The government should not recognize heterosexual marriage.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 2:48 PM GMT
    Marriage is obviously a religious ceremony and should not be validated or given special treatment by our federal or state governments.
    It's really no different than baptisms. Our government doesn't recognize those either.
    There should only be civil unions, and if you want to get married, go find a preacher.

    I really think this is where this will end.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:00 PM GMT
    Gay = Happy
    Therefore anyone against gay marriage is against happy marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:07 PM GMT
    lol, disagree. Marriage is first a legal and romantic arrangement, then, secondarily and optional, religious.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:19 PM GMT
    It's really the same situation as religious displays on public ground. If you not going to allow equal access to all, then there should be none.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:22 PM GMT
    lol, I got your tone on the first post, moscowmikey. icon_wink.gif

    Very well put.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:39 PM GMT
    The democrats don't want to be the party that destroyed marriage and made U.S. an even more Godless country.

    and that's exactly how some will see it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:47 PM GMT
    lol, try not to take the bait, moscowmikey!

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 5:02 PM GMT
    No worries...I love a good debate. icon_smile.gif

    Besides...I was trying to decided here...or the 'tap dat ass forum'...lol

    Anyway...I don't have any illusion that the Democrats are perfect, and apparently they don't take their marching orders from me, but I agree with them far more than I agree with the Republicans....and I used to be one.

    I just think people have so many ideas wrapped up in the word marriage, that it is the term that has obstructed the equality that the Constitution of the United States demands, if not all of her people.

    I'd be happy to have my pastor preform a gay marriage and have the governent recognize it as a legal union. We will be equal, one way or another, for we are all tax paying Americans and have equal rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 5:37 PM GMT
    jprichva saidReligious people don't have any special claim to the word marriage. That's why this is wrong.


    But what about baptism? is that a religious word?

    just a friendly question ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 6:47 PM GMT
    meninlove said lol, disagree. Marriage is first a legal and romantic arrangement, then, secondarily and optional, religious.

    -Doug


    You´ve (well you following the way the debate is being conducted) collapsed several things together: (1) marriage which confers legal rights and protections, (2) marriage which is a religious rite defined by society and religious belief and (3) marriage which is an expression of romantic/personal attachment.

    Open (1) to everyone as a basic civil right, let religious and social groups administer (2) as they wish and let people relate (3) to (1) and (2) as they chose.

    That is really the answer. Anyway, Obama is as pro gay as Palin is. Fucking cunt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 7:26 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    That is really the answer. Anyway, Obama is as pro gay as Palin is. Fucking cunt.


    Lol....about Palin...funny thing is, I went to school with her here at the University of Idaho. We were both comm majors..although no one can remember her.
    The C-word is reserved for very, very special people, but Sarah has shown she is worthy in my book too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 8:18 PM GMT
    As I've stated here before, EVERY legal marriage in the US is a civil one. The confusion arises because the States empower most religious ministers to act as a Justice of the Peace, to conduct a combined civil & religious wedding if the couple so wishes. But the underlying basis & authority is still a State civil marriage license, without which a purely religious wedding is merely symbolic, and lacks full legal standing.

    An interesting comparison is with France. From the time of the Revolution, only civil marriages are valid and recognized, although there are different degrees of marriage, known as marital regimes. These have mostly to do with civil rights, ownership of property, and inheritance, and have a loose parallel with US marriages that are accompanied by pre-marital agreements.

    So a French couple will go first to the town hall, or sometimes will select an even more ornate setting, for marriage by the mayor or other local civil servant. Then they will have a second wedding if they wish, in a church or other place of worship. This can be immediately following the civil (and legally binding) wedding, or as much later as they wish. They're already legally married, so the rest is merely to satisfy religious beliefs & obligations, not civil legalities.

    I'd like to see the US adopt a similar practice, and take authority for administering civil marriage completely away from religious institutions. And thus hopefully ending this confusion we continue to have here, and more clearly establish that it's the States that determine what is and is not legally recognized marriage, not any religious groups.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 8:20 PM GMT

    YES!

    Thanks Art_Deco - it's the same in most Western countries.

    "As I've stated here before, EVERY legal marriage in the US is a civil one. The confusion arises because the States empower most religious ministers to act as a Justice of the Peace, to conduct a combined civil & religious wedding if the couple so wishes. But the underlying basis & authority is still a State civil marriage license, without which a purely religious wedding is merely symbolic, and lacks full legal standing."

    Thankyouthankyouthankyou.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 8:26 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSo why haven't the Democrats, who have controlled Congress and the presidency for almost 2 years, done anything?


    Write them and ask. icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 8:50 PM GMT
    hmm...you mean you have your personal opinion. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 8:56 PM GMT
    Art_Deco...

    That sounds like such the better way than all this mess we have now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 9:12 PM GMT
    moscowmikey said
    Lostboy said
    That is really the answer. Anyway, Obama is as pro gay as Palin is. Fucking cunt.


    Lol....about Palin...funny thing is, I went to school with her here at the University of Idaho. We were both comm majors..although no one can remember her.
    The C-word is reserved for very, very special people, but Sarah has shown she is worthy in my book too.


    I meant Obama. At least if McCain had won people would realise they had a conservative, anti gay president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 9:25 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    southbeach1500 saidSo why haven't the Democrats, who have controlled Congress and the presidency for almost 2 years, done anything?


    Write them and ask. icon_rolleyes.gif

    The answer is known; this is a typical right-wing deception from you-know-who.

    Marriage is a State-by-State issue, not a Federal one. At least not until Republicans inserted it improperly into Federal law with DOMA. Which Clinton, to his great discredit but trying to overcome Republican opposition in Congress to other legislative issues he was pushing, caved and signed it.

    In the present Congress, we have seen historically unprecedented Republican opposition to anything the Democrats, and especially President Obama, propose. Even with 58 US Democratic Senators the Senate is mostly deadlocked due to Republican opposition.

    (The 2 Independents who briefly made 60 votes are unreliable, and now that Democratic number has dropped to 57, total of 59. Isn't it marvelous how Republican supporters here who cheered the election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Mass in February, still claim Obama has had a super-majority in Congress during his entire first term. They've been saying "2 years" for almost a year now, though Obama hasn't even reached his second anniversary. And given that Senator Al Franken didn't take office until July, 2009, due to fruitless Republican appeals, this whole super-majority is a myth. It lasted barely a year, with Sen Kennedy not even in the Senate in his last months. But hey, what are facts to right-wingers?)

    Democrats have done less than they wanted because Republicans intentionally sabotaged them. Their stated goal from the first was clear: make Obama and the Democrats fail, even if it hurts the country. They've done a fairly good job at it, and may see their unscrupulous policy pay off this November.

    This behavior from career Republican politicians I can expect. To see RJers here being shameless and lying cheerleaders and propagandists for them, and digging the knife in even deeper, is perhaps more discouraging. Et tu Brute?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 9:56 PM GMT
    Legally there is no difference if the state calls it marriage or civil unions, provided that is the language used for all individuals. Currently, the majority of our laws are written to recognize marriage alone and a minority recognize both. In a country where only 28% of the public knows who Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is I doubt a little in legal nomenclature is going to change any minds.

    Make no mistake. This is not about our opponent's feelings on religious marriage. This is all about our opponents thinking we are less than they are and not deserving of equal treatment under the law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 11:07 PM GMT
    Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."


    To recognize heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage IS the establishment of a religion.

    My point is that if we want to call it marriage, fine...it should be open to all.
    If we can't open it to all, then the government should not recognize it at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 11:19 PM GMT
    moscowmikey saidAmendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."


    To recognize heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage IS the establishment of a religion.

    My point is that if we want to call it marriage, fine...it should be open to all.
    If we can't open it to all, then the government should not recognize it at all.


    In now way is that true. The government does not recognize religious marriage at all. According to the state, you are not married when you say "I do" in a church but you are married when you receive a marriage license.

    I think what you are trying to say is that by recognizing same sex marriage we are infringing on the rights of religions that do not recognize them. But, the state could not compel them to perform those marriages. Further, there are thousands of congregations in the US that are currently performing same sex marriages. Friends of mine were married in their Unitarian Church ten years ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 11:29 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie said

    I think what you are trying to say is that by recognizing same sex marriage we are infringing on the rights of religions that do not recognize them. But, the state could not compel them to perform those marriages. Further, there are thousands of congregations in the US that are currently performing same sex marriages. Friends of mine were married in their Unitarian Church ten years ago.



    Even better said. Thanks...

    Although lots of the benefits of 'marriage' are federal are they not?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 11:50 PM GMT
    moscowmikey saidEven better said. Thanks...

    Although lots of the benefits of 'marriage' are federal are they not?


    There are two types of marriage: religious marriage and civil marriage. There are no civil rights accorded to religious marriage. There are over 1,200 civil rights accorded by the federal, state, county, and municipal government, over 1,000 of which are granted by the federal government.

    These rights range from making end of life decisions, joint filing of taxes, down to terribly mundane stuff like transferring liquor licenses. But, these rights are in no way bound by any religious ceremony. I can't think of anything more profane than tax forms and licenses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2010 12:06 AM GMT
    moscowmikey saidTo recognize heterosexual marriage and not homosexual marriage IS the establishment of a religion.

    The US IRS for decades has been determining which are established and Federally recognized religions, and which are not, for tax purposes. The IRS has a list of Federally approved religions & sects, and those religions not on their list do not get the tax break for religious groups. The States have been doing likewise, with regard to property and sales taxes.

    It doesn't make any difference if the US recognizes just one religion as "approved" or thousands. There will be those that are not approved, and so therefore, the US Congress, through the government, has established official religions. Be official and you get a tax break. Not be official, and you don't.

    The correct Constitutional response should be to give NO religions a tax break. Because that puts the US government in the business of choosing which religions are official and which are not.

    The better approach is to award non-profit status to religious groups, if they meet common non-profite tests (which some religions may not, due to making great tax-free profits under cover of their religious tax breaks).

    Therefore, most major religious groups would continue unchanged in a tax-exempt status, by virtue of their non-profit activities. But the government wouldn't be in the business of determining what religions were "official" and "established" in violation of the 1st Amendment. Yet neither could religious groups run businesses for profit, nor would they likely as easily skirt US election contribution laws, and prohibitions against political activities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 19, 2010 3:57 AM GMT
    I agree but only in theory. Unfortunately, I believe it is pretty clear that the government will never abolish the term "marriage" in favor of "civil unions" for everyone, therefore in order for equality to exist the government will eventually need to accept gays as "married" in the same way they accept heterosexual couples in order for equal freedom to exist, otherwise it seems to be second-class citizenship.