Ohio's clarification of marriage

[graphic7]

I just watched a segment on 'World News Tonight,' and all I can is what I saw is very disturbing. It appears many political leaders in Ohio, the governor, etc. are wanting to redefine marriage in two ways. One, eliminating gay marriage, and two, clarifying that unmarried couples can in "no" way receieve benefits that a married couple would. For instance, an unmarried couple cannot buy a house together (this was one example World News Tonight gave), which I'm sure there's certain benefits to. Taxes, I assume, would be another.

The one thing I'm disgusted with is do people not understand what 'Seperation between church and state' means?

Edit: In no way am I trying to touch on the religious side of this issue. Strictly, I'm only referring to the political value of this.

I wish Kerry would clarify his views more on marriage and in particular, his views on the enforcement of 'Seperation between church and state.' I'm aware Bush already has, and he made a fool of himself.

 

[kawikdx225]

The one thing I'm disgusted with is do people not understand what 'Seperation between church and state' means?

What does the church have to do with it? You seem to imply that marriage is strictly a "church" thing. You don't have to be religious to get married, just go to a JP.

Are you implying the church is pressuring the state to comply with the traditional defination of marriage?

 

[graphic7]

Well, each of the politicians that were interviewed mentioned 'God,' or something of the sort. Hence, the banning of gay marriages and the reclarification of marriage in every sense.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, each of the politicians that were interviewed mentioned 'God,' or something of the sort. Hence, the banning of gay marriages and the reclarification of marriage in every sense.

Politicians have no control over the religious meaning of "marriage." Most major religions have already dealt with the issue and have come to their own conclusions and set their own rules.

This only affects the legal contract of marriage and legislation won't mention religion at all. However, there is nothing (Constitutionally) at all wrong with a politician basing their decisions on your horoscope, your best friend's drunken rantings, or even on your own personal religious beliefs.

 

[Gokul43201]

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Ohio Gov. Bob Taft approved one of the country's most-far reaching gay-marriage bans on Friday, saying its adoption was urgent because the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings could take place as early as this spring in Massachusetts.

The bill, which Taft signed in private, also prohibits state employees from getting marital benefits for their unmarried partners, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Approving the bill to make gay marriages "against the strong public policy of the state" became more pressing after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled 4-3 this week that denial of marriage to same-sex couples as unconstitutional, Taft said. (The Massachusetts ruling)

"It is necessary for us to act now to safeguard Ohio's marriage laws," Taft said. "Ohio could have same-sex couples who were 'married' in Massachusetts taking legal action in Ohio to recognize that marriage and to obtain the resulting benefits."

When the law takes effect in 90 days, Ohio will become the 38th state to adopt a "defense of marriage act" and the second to deny benefits to some employees' partners.

Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families.

"Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm," he said.

Whether or not religion is involved, do you believe this is fair ? Additionally, is this necessary ? Shouldn't the Marriage Protection Act (DoMA) cover Taft's "concern" that gay couples from Mass will want to be recognized here ?

 

[graphic7]

Of course I don't believe it's fair. Each politician they interviewed only gave religious reasons to why this might be beneficial - most of them were also republicans. :rofl:

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

Before I give my input, let me ask a question that to which I don't know the answer.

Does DoMA have a sunset?

Most laws are first written with a sunset, as a sort of trial period, usually lastly a few years. To the best of my knowledge, DoMA has only been passed once, and may very well have one.


Now, as I understand it, DoMA is not actually necessary to address the issue of states honoring the marriages from other states. The only real effect on marriage under DoMA is that the federal government is now no longer required to honor marriages honored by individual states. While DoMA does reiterate states' rights, it does not make any effective changes in these laws.


Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious issue. Its foundation is in religion and long has been. The government should never have gotten involved, except to the extent of registering and tracking name changes.

Having laws tied to marriage is the real error here. Marriage, stemming from religious roots, should remain sacred. There are too many reasons for being married these days, and those espoused by religions are no longer at the top of that list.

If the law allowed the same benefits to be applied outside of marriage, the sanctity of marriage could be left to religion and avoid the majority of issues we see today.

 

[graphic7]

Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious issue. Its foundation is in religion and long has been. The government should never have gotten involved, except to the extent of registering and tracking name changes.

Having laws tied to marriage is the real error here. Marriage, stemming from religious roots, should remain sacred. There are too many reasons for being married these days, and those espoused by religions are no longer at the top of that list.

If the law allowed the same benefits to be applied outside of marriage, the sanctity of marriage could be left to religion and avoid the majority of issues we see today.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Gokul43201]

DoMA may very well have a sunset clause, as you suggested. I'm not sure of the details.

Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious issue. Its foundation is in religion and long has been. The government should never have gotten involved, except to the extent of registering and tracking name changes.

If the govt is involved in registering, must it not make a judgement as to who may be legally registered ?

 

[graphic7]

If the govt is involved in registering, must it not make a judgement as to who may be legally registered ?

I believe some qualifications must be met. For instance, both parties must be over the age of 18. However, banning marriages purely because of some conflict with your "personal beliefs" is ridiculous. If homosexuality posed a health risk, I could see the government enforcing some sort of ban, both marital and otherwise (like the enforcement of sodomy sometime ago). But, we all know that it's no more dangerous than anything else. Therefore, the only defense of the Ohio legislature is of a religious context only.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I would call it cultural, not religious. Of course the churches are dead set against gay marriage, but you will find a lot of irreligious people don't like it either.

 

[graphic7]

I would call it cultural, not religious. Of course the churches are dead set against gay marriage, but you will find a lot of irreligious people don't like it either.

That's something I really haven't thought of. Don't you just love pointless social and cultural stigmas? :grumpy:

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

The registering I referred to, if you reread my post, involves names. The government has a vested interest in keeping track of people, even if loosely. Thus the changing of names is a valid point of registration, and the reasoning behind the name change can also be of valid interest.


What is the importance of putting restrictions on marriage?


Lastly, it would not be hard for a group of religious homosexuals to branch off and create a division within their religion that allows gay marriage.

 

[graphic7]

Lastly, it would not be hard for a group of religious homosexuals to branch off and create a division within their religion that allows gay marriage.

Very possible, but there's been quite a few cases where the government has forbid practices that are approved by one's religion.

What is the importance of putting restrictions on marriage?

I'm unable to answer that question, and so are a lot of other politicians. Most of them will give you some garbage about religion or the preservation of the institution of marriage. Both, of which, are irrelevant. However, when it comes to a legal age to marry, I consider it morally justified to place a restriction on it. If you're still a minor, you shouldn't have the right to marry unless you have your parent's consent (as any major issue at that age would require).

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

If laws were not influenced by marriage, that point would be moot.

Marriage is not sex. Many husbands will tell you so.

 

[russ_watters]

Whether or not religion is involved, do you believe this is fair ? Additionally, is this necessary ? Shouldn't the Marriage Protection Act (DoMA) cover Taft's "concern" that gay couples from Mass will want to be recognized here ?

Fair? Like I said, I'm pretty ambivalent about this. Necessary? Absolutely: with laws varying from state to state and laws changing, clarifications are, of course, necessary and will happen one way or another: either through legislation or through the courts.

Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious issue. Its foundation is in religion and long has been. The government should never have gotten involved, except to the extent of registering and tracking name changes.

That's fair, but the problem, of course, is removing marriage from the law. How do you do it? How do you take marriage out of the tax code, for example?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg: After you've dealt with divorce, child custody, inheritence, paternity, insurance, social security, et al, you have to deal with polygamy, child marriage, etc. The 1st amendment conundrum only gets worse if you eliminate the civil marriage because you have to make specific judgements on specific religious groups. Ie, the Catholic interpretation of marriage is ok, but the Mormon one isn't.

 

[kat]

I think registration or better called application for license to wed...is based on not only tracking name changes but also settling estates, social security benefits etc.

 

[BobG]

Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious issue. Its foundation is in religion and long has been. The government should never have gotten involved, except to the extent of registering and tracking name changes.

Having laws tied to marriage is the real error here. Marriage, stemming from religious roots, should remain sacred. There are too many reasons for being married these days, and those espoused by religions are no longer at the top of that list.

If the law allowed the same benefits to be applied outside of marriage, the sanctity of marriage could be left to religion and avoid the majority of issues we see today.

I see it just the opposite. Marriage is a cultural issue, not a core religous issue.

Having a system of raising the next generation is essential to preserving a culture. Most important is deciding who's responsible for feeding and clothing the kids (i.e. - does the man's responsibility end after the woman is pregnant and it's up to her to raise the kids or is he responsible for providing for his kids; and if he is responsible, how does he make sure he's providing for his kids and not someone else's, etc.). Almost as important, at least in civilizations where you can accumulate some material goods, is figuring out who gets your stuff after you're dead. And on and on.

There's several solutions to these problems depending on the culture (can a man or woman be expected to live long enough to provide at least 15 years worth of support, who takes over if he/she can't, etc.), but every culture has some sort of solution.

Religions have two functions. All religions have some core values and, usually, the core values of different religions are extremely similar. But, any good religion also reinforces the processes that hold its culture together. In fact, a good religion is almost like the glue that holds all the separate building blocks of culture (economic system, marital system, etc.) in place. The core values stay constant, but the social mores could theoretically change. Of course, historically, religion and culture have usually been so tightly integrated that it's awfully difficult to extract and revise the social mores without doing major damage to the religion, itself, which is why it has been so much easier for an entirely new religion to spring up when two cultures meet and an entirely new social environment is created.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

The act of marriage is a religious matter derivied from religious roots.

The cultural aspect of marriage is more a matter of convenience than anything else. All matters tied to marriage already have legitimate solutions either in existence in law or fairly easily added to law.

The simplest solution is to replace marriage in the legal system with civil unions without limitation. Some laws would need changing, mainly those involving sex and paternity, but these would be fairly few. The actual term of marriage is then delegated by religions.

Here are the fixes for the questions at hand:

Taxes: Progressive pure sales tax system or Flat Tax.

Paternity: Blood or legal adoption.

Custody: see Paternity

Inheritance: WILLS! I cannot suggest this enough, under any system

bobG, I like your point on the matter of mores and the integral nature of culture and religion. I feel its time to create a new model, especially in a culture that espouses religous freedom.