Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sigh.... Wouldn't it be easier to allow churches / synagogues / temples / mosques / whatever to decide who they want to marry, but also to change the law so that if gays want to get married and a church won't do it then a civil union gives them all the rights that a couple married in a religious ceremony would have?
Sorry, that was a really long sentence.
Seems to me that this would allow the folks to insist of religious "marriage" being males /female to preserve it that way, but would also allow gay couples to overcome the legal hurdle.
Sigh.... Wouldn't it be easier to allow churches / synagogues / temples / mosques / whatever to decide who they want to marry, but also to change the law so that if gays want to get married and a church won't do it then a civil union gives them all the rights that a couple married in a religious ceremony would have?
Sorry, that was a really long sentence.
Seems to me that this would allow the folks to insist of religious "marriage" being males /female to preserve it that way, but would also allow gay couples to overcome the legal hurdle.
No. The answer is to change the civil law and let gay and lesbian couples marry civilly.
No need for the Churches, Synagogues, Temples and Mosques to get upset. They continue to decide who they want to religiously marry.
In the third century, gays were able to marry, then that changed.
Let the religious have their religion, but stay out of unconstitutional CIVIL LAW restrictions.
Er, I thought that's what I just suggested.
Which is the whole point, the ones opposed to gay marriage are actually opposed to gay couples as a whole. That's the problem, they are anti-gay and hiding behind the word marriage.
I didn't read your suggestion as what I just wrote. Aren't you a proponent of civil unions for gays but not marriage equality?
Civil unions do NOT provide the same rights and priveleges of marriage. 'Separate but equal' never is equal.
Oh dear. The first part of your sentence describes me. I'm opposed to gay marriage solely from a Christian perspective - (I don't know enough about the dogma of other religions to be able to comment on them), on the basis that marriage is male / female.
On the other hand, I think that any couple who have been joined as husband and wife in a civil union should have every right that any 'religiously' married couple have. This includes gay couples.
I'm not anti-gay hiding behind the word marriage. All too often people just assume that if you have an objection to gays being married from a religious standpoint that you MUST be anti-gay.
But you are not against them having the right to it. That means you are not against the marriage just that you wouldn't recognize it religiously yourself. Different type of perspective.
You assume that the only religious rite for marriage that matters is Christian. You are now a mind reader eh? I assume very little and in this case have assumed nothing. Please review my posts and note the words "church of your choice" or words to that effect.
The purpose of having a license is related to property rights. Wives and children used to be considered property of the husband. You are only partially correct. Property rights are only one set of relationships within a marriage.
"Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.
"For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love rarely , and even simple affection was not considered essential. In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a sin.
In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.
Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually, marriage is a right of the STATE... it deals with determination of property rights. The right to PERFORM a marriage is granted by the State to religious institutions.
The purpose of the license was a) to raise revenue for the State to pay for the preservation of the records; and b) to make sure that the people who were getting married could legally GET married (e.g., because of age and/or filiation). There weren't inter-racial marriages in some states even into the 1970's (see Loving v Virginia).
Only marriage gives the right to pension and social security benefits.... no contract or other agreement or other legal action would grant that.
Mostly, there's no reason why a couple who has been together for 20 years should have fewer rights than a couple who got married 30 seconds ago.
Now, if that big ol club of a hint didn't get to you I will spell it out.Oh dear. The first part of your sentence describes me. I'm opposed to gay marriage solely from a Christian perspective - (I don't know enough about the dogma of other religions to be able to comment on them), on the basis that marriage is male / female.
On the other hand, I think that any couple who have been joined as husband and wife in a civil union should have every right that any 'religiously' married couple have. This includes gay couples.
I'm not anti-gay hiding behind the word marriage. All too often people just assume that if you have an objection to gays being married from a religious standpoint that you MUST be anti-gay.
Sky, I am not your enemy. I could personally care less whether or not same-sex marriages are made "legal" because I don't believe the government has any business butting into your private life. Heck, the only reason I am still posting here without too much acid or disdain is that I am trying to show you another route to get the results you want. Currently you are banging your head against the wall from the inside of the box.
Jillian, sweetie, you should know better than to argue with me. I am always rite.
There is no religious right to get married. The church can pick and choose who they will or will not perform the rite for.
There is no legal right to get married either. If you must have a license then you are getting permission. You do not need permission to exercise a bonafide right.
Your point b) is what I was mentioning about licenses and interracial marriage. Obviously the USSC has legislated those state laws out of existence, but the point is historically valid.
I will defer to your training as a lawyer in regards to pensions etc. But I will state as a reasonably well read (if not well educated) layman that if "Adam and Steve" incorporated the family unit they would meet most of the "rights" afforded by the marriage license. Additionally, they would have a huge tax advantage as they would pay no personal income tax at all. Matters of property would be easily handled since "corporate assets" are far easier to account for and dispose of than personal property. The individuals would be judgment proof. Adam and Steve could invite Eve to legally join the Corporation as a full member (doing an end around on the anti-polygamy laws). I am not certain as to each of the ways and means or forms to be filed, but I am certain it can be done. Hell, if I had all the details at my fingertips I would do it myself.
Hopefully Sky and others will see now that if the box they are trapped in won't change to accommodate them, it is time to climb into a different box.
Jillian, sweetie, you should know better than to argue with me. I am always rite.
There is no religious right to get married. The church can pick and choose who they will or will not perform the rite for.
There is no legal right to get married either. If you must have a license then you are getting permission. You do not need permission to exercise a bonafide right.
Your point b) is what I was mentioning about licenses and interracial marriage. Obviously the USSC has legislated those state laws out of existence, but the point is historically valid.
I will defer to your training as a lawyer in regards to pensions etc. But I will state as a reasonably well read (if not well educated) layman that if "Adam and Steve" incorporated the family unit they would meet most of the "rights" afforded by the marriage license. Additionally, they would have a huge tax advantage as they would pay no personal income tax at all. Matters of property would be easily handled since "corporate assets" are far easier to account for and dispose of than personal property. The individuals would be judgment proof. Adam and Steve could invite Eve to legally join the Corporation as a full member (doing an end around on the anti-polygamy laws). I am not certain as to each of the ways and means or forms to be filed, but I am certain it can be done. Hell, if I had all the details at my fingertips I would do it myself.
Hopefully Sky and others will see now that if the box they are trapped in won't change to accommodate them, it is time to climb into a different box.
Thanks for clarifying your point. You are anti-gay from a religious (Christian) perspective.
Thanks goodness Christianity is NOT the law of the land, YET. I am married civilly and by my Buddhist Lama with the support of our entire spiritual community.
My civil license isn't worth much. When I travel outside of California nowhere else in the US acknowledges my legal or spiritual union.
Some people want gays and lesbians to be treated like less than full citizens. They want to punish us for loving each other.
You see, that pisses me off.
I would never wish Christianity, nor any other religion to be the law of the land. What I would hope is that people such as yourself can receive exactly the same benefit under law as any Christian, church-married, heterosexual couple. The fact that your license isn't worth much outside California is, I believe, a national disgrace.
For several days now I've been reading your posts about people not respecting your religious beliefs. And yet you are quite happy to write off my religious beliefs as being inherently bigoted. It's not me that is anti-gay. Perhaps it's you that is anti Christian.
Heh... you're cute.
That's true.
And I see where you're going with that, but Loving says something different. It defines marriage as a fundamental right. That means if one is going to restrict it, there has to be a VERY good reason. Well you know that I don't put much stock in precedent if it's wrong. All the esteemed mathematicians in the past could have held that 2+2=5. It is still wrong. As I said, a license is permission. One doesn't need permission to exercise a fundamental right. For example: I don't know of anyone who would argue that driving a car is a right. I may be wrong since we are so litigious, but you get the point. So, you have the courts on your side. I simply have the satisfaction of sure and certain knowledge. LOL
Just because soemething is a right does not mean that right is unrestricted. I would point out the Metromedia line of cases which held that commercial speech could be subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions even though such restrictions limited the "speaker's" first amendment right. There are lots of anti-constitutional government regulations out there. I'm not familiar with the cases you mention, but I wasn't aware that the first amendment applied to commercial companies.
I see where you're going. I just disagree that one should have to take extra steps to get what they should be entitled to. I'm only trying to offer a way to get the results desired. I'm the one advocating the absolute removal of any and all government involvement in marriage. Then there is no problem and your privacy is slightly stronger than before.
It would be like saying that to get around segregation, black kids should have set up their own schools. (that whole separate but equal thing being no good and all)
