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.

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?

Me thinks this has gone far too deep for the OP :hmmm:

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:

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?

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.

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.

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

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.