Which is why in some other countries this isn't as hot of an issue as it is here. I think Elton John was quoted earlier in the thread saying that it sidesteps the controversy completely by separating the religious and civil definitions. In the US, right or wrong, people have the feeling that some groups and the government are trying to dictate to religions how they should do things.mgb_phys said:You made the excellent point that the solution to the whole problem is for the state to not marry anyone.
People should just be free to nominate a significant other for any legal requirements.
Then if a couple want a Priest/Rabbi/Iman/Jedi to wave a magic wand over their relationship they are free to invent whatever ceremonies they want. But it's nothing to do with the state...
How 'bout male vs female? That one always gets on my nerves when I pay my car insurance...drankin said:My point is that the government should make no law concerning marriage. Gay or otherwise. There should be no discrimination between a single person or a married person. Gay person or heterosexual person. White person or black person. The only discrimination I think we can all agree on is age, that is the distinction between children and adults. Pretty much solves the controversy IMO.
Of course, this would never happen.
russ_watters said:How 'bout male vs female? That one always gets on my nerves when I pay my car insurance...
Anyway, I agree. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discrimination (paraphrase of a supreme court justice).
Calling it "the real question" doesn't make it so. Different sides see the issue differently - that's just a reality, whether you like it or not. People will no doubt try to frame the issue in a way that makes the outcome more favorable to their position/denigrating to the other, but that doesn't mean others will accept that framing and it doesn't make their characterization of the opposition true.skeptic2 said:The real question is what is the state's interest in maintaining marriage between only a man and a woman. Though you may not see the specifying of marriage to be only between a man and a woman equate to gays being second class citizens, homosexuals do see it that way.
True, but why does it need to? Why should a divorced couple divide their stuff equally (that's a big reason for the demise of the institution right now, imo)? Why does a couple have to be married to adopt (as if it matters: it's still only a coin flip if they will stay together)? Does not being married absolve someone of the requirement to support their kids (no)? Does your dying grandmother really want your spouse to get their inheritance (probably not, but if they do, they can put it in their will)?Though marriage is sanctioned by the church, it also satisfies many civil purposes such as child support, spousal support, and inheritance. Without marriage many women would have to, and do, rely on the state for support while they are raising children. These same issues are important to homosexuals. The state has a very important role in marriage.
Heh, true - there's no commission in that!drankin said:One reason it could never happen is because divorce is such a lucrative industry for lawyers. Imagine getting a divorce and being able to keep all your own stuff and not having to pay off your spouse!
drankin said:I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.
drankin said:I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.
If we re-define it that way, yes.Ivan Seeking said:By that logic, no marriage performed by someone like a justice of the peace should be called a marriage either.
Probably none, since like with Prop 8, it wouldn't necessarily be retroactive.By your definition, how many married people would no longer be married?
No doubt!Since marriage is already legally defined as a civil institution, one can hardly argue now for the "sanctity" of all marriages.
thoughtgaze said:Mmmm yeah I'm going to have to agree with the person that said we must use the "civil union" term for legal purposes but the word marriage should be associated with as much arbitrariness and ambiguity as the word god or love.
LowlyPion said:Yeah well I say you don't get to define it for me. You can for yourself of course, but you can't by secular decree charge the word for everyone else that doesn't share your specific religious perspective, or your personal imperatives.
When you are in your church, only call it marriage if it's only between opposite sex partners. Refuse to sanctify same sex unions. Refuse to perform them. Knock yourself out. Debate how it may be used within the walls of your church all you want, restrict it there all you want, but trying to charge the word with your particular view of what it means ... imposing your definition through secular fiat and not through common usage, looks to me to be a less than satisfactory solution. It looks to me like an abridgment of the separation provided by the Establishment Clause.
Ivan Seeking said:When Prop 8 was passed, apparently there was a last minute disinformation campaign that threw the black vote [a bit of irony considering the long and historic battle for civil rights, for blacks]. So it may be that the bill could be overturned fairly soon given another popular vote.
drankin said:So you believe that it is ironic that blacks would vote against gay marriage? Maybe it is because they realize that gay marriage is not a race issue. It is a marriage issue.
Both hispanics and blacks, while tending to vote liberal, are fairly conservative when it comes to issues of "family values" and the like.LowlyPion said:As to blacks supporting Prop 8 in the last election, let's see how they vote in the next, after being reminded that there but for the Grace of God were they not all that long ago, simply because of the color of their skin.
Best resolution for the problem. Call all "marriages" between anyone civil unions for all legal purposes and no longer use the word "marriage" for any legal purpose at all what ever.drankin said:I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.
drankin said:I believe in civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. My only gripe is calling it "marriage". Leave that as a religious distinction.
cristo said:It seems that different people mean different things by the term "marriage." There are at least two different terms, namely religious marriage and civil marriage. From what I can gather (and I could very well be wrong) people don't intend on changing the definition of religious marriage, but of the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual. Where I'm from these are called 'civil partnerships' but carry all the same benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.
I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.
What about it precludes homosexuality?drankin said:People are a bit confused about how marriage applies, partially because they don't understand what homosexuality has to do with it. It's strange to them, doesn't make much sense and it's hijacking their idea of family and the associated values.
TheStatutoryApe said:What about it precludes homosexuality?
cristo said:I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.
CRGreathouse said:I don't understand what is so beneficial to society about defining a special legal relationship between exactly two people who may and may not be the same sex. What purpose is served here?
cristo said:It seems that different people mean different things by the term "marriage." There are at least two different terms, namely religious marriage and civil marriage. From what I can gather (and I could very well be wrong) people don't intend on changing the definition of religious marriage, but of the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual. Where I'm from these are called 'civil partnerships' but carry all the same benefits of marriage in the eyes of the law.
I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.
skeptic2 said:One difference is it is difficult to construct a verb for civil partnership. What would it be? "Mom, Dad, I'm going to civil partner with Bob." makes it sound like regular marriage isn't so civil. Then there's marital status question on so many forms... Married, Single, Civil Partnered. Also birth or adoption certificates - Mother's name, Father's name, Civil Partner's name.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1789104/ted_olson_vs_proposition_8.htmlTed Olson is the former Solicitor General for President George W. Bush and is considered to be solidly conservative in his judicial philosophy. However Ted Olson seems to take a more libertarian point of view when it comes to same sex marriage.
To that end, Ted Olson has filed suit in US District Court to stop the enforcement of Proposition 8, allowing same sex couples to marry, while the matter of decided in federal courts. Ted Olson fully expects the question to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
CRGreathouse said:I don't understand what is so beneficial to society about defining a special legal relationship between exactly two people who may and may not be the same sex. What purpose is served here?
What does this allow that contract law does not?
TheStatutoryApe said:Marriage is a type of contract. For all the griping that we hear about the sanctity of marriage and family values in the eyes of the law a marriage is really just another type of contract. The only real difference is that it is historically connected to a religious ceremony.
TheStatutoryApe said:Marriage is a type of contract. For all the griping that we hear about the sanctity of marriage and family values in the eyes of the law a marriage is really just another type of contract. The only real difference is that it is historically connected to a religious ceremony.
CRGreathouse said:Nah. With marriage the government can (and does!) change the terms at will, and the spouses can't change the terms. With contract law the government has a much more restricted ability to change the terms and the 'spouses' (partners, etc.) can set the terms to whatever they want.
cristo said:I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Of course homosexual civil marriage should be recognised by the state as equal to heterosexual civil marriage, since it's pretty discriminatory not to. Whether the definition of religious marriage should be changed is a matter for the church to decide.
An unusual legal test case is taking place in Canada aimed at clarifying whether polygamy is a crime. Does the country's anti-polygamy law violate a constitutional guarantee of the freedom of religion? Over the next few months, a court will decide.