Printable View
This is a venomous topic... Especially in light of Prop 8 being passed in California and similar laws in other areas. I have made my position on this quite clear: I don't believe Gays should have the right to marry. Now before you go jumping to the comment box to send a flaming response to this, read on. You will be surprised at what I have to say, and ultimately, may even agree irregardless of your sexual orientation.
Read More...
Why not just post it up in this thread?
I really hate having to click a link to a users site just to read something, then having to click the back button just so i can make a post.
Why are people so determined to get there site some traffic via AO..??
With the content being as heated as it is, I'd rather have heated message not hit AO. I did post the content on another forum site and learn very quickly that was a bad idea. Just trying to be considerate of AO and its users...Quote:
Originally Posted by t34b4g5
So, if one is only able to get married by the Church, how the hell am I, being an atheist and straight, supposed to get married?
Take the church out of the picture to begin with and create a civil union with the DPALW as it foundational basis. The State then has no need to reconize church marriages. In essence the entire problem is nuetralized by utilitizing the legal framework that has already been provided and tested and truly seperating church and state. Divorce court would become a thing of the past as well. From the governmental level, it becomes a matter of administrating the contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by SirDice
The methodogy allows churches to maintain religious freedom without state interference and at the same time allows Gay to wed just as any other couple would. By removing "marriage" licences from the governmental level and instituting civil unions for everyone, a layer of total equality can be established without religios bias from any belief system, ie Christian, Muslim, Jewish and so forth.
Civil Union apply to everyone no matter what their belief system or sexual orientation. Church goes are still free to seek the blessing of their congragation as well if they so choose. Non-church goers will have exactly the same legal rights.
An easier solution which would further separate church and state would be to have the current "marriage" license be the civil ceremony itself, that makes you legally committed to your partner (gay or straight). This would cover all of the legalities.
Then if you were of a religious nature and wanted to have the union blessed by your faith then you could, the blessing would not be a legal union.
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars and render unto the Lord that which is the Lord's." Separation of church and state isn't a new idea.
Vermont like many other states has "common law" marriages where a couple lives as man & wife for 7 years they can be considered legally wed. Vermont also allows civil unions for gay couples.
If you don't want "gay marriages" then don't marry one!
I am married in a union that is recognized by church and state and I still have a DPA/LW.
I'm Catholic and now some priest in South Carolina says that because I voted for Obama I can't receive Communion. Abortion was the least of my issues when I was casting that ballot. If the Pope wants to increase the fold and correct the wrongs of previous years he better reign in some of the clerical fringe element... any other Christian churches have "open tables" for communion where any Christian is welcome
Actually, this is not true. I think most protestants would argueQuote:
Lets starts by defining marriage. Marriage started out as and will continue to be a "religious sacrament", subsequently involving the church in political activities. "Separation of Church and State" pundits have a real problem here. If the state governs marriage licenses, they are literally bringing the church, and its moral standings and practices, into the middle of government actions.
strongly against this idea, because it implies that marriage
was created by the Church, mediated by the Church, and therefore
could be tied to one denomination. "Only a marriage performed
by our church is valid"
Someone marries outside my denomination, I can declare it invalid.
We have enough trouble with people looking for ways to duck out of
their marriages. I don't want preachers further undermining peoples'
relationships by telling them that by converting to this or that
denomination you can consider your marriage null and void.
Society at large has a stake in this, because of the resources they
have to spend dealing with domestic violence, runaway children
and so on. That's your tax money.
Switching to civil unions for everyone is only a change in name.
Marriage is so weak an institution already that it can't be enforced.
Those wanting to cheat can't really be forced to meet their
obligations as it is.
Gay marriage is really about money. Taxes play a part, but the biggest
issue is health insurance. In most employer-provided health policies,
you save a bundle by covering your spouse and children. It saves the
government the burden of caring for those kids, and is an incentive
to get and remain married.
If gay people, who are essentially single, can cash in on this benefit,
the insurance companies may crack under the burden and withdraw
spousal benefits altogether. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I vote for a banning of all religions (no exceptions!). As they all have the same retarded world view. Stop living in the middle ages..
This is how it works in Holland. A civil marriage is the only legal marriage. A church marriage is just a ceremony. The church marriage has to be done after the civil one or you could end up in jail.Quote:
An easier solution which would further separate church and state would be to have the current "marriage" license be the civil ceremony itself, that makes you legally committed to your partner (gay or straight). This would cover all of the legalities.
It won't remain that way after the Muslims take over.Quote:
This is how it works in Holland. A civil marriage is the only legal marriage.
You have to take the word "marriage" out of the question to remove all religious contexts. Until that happens, some groups (Blacks, Christians, Jewish, Muslim, et al) will never except it and will always shoot it down. Prop 8 was pass by 77% of the black populas. This is far higher then any other populas involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by fourdc
The context of this is when marriage required licenses, which didn't occur until the Roman empire. Before that, no license was needed and "marriage" was religious in nature by historical evidence. To the Roman Empire, no marriage was valid, only "civil unions". The historical context shows that a marriage was more like a contract then anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcgreen
Modern day church ideaology really has no bearing on the fundamental flaws that were created by the Roman Empire that modern day marriages have inheirited.
As long as I'm alive that'll never happen. If it does I'll probably end up being called a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by rcgreen
I like my country the way it is and I'll defend it to keep it that way.
The comment about the African American population is irrelevant. They represent less than 7% of the population (see here). If you look at what happened, you will see that the Mormon Church did a big push in the last week of the "election". They flipped the undecided just based on volume and funds. But I do agree: remove the church requirement from marriage and this will solve it. Marriage defined depends on the culture and background. European may view it as a financial contract whereas hindu arrange marriages may be viewed as a method of social status. More modern Western society views it as a romantic notion and coupling of individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by frpeter
For the purposes of state it is a recognition of two individuals under one "roof" for purposes of taxes, deaths, retirement funds, etc. It is, as far as the US and Canada are concerned (and I only mention them because they are the only two countries I can speak of from *MY* point of view), a joint financial venture.
Think about it. Does Canada or the US ask which denomination you were married under when you file taxes? Does it really matter?
Canada went through this and they removed the requirement that ALL churches had to provide for the ceremony. They made it clear-cut that marriage, regardless of who it was between, was nothing more than just a financial concept. And to prove it, two straight guys got married because it was cheaper on living costs. The sky still hasn't fallen in Canada.
The exit poll data seems to suggest different: CNN Exit Poll - Prop 8Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMittens
Not really. It was 70% of 10%. The white vote accounted for 49%. It's not a white vs POC issue.
The reality is the LGBt community didn't get the vote out. They didn't convince the undecided to vote how they wanted. Blaming others for one's own faults doesn't solve it.
Okay, I'm hitting this issue without really reading any previous posts, just because this is a hot issue in the USa, and I live in CA.
First this is an unconstitutional law, all citizens are allowed Life , Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Next, if you really want to get into to it, thinking that your religion is what sways you, well, there are a lot of non christians in the USA, and we are not a theocracy, we are a republic. Plus there's that thing that guarantees freedom of religion, oh yeah the First Amendment!
Why do people need to interfere with people that are happy?
I've heard so many arguments on this and they are all medieval. These are people that are in love. They are not worrying about destroying someone's marriage. They don't care about your marriage, they care about their own. Why are they being singled out and told that they are not allowed to marry?
In 1967 there were laws on the books in 16 states disallowing marriages between blacks and whites.
I wish someone could give me ONE good reason to disallow gay marriage, but there aren't any.
I hear this lame excuse that "it's in the Bible", well so is stoning to death anyone that sows two different crops side by side or stoning to death someone who wears garments of two different threads. Guess what, that is bronze age philosophy and doesn't belong in the modern world. I am not anti-religious, but I challenge anyone to live their life COMPLETELY from what the bible dictates.
I've heard the argument of "It's just a piece of paper" from people that are against gay marriage, that are married themselves, they don't take kindly to the question of , "Is your marriage a piece of paper?" No, neither is mine. It is a very important union. It is the most important oath I have ever sworn, and I cannot even imagine what it would be like if someone told me I couldn't have taken that oath.
But for crying out loud, does two gay people getting married hurt anyone else's marriage or heaven forbid, the "sanctity of marriage". No.
How many "good christians" have performed adultery in the last few thousand years?There have been hundreds of thousands. Did it destroy marriage. No, it doesn't hurt anyone for gay folks to marry. It's a basic HUMAN RIGHTS issue. As a member of the ACLU, you will never sway me from thinking that.
All people deserve the right to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, but that's just the American in me. I guess there are those of us that live in this country that don't really believe in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, That all PEOPLE are allowed the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and allowed to all americans, but that's always been true. McCarthiesm rings a bell.
It is entirely unpatriotic and unamerican to go against the ideals of the nation and deny BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS to people based on some characteristic, but that is in our history.
All religion and government aside, it's two people that love each other that deserve equal rights.
Just because you find someone's lifestyle repugnant doesn't mean that you have the right to prohibit it, they are consenting, loving adults. There are many people that find christianity repugnant, but you are allowed to practice your beliefs. I don't think that christians, muslims, or hindus or whoever should have their rights curtailed.
Imagine what it would be like if you had your right to marriage taken away. Just because someone didn't approve. This isn't someone "marrying their dog" this is a couple who loves each other searching for the basic rights that are afforded other people, how is that repugnant?
Though I agree with the content of your message, I have to point out the Declaration of Independence, though a very sacred document to the USA has no legal bearing. You might as well quote the failed Articles of Confederation that predate our Constitution.
The Declaration affirms Jefferson's belief that those are "God given rights", hardly a constitutional argument. Unfortunately Jefferson didn't feel that way about the slaves he owned, that he appears to have personally bred, at the time he wrote the Declaration.
Let the government sanction gay and straight "unions.". If someone wants more than that they can take it up with their church.
Point taken and conceded. I was in quite a rant last night, ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by fourdc
Sorry about the rant everyone, this has been a big issue here and I think we've beaten it to death.
Basically, you can read all of that above as being, Why can't we just leave each other alone be happy? There.
Because then we couldn't be busy-bodies and tell other people what they are doing wrong in life. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Slartarama
As an aside, just understand that the Declaration of Independence is not a "Legal Document" in the sense of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other laws. It was a letter sent to King George telling him what "we" believed in 1776 as cause for secession from England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartarama
Yes I misspoke, as fourdc already pointed out and I conceded.
Getting back to the original topic this is how it works in the UK:
http://direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentci...es/DG_10026937
Basically gays cannot get married but can form a "civil partnership", which from a legal viewpoint is pretty similar. Things like tax, inheritance, intestacy etc.
Straights can marry in a religious ceremony or a civil one as they wish. In both cases the event has to be recorded by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. That bit is the state's involvement and makes the event legally recognised.
People who just cohabit have very few rights.
The issue of state and church is irrelevant, other than that gays are not permitted (by law) to have a religious ceremony.
This year is the 160th. anniversary of repealing the death penalty for homosexuals. :)
I hate to send this off on a tangent again, but I believe thisQuote:
As an aside, just understand that the Declaration of Independence is not a "Legal Document" in the sense of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other laws. It was a letter sent to King George telling him what "we" believed in 1776 as cause for secession from England.
view is erroneous. The Declaration of Independence is the basis
of the existence of the USA, and the first, fundamental part
of the Constitution. Even if the Constitution is a separate
document, the two cannot be set against each other.
The Declaration is the law of the land.
Errrmmmm......................yes?............. but were it not for the Spanish, British and French, there wouldn't even be a "basis"?Quote:
The Declaration of Independence is the basis
of the existence of the USA
Doh! got that about as wrong as you can?Quote:
and the first, fundamental part
of the Constitution. Even if the Constitution is a separate
document, the two cannot be set against each other.
The Declaration is the law of the land.
Sure, you need a "Declaration of Independence" to begin thinking about a constitution, but that is as far as it goes........... it is a declaration of intent, rather than the final thing?
What I understand is that the DOI was the right to produce a constitution, rather than anything to do with internal laws itself. It was colonists against England was it not?
Yep, that's what I meant. You can't write up a constitution definingQuote:
Sure, you need a "Declaration of Independence" to begin thinking about a constitution
the government, its function and powers, until you have first established
that you have authority to do so. The declaration was the statement
of intent and the treaty at the end of the war was the establishment
of independence. You have to have a foundation to build upon.
Makes about as much sense to me as marriage ceremonies and licenses to people who are sexually aroused by animals or dead bodies.
The Constitution is the law of the land, the declaration was a statement for the rest of the world, no UN then.
The Declaration is not a legal document in a US Court of Law. The Declaration sites "God given rights" that are unalienable. Those rights may be then reaffirmed by the Constitution, but there is no right guaranteed by the Declaration.