Are the bans on gay marriage religious?

[tererun]

I propose this question because it seems that when you look at the bans on gay marriage across the country they do not address religious marriage at all.

A few facts:

1. No US law prevents a couple from declaring their union before god in a church or other religious institution. The law does not step in and tell churches they can or cannot perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Even in states where gay marriage is not recognized gays can in front of a willing authority of a religion get married in the eyes of god.

2. The US marriage contract does not apply religious laws or regulations to marriage. A church cannot oppose a marriage between a couple that would otherwise legally be married. The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature.

3. US law allows the ending of the marriage contract as per the decided equitable distribution of assets and separation of the parties involved. The church may not recognize divorce proceedings based on their own rules in regards to marriages, but legally a couple can dissolve their relationship as per the law of the land and not religious guidelines.

This is not to say religion does not have a place in marriage as many use it's guidelines as a subset to the legal guidelines. The law even allows for the voluntary agreed upon arbitration of the marriage contract based upon religious rules, but it clearly says that is voluntary and it is specifically expressed in marriage contracts because the standard US marriage contract does not apply those rules.

So at the end of the day the laws that supposedly ban gay marriage do not accomplish their goals. They do not actually ban gay marriage in a religious sense. The only thing they accomplish is limiting people from joining in a partnership with another trusted person of the same gender in the same way as a marriage contract.

Please show me where I am incorrect in this.

If this is the case the laws are clearly prejudiced and they do not accomplish the goals they want to.

 

[Ariux]

Liberals always insist on arguing from a position of dishonesty. A ban means someone isn't allowed to do something. Homosexuals are allowed to be marry in every state. Just not every state recognizes homosexual marriages.

There is no secular reason for government to recognize homosexual marriage, because the behavior is not beneficial to society. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[tererun]

Liberals always insist on arguing from a position of dishonesty. A ban means someone isn't allowed to do something. Homosexuals are allowed to be marry in every state. Just not every state recognizes homosexual marriages.

How am i being dishonest when I clearly presented those very ideas in my original post? It is a big part of my idea that gays can get married in the theological sense. I am trying to say that the argument is not religious because it does not do any religious things.

There is no secular reason for government to recognize homosexual marriage, because the behavior is not beneficial to society. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Actually there is a benefit. people have seen the benefit of legally partnering with someone you trust. They can act on your behalf if you are injured. They can combine incomes and resources in order to acquire property easier. They can make medical and financial decisions when you can't. They can cover each other's healthcare through insurance. They get death benefits. There is a number of compelling legal reasons for 2 people to enter into the legal marriage contract that do not involve love or god. Denying them the ability to do so while allowing others to gain those benefits becomes prejudiced and discriminatory if you remove the theological argument. That sort of law is not allowed in the US per the constitution

 

[MeBelle]

"The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature."

Exactly!
If government stayed out of the marriage business, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[konradv]

Liberals always insist on arguing from a position of dishonesty. A ban means someone isn't allowed to do something. Homosexuals are allowed to be marry in every state. Just not every state recognizes homosexual marriages.

There is no secular reason for government to recognize homosexual marriage, because the behavior is not beneficial to society. Religion has nothing to do with it.

There are all sorts of things that aren't beneficial to society, yet we don't ban them. Why in this instance are there restrictions, if they're not made on a religious basis?

 

[Katzndogz]

The marriage aspect is merely a minor tool in the larger controversy which is removing all vestiges of religion from the culture.

 

[tererun]

The marriage aspect is merely a minor tool in the larger controversy which is removing all vestiges of religion from the culture.

But the laws do not offer any protection for religion in any way. They actually disregard religion entirely. If you consider gay marriage to be an attack on religion, there is no law that makes it illegal to perform a gay marriage. The only thing the laws do is not recognize the union by the government, but the government does not force churches to not recognize the union.

Your point was clearly wrong when you read the original post, and saying it again does not make it true.

 

[tererun]

"The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature."

Exactly!
If government stayed out of the marriage business, it wouldn't be an issue.

That is great and all but the partnering of couples to form a family unit and combine income and legal responsibilities and protections in order to have safety in the family unit are very much a part of our culture just like businesses are. Therefor it makes sense for the government to have laws and regulations regarding the partnership of consenting adults for a non commercial family unit. Though i am not a huge fan of modern marriage and think there is a lot of bullshit within the idea, the idea itself is beneficial to society, and it would be something for the state to define for legal reasons.

 

[eflatminor]

Government need not define marriage at all nor provide any special benefits to a couple just because they happen to be married. The courts are there to handle marriage for what it is, a contract between two parties. Get the government out of the marriage business and anyone can marry anyone they like, as long as we're talking about consenting adults.

This way, "marriage" becomes a religious ceremony along with a contract of partnership, which need be no different than a partnership between and any consenting parties. Government's only role should be to provide courts for when there is a dispute between the parties.

So, if you go to the Church of the Sacred Beaver and you don't like them marrying homosexuals, go to another church. Problem solved.

The religious institution of marriage has been around a lot longer than our government. It requires no special protection or exclusive benefits.

 

[eflatminor]

That is great and all but the partnering of couples to form a family unit and combine income and legal responsibilities and protections in order to have safety in the family unit are very much a part of our culture just like businesses are.

True, but that has been the case long before the American culture even existed.

Therefor it makes sense for the government to have laws and regulations regarding the partnership of consenting adults for a non commercial family unit.

Does not follow. Because an idea has been around a very long time, it must be regulated? Logical disconnect.

...the idea itself is beneficial to society, and it would be something for the state to define for legal reasons.

Lot's of things are beneficial to society that do not require government to define it...as much as they'll try anyway. Any definition, rules or guidelines can be spelled out in the contract of partnership, which any consenting adults are free to enter into. The government need only provide a court system to settle disputes.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Once the government decided a license was required by partners to be deemed authorized to marry. They took over this debate and use it as a wedge to keep people swimming in the state box. There is absolutely no reason that any special perk should be obtained from marriage except the relationship itself. Any property, health related bindings, will or other contractual agreements should be obtained through the same means as any other contract. The only voice the state should have in this is upholding the rigths of individuals based on contractual agreements made.

Until people realize that government has not role in your relationship except protecting your rights, this wedge issue will persist and we're the losers.

But im sure you, your partner and the state will be overjoyed on your special day.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Liberals always insist on arguing from a position of dishonesty. A ban means someone isn't allowed to do something. Homosexuals are allowed to be marry in every state. Just not every state recognizes homosexual marriages.

The dishonesty is the use of the term "marriage" without the context of which marriage (religoius or civil) you are talking about.

In the majority of State same-sex couples are absolutley banned from entering into a legal Civil Marriage (i.e. that marriage recognized and considered valid under Civil Law).

There is no secular reason for government to recognize homosexual marriage, because the behavior is not beneficial to society.

Speaking as as a registered Repubican since 1978, I find it funny that people think that equal treatment under the law, freedoms, and liberty must be based on what is "beneficial to society" - restricting the actions of others based on the collective mentality isn't something this country was built on.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Liberals always insist on arguing from a position of dishonesty. A ban means someone isn't allowed to do something. Homosexuals are allowed to be marry in every state. Just not every state recognizes homosexual marriages.

There is no secular reason for government to recognize homosexual marriage, because the behavior is not beneficial to society. Religion has nothing to do with it.

You just made the OPs point....it's a STATE issue....even tho religions seem to be in the forefront of keeping gay marriage bans, religious marriages are not banned at all. Religions are stepping into the STATE realm.

 

[bodecea]

"The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature."

Exactly!
If government stayed out of the marriage business, it wouldn't be an issue.

What have YOU done to get government out of the marriage business?

 

[del]

"The laws and benefits that are granted to couples by the government are non-religious and contractual in nature."

Exactly!
If government stayed out of the marriage business, it wouldn't be an issue.

if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I propose this question because it seems that when you look at the bans on gay marriage across the country they do not address religious marriage at all.

A few facts:

1. No US law prevents a couple from declaring their union before god in a church or other religious institution. <<SNIP>>

2. The US marriage contract does not apply religious laws or regulations to marriage. <<SNIP>>

While I understand where you are going with this thread, the above statements are not quite true. Utah's bigamy laws prevent not only multiple Civil Marriages, they also apply to a case of a single Civil Marriage while purporting to have "spiritual marriages" (i.e. additional "Religous Marriages".

According to Utah’s bigamy statute, “A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101(1) (2003). The law, therefore, applies not just to individuals who have obtained multiple marriage licenses, but also to those who are legally married to only one person, while also engaging in other marriage-like relationships that are not recognized by the state.

Utah&rsquo;s Bigamy Statute and the Right to Privacy and Religious Freedom​

>>>>

 

[midcan5]

Marriage confers rights on couples who choose to live together, divorce each other, fight constantly, create neurotic weird kids together, cheat on each other, hate each other, and sometimes live happily ever after together. We have been married longer than most on the board have existed. My brother and his partner have been together longer than most so called normal marriages. The right to do all of the above should be granted to all, for if rights mean anything and they do in marriage, all who want to tumble through it, should be granted that right and those privileges. Religion should stay with the religious and away from denying the rights and privileges of the citizenry. Gay marriage must be a federal law and considered like any contract. The intolerant can move to Iran or another religious theocracy.

Below is information that counters the intolerant in America:

"However, there is no evidence that the introduction of same-sex marriage will change any other elements of this social meaning. Moreover, this social meaning has already changed radically over the years.... Marriage used to be generally understood as an unequal partnership, with the wife being subordinated to her husband, whereas now &#8212; at least in law and in most of mainstream culture &#8212; marriage is viewed as a partnership of equals. In general, the social meaning of marriage must change whenever such changes are necessary to avoid injustice; so this social meaning must now be changed so that it no longer excludes the participation of same-sex couples." Ralph Wedgwood The Meaning of Same-Sex Marriage - NYTimes.com

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/101616-a-conservative-i-agree-with.html

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0684824043/scottbidstrupshoA/]Amazon.com: CASE FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment (9780684824048): William N. Eskridge: Books[/ame]

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GssdKvp4pLo]Circular Logic Caller: Arguing over Gay Marriage - A.E. #584 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jillian]

Liberals always insist on arguing from a position of dishonesty. A ban means someone isn't allowed to do something. Homosexuals are allowed to be marry in every state. Just not every state recognizes homosexual marriages.

There is no secular reason for government to recognize homosexual marriage, because the behavior is not beneficial to society. Religion has nothing to do with it.

the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires that status laws in one state be recognized in all others.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article IV | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

now what were you saying about dishonesty?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Liberals always insist on arguing from a position of dishonesty. A ban means someone isn't allowed to do something. Homosexuals are allowed to be marry in every state. Just not every state recognizes homosexual marriages.

There is no secular reason for government to recognize homosexual marriage, because the behavior is not beneficial to society. Religion has nothing to do with it.

the full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires that status laws in one state be recognized in all others.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article IV | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

now what were you saying about dishonesty?

Well just to be technical...

"And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."​

That's what Congress did with the section of DOMA that releases one State from being required to recognize Same-sex Civil Marriages from another jurisdiction. Now there is some question as to the validity of that because Congress made the exemption narrowly tailored toward one group, they did not exempt one state from being required to recognize all Civil Marriages that conflict with their own laws - only those based on gender.

The current DOMA cases that are proceeding to the Supreme court are focused on the Federal recognition question of some State Civil Marriages but not others, not the exemption clause.


>>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Marriage confers rights on couples who choose to live together, divorce each other, fight constantly, create neurotic weird kids together, cheat on each other, hate each other, and sometimes live happily ever after together. We have been married longer than most on the board have existed. My brother and his partner have been together longer than most so called normal marriages. The right to do all of the above should be granted to all, for if rights mean anything and they do in marriage, all who want to tumble through it, should be granted that right and those privileges. Religion should stay with the religious and away from denying the rights and privileges of the citizenry. Gay marriage must be a federal law and considered like any contract. The intolerant can move to Iran or another religious theocracy.

Below is information that counters the intolerant in America:

"However, there is no evidence that the introduction of same-sex marriage will change any other elements of this social meaning. Moreover, this social meaning has already changed radically over the years.... Marriage used to be generally understood as an unequal partnership, with the wife being subordinated to her husband, whereas now — at least in law and in most of mainstream culture — marriage is viewed as a partnership of equals. In general, the social meaning of marriage must change whenever such changes are necessary to avoid injustice; so this social meaning must now be changed so that it no longer excludes the participation of same-sex couples." Ralph Wedgwood The Meaning of Same-Sex Marriage - NYTimes.com

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/101616-a-conservative-i-agree-with.html

Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
Amazon.com: CASE FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment (9780684824048): William N. Eskridge: Books

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink


Circular Logic Caller: Arguing over Gay Marriage - A.E. #584 - YouTube

The cost of adopting my own daughter because at the time she was born, we were not legally married is pretty much in line with the description in the video. Not exactly equal under the law, is it?