according to your laws, "marriage" is just another word for "civil union", then why do you oppose gay marriage if it's exactly the same as a civil union?
If it's something else, why do you deny gays the rights heterosexuals have?
I never said I didn't want to tell. I just hesitate cooperating with antagonists who are hoping that i'll give them enough rope to hang me with.
In any case i'm dreadfully sorry to disappoint you but I do not oppose Civil Union for gays at all. I oppose government sponsored Marriage regardless of the happy couples sexual orientation. To me they're different things.
If it's, as you said, just a name then I guess you'd have no problem with renaming the Birth Certificate to the "Certification of Gods Latest Miracle" right?
This article refers to the U.S. but could equally well apply and other Western countries at any time ... in principle
DarkFish
05-03-11, 05:09 PM
I never said I didn't want to tell. I just hesitate cooperating with antagonists who are hoping that i'll give them enough rope to hang me with.It's just that if you answer "I'm against gays because my god tells me to" or "because it's counter-natural" or some other subjective crap answer like that, there's no need to continue this discussion.
In any case i'm dreadfully sorry to disappoint you but I do not oppose Civil Union for gays at all.I already got that from your previous posts, don't worry.
I oppose government sponsored Marriage regardless of the happy couples sexual orientation. To me they're different things.Yes, they are. Which is exactly the reason why IMO it's against gay rights to deny them marriage.
If it's, as you said, just a name then I guess you'd have no problem with renaming the Birth Certificate to the "Certification of Gods Latest Miracle" right?Except for that a birth certificate has about as much to do with the christian god as a marriage. Marriage is something cultural, not something religious. Muslims get married. Hindus get married. Even atheists get married. Marriage existed long before christianism.
Once again, I'm don't support religious gay marriages, unless their religion supports it. I only support gay marriages in the legal and cultural sense of the word.
Darkfish:
Gays have the same marriage rights as anyone else. They are free to marry a person of the opposite sex. That is what marriage means: A formal union between man and woman required and blessed by the church.
It seems to me that it's more important to you that gays be allowed to use the word Marriage to describe their Civil Union than it is to actually have the right to form that union. So that just means that this is not about equal rights but rather just another opportunity to stick it to organized religion.
DarkFish
05-03-11, 05:42 PM
Darkfish:
Gays have the same marriage rights as anyone else. They are free to marry a person of the opposite sex.They don't have the right to marry the person they love.
That is what marriage means: A formal union between man and woman required and blessed by the church. Erm, no. I just explained the church has nothing to do with it.
It seems to me that it's more important to you that gays be allowed to use the word Marriage to describe their Civil Union than it is to actually have the right to form that union.well, you're wrong.
So that just means that this is not about equal rights but rather just another opportunity to stick it to organized religion.As I just said, religion has nothing at all to do with marriage. You're the one that brings religion into the discussion, and then you're accusing me of sticking it to organized religion?
Bakkels
05-03-11, 06:30 PM
It seems to me that it's more important to you that gays be allowed to use the word Marriage to describe their Civil Union than it is to actually have the right to form that union.
Yes, I think that's exactly what they want. It's the word. Marriage has a certain cultural and symbolical meaning. I don't know how it works in the US but here you can marry at city hall. It has nothing to do with religion, but you are married nonetheless. It's exactly this symbolical and cultural meaning that the gays feel entitled to I think.
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Yes, I think that's exactly what they want. It's the word. Marriage has a certain cultural and symbolical meaning. I don't know how it works in the US but here you can marry at city hall. It has nothing to do with religion, but you are married nonetheless. It's exactly this symbolical and cultural meaning that the gays feel entitled to I think.
Regardless of what you want to call it you actually enter into a Civil Union at city hall, not a Marriage, at least not how it should be if you truly support the concept of separation of church and state.
Yes Marriage does have a certain cultural and symbolical meaning. Meaning that is forever tied up with thousands of years of religious belief and ceremony. Changing that meaning into something else just because a loud minority wants to piss off organized religion is not something that I will ever support.
Platapus
05-03-11, 09:43 PM
I feel that the best solution is that everyone who wants to get married go through a secular civil ceremony. This establishes the legal state of marriage for the purposes of legal status and benefits from the viewpoint of the state.
Then after, if the couple wants to go through a religious ceremony, they can if they can find a religious organization that will accept them. This establishes the spiritual/religious state of marriage.
The problem is that for far too long we have intermixed the civil/legal aspects of marriage with the spiritual/religious aspects of marriage.
The two can, and in my opinion should, be kept separate.
Bakkels
05-03-11, 09:50 PM
I feel that the best solution is that everyone who wants to get married go through a secular civil ceremony. This establishes the legal state of marriage for the purposes of legal status and benefits from the viewpoint of the state.
Then after, if the couple wants to go through a religious ceremony, they can if they can find a religious organization that will accept them. This establishes the spiritual/religious state of marriage.
The problem is that for far too long we have intermixed the civil/legal aspects of marriage with the spiritual/religious aspects of marriage.
The two can, and in my opinion should, be kept separate.
That's what I was trying to say :up:
Were I live, the two are kept separate. If you want to marry, you have to have an official from city hall to seal the deal. That's what establishes the legal state. You can also have a wedding ceremony at the church or have the official come there. So the choice is yours; if you're gay and you want to marry, you can. If you also want to be married in your church, that depends on the church's rules regarding that. And that's how it should be imo.
btw, once again, marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. There were wedding ceremonies long before Christianity was introduced.
Armistead
05-03-11, 09:51 PM
Marriage is just a religious blessing on a Civil Union. The Civil Union covers all those things without bringing religion into it.
It's like using the term "Birth certificate" instead of "Baptism certificate".
You don't get a civil union license from the government, you get a marriage license.
Religion to me has nothing to do with it, being that the legal aspects of marriage are
decided by government law, not the church as you would probably like it on this issue.
What you're saying is because of your beliefs in God, others should abide in them. Simply, my religious beliefs should be government law. Sorry, we seperate church and state, marriage is
a government institution by law and should be protected by the constitution giving equal rights to all.
Gays have beliefs, many very strong. After they get their license they have the right to a religious wedding like it or not in a church that will accept them and thousands will.
It was culturally once OK to have slaves and approved by many churches. It was once culturally OK for a priest to cut your innards out and pull them out of your body as he sought
your confession... Sorry, people have wised up, we don't abide in past cultural acts that denied people rights.
Platapus
05-04-11, 05:44 AM
btw, once again, marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. There were wedding ceremonies long before Christianity was introduced.
There were religions long before christanity too. :D
http://i.imgur.com/ge6eG.jpg
Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailede!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13278374
Bakkels
05-04-11, 07:50 AM
There were religions long before christanity too. :D
Of course there were, what I'm trying to say is that marriage isn't inherently tied with a specific religion. For some people it might be, but that's their personal view. For a lot of people, marriage has nothing to do with religion.
I feel that the best solution is that everyone who wants to get married go through a secular civil ceremony. This establishes the legal state of marriage for the purposes of legal status and benefits from the viewpoint of the state.
Then after, if the couple wants to go through a religious ceremony, they can if they can find a religious organization that will accept them. This establishes the spiritual/religious state of marriage.
The problem is that for far too long we have intermixed the civil/legal aspects of marriage with the spiritual/religious aspects of marriage.
The two can, and in my opinion should, be kept separate.
Exactly, and the way to do it (imo) is to stop calling the civil aspect "marriage". If this happened gays would get their equal rights and the Holy Joes would have nothing to complain about.
But I've come to believe this isn't about obtaining equal rights but rather sticking it to organized religion. That being the case it won't stop even if gays "win" this battle.
Armistead
05-04-11, 09:43 AM
Exactly, and the way to do it (imo) is to stop calling the civil aspect "marriage". If this happened gays would get their equal rights and the Holy Joes would have nothing to complain about.
But I've come to believe this isn't about obtaining equal rights but rather sticking it to organized religion. That being the case it won't stop even if gays "win" this battle.
What's this got to do with sticking it to organized religion, they have all their rights and tax exempt status. Maybe a better question to ask is why
are they given tax exemt status. Make them pay taxes like all, they can deduct charities like everyone else.
All through history those with power always cry foul when others are given the same rights they demand for themselves.
DarkFish
05-04-11, 09:47 AM
Of course there were, what I'm trying to say is that marriage isn't inherently tied with a specific religion.Not "a specific religion", but rather no religion at all. Don't atheists get married as well?
But I've come to believe this isn't about obtaining equal rights but rather sticking it to organized religion. That being the case it won't stop even if gays "win" this battle.How many times do we need to repeat that marriage has nothing to do with religion before you finally grasp it?
Bakkels
05-04-11, 09:57 AM
Not "a specific religion", but rather no religion at all. Don't atheists get married as well?
That's exactly what I'm saying in the sentence at the end of the post you quoted. ;)
How many times do we need to repeat that marriage has nothing to do with religion before you finally grasp it?
Well you can repeat that the sky is florescent green over and over but it still doesn't make it accurate or proper. The simple fact that Priests can perform marriages and are perfectly acceptable replacements for Justices of the Peace ought to tell you that religion does indeed have everything to do with it.
Just because secular government has appropriated a religious institution for it's own use. That does not make it right to do so.
It has caused and continues to cause a lot of social strife that could have been avoided, heck still could be avoided, if secular government used the proper term: ie Civil Unions.
All your insistence proves is the true objective is not social harmony but social unrest. Just lovely.
Sailor Steve
05-04-11, 11:44 AM
Just because secular government has appropriated a religious institution for it's own use. That does not make it right to do so.
Best evidence indicates that it's the other way around. The institution seems to have originated with men's need to establish paternity, became a social institution and lastly a religious one. On the one hand this would indicate that it should indeed be between a man and a woman. On the other this raises complications.
If it's strictly religious then anyone should be able to marry, according to their beliefs.
If it's social then one could argue that societal conventions should be obeyed. The problem with that is that societal conventions change on a fairly regular basis, and we accept things that our grandfathers abhorred.
If it's governmental then the why's and wherefore's need to be examined, and laws clarified, if not necessarily changed.
Of course the biggest question to be answered is why people marry, and want to marry, in the first place. And that question, and its answers, are personal and varied. Should some members of society be barred from what is commonly accepted for others?
Armistead
05-04-11, 01:10 PM
Think August is saying government gives out civil union licenses, instead of marriage licenses, which is rather silly, government will still have to apply all the rules that go along with family law, which are thousands.
I guess then he thinks people can go get married at a church of their choice and issue a non legal paper marriage license for spiritual effect. So first get your legal union papers from the government and then
out of religious want you can go get married at a religious institution gay or s8, jump over broomsticks, whatever you want to deem yourself married.
In the end it changes nothing, just an extra step, cost more money, etc.
Think August is saying government gives out civil union licenses, instead of marriage licenses, which is rather silly, government will still have to apply all the rules that go along with family law, which are thousands.
I guess then he thinks people can go get married at a church of their choice and issue a non legal paper marriage license for spiritual effect. So first get your legal union papers from the government and then
out of religious want you can go get married at a religious institution gay or s8, jump over broomsticks, whatever you want to deem yourself married.
In the end it changes nothing, just an extra step, cost more money, etc.
I completely disagree. It sure does change things. For one thing religion can no longer claim that the institution of marriage is being usurped by a hostile and vocal minority. For another it promotes the separation of church and state. Priests cannot perform Civil Unions and government cannot license Marriage. A simple solution.
Don't any of you want to see this socially polarizing controversy resolved amicably? Or, as I suspect, the equal rights argument merely a Red Herring to cover what is just another assault on organized religion.
DarkFish
05-04-11, 03:20 PM
Or, as I suspect, the equal rights argument merely a Red Herring to cover what is just another assault on organized religion.You're seeing ghosts August.
Nobody here but you seems to think marriage has something to do with religion. Yet it's supposed to be an attack on religion? If we wanted to attack it, don't you think we'd attack something that actually has anything to do with religion?
Also, Bakkels and I have provided a very good argument why marriage has nothing to do with religion, let alone christianism. We've repeated it a number of times already, yet you continue to ignore it, the only "counter-argument" you provide is "marriage does have something to do with religion". Not much of a counter-argument at all, is it?
EDIT: I'm gonna make it very easy for you:
http://www.marriageequality.org/religious-vs-civil
"In the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a marriage license. That is why many opposite-sex couples can go to a judge or any other public officiant and need not go to a church, synagogue or mosque."
Now how does marriage have something to do with religion?
Jimbuna
05-04-11, 03:25 PM
Me thinks this has gone far too deep for the OP :hmmm:
Bakkels
05-04-11, 03:34 PM
I completely disagree. It sure does change things. For one thing religion can no longer claim that the institution of marriage is being usurped by a hostile and vocal minority. For another it promotes the separation of church and state. Priests cannot perform Civil Unions and government cannot license Marriage. A simple solution.
Don't any of you want to see this socially polarizing controversy resolved amicably? Or, as I suspect, the equal rights argument merely a Red Herring to cover what is just another assault on organized religion.
With your solution, you hijack the word 'marriage' so that it only applies to the religious ceremony. If that's what you want than just say so.
I'll say it again; maybe to you marriage is solely a religious affair and that's fine. You may (I don't know, but for argument's sake) find the wedding before the church the most important ceremony, and the 'government' marriage just a formality. And that's completely fine.
But for a lot of people marriage a ceremony by which they want to express their love for each other to friends and family in a completely secular way. Again, marriage existed long before christianity, and was never exclusively tied to religion.
And you say all they're after is social unrest and assaulting organized religion, but you're the one making this religious. The church isn't mentioned in the original article. They want the government to allow them to marry. If they would be demanding a religion to change their rules for them, that would be unfair, but they're asking the government. The government represents all the people, including gays, and should thus allow them to marry.
Marriage
Noun 1. The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage".
2. Two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first".
3. The act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel".
4. A close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas".
5. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
6. The marriage vow or contract.
7. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
8. Any intimate or close union.
According to Webster there´s nothing intrinsically religous on it. :03:
Armistead
05-04-11, 04:18 PM
I completely disagree. It sure does change things. For one thing religion can no longer claim that the institution of marriage is being usurped by a hostile and vocal minority. For another it promotes the separation of church and state. Priests cannot perform Civil Unions and government cannot license Marriage. A simple solution.
Don't any of you want to see this socially polarizing controversy resolved amicably? Or, as I suspect, the equal rights argument merely a Red Herring to cover what is just another assault on organized religion.
So marriage would be a legal institution in the church only. So who in the church decides family law? Fact is they can't, marriage is connected to government because of family law. The church can't decide law, you would have to make the church a seperate state with judges, etc.. 70% divorce rate, property rights, childrens rights, etc...only a nut would turn that over to the church. On top of that, each religion would have a different system of law. It wouldn't be long we would be back in the dark ages. What happens if the verdict given is not done by the person, give churches their own police and prisions...church gonna pay for all that. Your points are becoming more silly..
Who is this hostile and vocal minority...the same minority that slaves were, the same minority of women that fought for equal rights.
It's just simple, you only want people to be able to marry based on your religious view and deny them freedom of choice. You would be happier living with the Taliban, because that's the system you want.
Many churches now accept gay marriage, so woud you deny these churches the right to marry gays, can gays even go to church in your world?
Many churches now accept gay marriage, so woud you deny these churches the right to marry gays, can gays even go to church in your world?
In his scenario, the gays could find a church that was willing to perform the ceremony, and they would be married. They wouldn't be civil unioned, however.
They would also be able to get a civil union, and not get married, if they chose or were unable to find a willing church. They would then be able to enjoy the same protections/benefits a married couple currently enjoys.
The same would happen with a hetero couple. They could get a religious marriage and/or a state civil union.
It seems to be a workable solution, even if it is a bit silly to make people jump through extra hoops.
For the last time because repeating myself is getting boring.
Marriage would become a strictly religious institution like it should be. You simply exchange the government issued Marriage license for a government issued Civil Union license. No need to have two separate license classes like some in our country are proposing. Everyone, gay or straight gets the exact same license. Nobody is forced to have a church marry them and equally nobody is prevented from having a church marry them.
Nothing. Else. Changes!
Especially, now take note here, not government related benefits (or penalties). Marriage is not something that the government would be permitted to regulate and religion has absolutely no claim on the definition, legality or moral acceptability of a what would be a strictly secular government license.
By doing this you take away the cause of this ongoing social conflict and nobody is negatively affected. The key is the name of the institution. Change it to something politically and religiously neutral and it cuts the legs out from under the whole argument for or against. In fact it allows the partisans of both sides to claim a moral victory while putting everyone, gay, straight or other, on equal standing in the eyes of the law.
Now either you people are for an amicable resolution of the problem or you are not.
Given the high level of obtuseness and/or deliberate misunderstanding being demonstrated in this thread to what I am proposing I'm guessing, for most of you, it's the latter. Ergo, to some here, this isn't about obtaining equal rights for gays, they're just being used as expendable little pawns in the never ending war to destroy organized religion.
I've said all I care to say about this now. Accept or reject it, I could hardly care less.
August out.
Edit: Oh and Razark thank you but it actually wouldn't be an extra step. Even under the present system a couple still has to jump through the same number of "hoops" to be married according to both the government and the church.
DarkFish
05-04-11, 06:15 PM
Marriage would become a strictly religious institution like it should be.Why the hell should it be? Marriage has been something secular for ages, why do you suddenly want to make it something religious?
You accuse us of attacking organized religion, but all I can see here is you wanting to turn secular things into religious ones.
the never ending war to destroy organized religion.Jeez, you really are seeing ghosts, aren't you?
Yes August, I admit, I'm a reptilian illuminati from Mars under direct command of head reptilian Obama tasked with destroying organized religion. Satisfied now?
/tinfoil hat
Edit: Oh and Razark thank you but it actually wouldn't be an extra step. Even under the present system a couple still has to jump through the same number of "hoops" to be married according to both the government and the church.
The extra hoops would be in trying to explain to people what a couple's status is.
A. married and civil unioned
B. married but not civil unioned
C. civil unioned but not married
D. engaged to be civil unioned, but not intending to get married
E. married last year, but waiting to get civil unioned
F. divorced (marriage), but still civil unioned (and what that state of mind would mean for children of the relationship; and can you be married to one person but civil unioned to another?)
and so on
It's a language nightmare. If only their were one term to describe the situation a couple is in...
Which is why I think the situation August proposes will simply modify itself via language into "marriage" referring to what his proposal tries to avoid. Aside from the fact that as it becomes more socially acceptable, the language would move in that direction anyway.
Skip the hoops, jump ahead a couple of years. It'll happen anyway.
Armistead
05-04-11, 08:39 PM
The extra hoops would be in trying to explain to people what a couple's status is.
A. married and civil unioned
B. married but not civil unioned
C. civil unioned but not married
D. engaged to be civil unioned, but not intending to get married
E. married last year, but waiting to get civil unioned
F. divorced (marriage), but still civil unioned (and what that state of mind would mean for children of the relationship; and can you be married to one person but civil unioned to another?)
and so on
It's a language nightmare. If only their were one term to describe the situation a couple is in...
Which is why I think the situation August proposes will simply modify itself via language into "marriage" referring to what his proposal tries to avoid. Aside from the fact that as it becomes more socially acceptable, the language would move in that direction anyway.
Skip the hoops, jump ahead a couple of years. It'll happen anyway.
You listed some of the obvious, but the list would be a hundred pages.
Government sets all the laws for marriage. The tax code, medical rights, rights of property, ect.. Our governement isn't goin to allow a free for all.
Seems to say let government set the law for civil union, the church the rules for marriage based on denomination..Wonder what would happen if a couple got married in a Catholic church by their laws, then converted to a baptist church. Guess they would have to get a Catholic divorce and remarried in a Baptist church, but the union remained the entire time. One thing for sure, many preachers would find out how to make millions off this.
As of now people are asking that TWO people that love each other have marriage rights, under August plan I assume two could only get approved of a union, but they could add more religious married partners outside of the union, marry each other both male and female, since the government has no rights of religious definition.
The whole system would become corrupt. The entire tax, property and medical family code would have to be rewritten.
I guess August assumes people could get divorced from marriage spiritually if your church would allow it, many don't believe in divorce, but still be tied to their civil union which effects all legal status.
Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a cultural institution taking many shapes and forms.
It's getting beyond silly.
Controversially, perhaps, but one must take into account different countries' laws and regulations which of course is a right for many, but in other countries, you have your life at stake.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/video/elisabeth-hasselbeck-laura-bush-defend-gay-marriage-10636550
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.