Redefining Marriage and all that

[McBell]

See post 144

Post #144 does not explain how the state regulated legal contracts more commonly referred to as "Marriage" are unconstitutional.

So I will ask again for you to explain how they are unconstitutional.

 

[Reverend Rick]

We are a secular nation and have a separation of church and state. How does that fly when to be married you need both a license AND a ceremony?

How can you have certain inalienable rights when the state decide who has these rights?

The state can control your privileges not your rights. A right is something you have already and is not something that can be giving to you or require a license.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It is the Feds that are the problem.

What is you opinion of states rights? Are you a federalist?

 

[Draka]

We are a secular nation and have a separation of church and state. How does that fly when to be married you need both a license AND a ceremony?

The ceremony doesn't have anything to do with religion or religious people at all. The license is basically an application for permission to enter into a legal contract with your partner. The signing by an officiant, be that minister or JP, is what completes the contract and issuance of the certificate.

Both times I was married there was no minister or religious anything involved. They were both performed by a JP. There was no mention of "god" or anything along those lines. It was..."do you take this man/woman to be your lawful wedded husband/wife." It was verbally affirming our desire to enter into said legal contract of a spousal partnership. Once that affirmation had been witnessed by the officiant and a couple witnesses...the paper was signed and the certificate issued.

Marriage IS a secular thing...through and through. So why wouldn't the government have anything to say about it? It is not entirely the governments fault that there is no legal same sex marriage here. That can squarely be settled on the shoulders of the prejudiced religious voters putting in the prejudiced religious people in offices that are responsible for our laws. If you take any religious reasoning out of considering this issue, then there becomes not ONE reason to deny homosexuals the right to same sex marriage.

Religion, any religion, has no claim or market on marriage. If they did...why can atheists marry? Why aren't the *cringe* "religious right" *cringe* strongly advocating against marriage rights for atheists? If Christians (or other Abrahamic religions) have the market cornered on marriage why aren't they picketing Buddhists who marry? Or Pagans that marry? Or Hindus that marry? If it's such a religious thing then why don't they stand for that across the board instead of just picking on gays?

 

[Reverend Rick]

It is not entirely the governments fault that there is no legal same sex marriage here. That can squarely be settled on the shoulders of the prejudiced religious voters putting in the prejudiced religious people in offices that are responsible for our laws.

This is why I want the state out of the marriage business. Who was in the marriage business first? Why have we allowed the state to take control in the first place?

You are 100% right about the prejudiced religious voters, but what do you want to do, decide who can vote and who cannot? Many could argue that all voters have an axe to grind.

 

[Draka]

This is why I want the state out of the marriage business. Who was in the marriage business first? Why have we allowed the state to take control in the first place?

You are 100% right about the prejudiced religious voters, but what do you want to do, decide who can vote and who cannot? Many could argue that all voters have an axe to grind.

It's not the state that needs out of the marriage business, it's the "religious right". Like I said, if it is such a religious thing then why not throw a fit over Atheists and Pagans and Buddhists marrying?

Who was in the marriage business first??? Certainly not Christians. Some form of spousal partnerships have been around longer than Christianity. Churches certainly can't make the claim that they had marriage first. That's just silly. Marriages, by one word or another, in one language or another, exist all over the world and have for thousands of years. So, with such a normal, worldwide, spousal agreement, why wouldn't it take on a secular position in a secular country?

It's not the government that needs to butt out...it's Christian churches.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It's not the state that needs out of the marriage business, it's the "religious right". Like I said, if it is such a religious thing then why not throw a fit over Atheists and Pagans and Buddhists marrying?

Who was in the marriage business first??? Certainly not Christians. Some form of spousal partnerships have been around longer than Christianity. Churches certainly can't make the claim that they had marriage first. That's just silly. Marriages, by one word or another, in one language or another, exist all over the world and have for thousands of years. So, with such a normal, worldwide, spousal agreement, why wouldn't it take on a secular position in a secular country?

It's not the government that needs to butt out...it's Christian churches.

How do you propose to keep such a large group out of this decision? 75% of the voters in my state oppose same sex marriage. You could say, we are the state. My only point is it would be easier to get the state out of the marriage business than keep it in and deal with an over whelming majority of voters who do not want same sex marriage in their state.

 

[Draka]

How do you propose to keep such a large group out of this decision? 75% of the voters in my state oppose same sex marriage. You could say, we are the state. My only point is it would be easier to get the state out of the marriage business than keep it in and deal with an over whelming majority of voters who do not want same sex marriage in their state.

Or we could simply end up with a Supreme Court ruling one of these days that makes the religious voters' opinions worthless when it comes to law. Kind of like Roe v Wade. If that is what we need, that is what we need.

I still have yet to see an argument as to why, if marriage is such a religious thing to so many people, they are not out throwing fits about marriages of non-religious peoples or the fact that JPs act as marriage officiants. Thereby completely taking any religious connotation out of a marriage. Why just pick on gays??? Why not discriminate with their prejudice across the board evenly?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Or we could simply end up with a Supreme Court ruling one of these days that makes the religious voters' opinions worthless when it comes to law. Kind of like Roe v Wade. If that is what we need, that is what we need.

I still have yet to see an argument as to why, if marriage is such a religious thing to so many people, they are not out throwing fits about marriages of non-religious peoples or the fact that JPs act as marriage officiants. Thereby completely taking any religious connotation out of a marriage. Why just pick on gays??? Why not discriminate with their prejudice across the board evenly?

I cannot answer that. I can think of no reason. Rowe Vs. Wade could be over turned one day because the judicial branch is suppose to rule on interpretation of the law, not legislate from the bench. This is the job for the legislative branch of government and once again these folks are elected to represent their constituents.

 

[McBell]

We are a secular nation and have a separation of church and state. How does that fly when to be married you need both a license AND a ceremony?

Since the state does ot require a ceremony...

How can you have certain inalienable rights when the state decide who has these rights?

This is a rhetorical question, right?

The state can control your privileges not your rights. A right is something you have already and is not something that can be giving to you or require a license.

Seems to me that not only the state, but the majority of the USA disagree with ouy.

What is you opinion of states rights? Are you a federalist?

No I am not a federalist.
However when the states have conflicting laws, like the ones concerning same sex marriage, then the Federal Government is to step in and resolve the situation.

They have yet to do their job.

 

[Draka]

I cannot answer that. I can think of no reason. Rowe Vs. Wade could be over turned one day because the judicial branch is suppose to rule on interpretation of the law, not legislate from the bench. This is the job for the legislative branch of government and once again these folks are elected to represent their constituents.

Then, perhaps, the problem lies with the education of so many religious voters. Educating them on the facts of what our government is suppose to be like (fair and equal to ALL its people). Educating them about what marriage really is (a secular contract). Educating them that there are many different religions represented in this country and unless they want the people of those religions to constantly bang on their doors and tell them how wrong they are believing and that they are living their lives all wrong then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it to others. Sheesh...you'd think some Christians would have heard of the "Golden Rule for crying out loud.

Personally, I think that for every right of equality that a person is against sharing with all people, a right that they personally cherish should be taken away from them. Perhaps then they will see what harm they are inflicting. Like: You don't want Gary and Steve to get married because they are gay? Oh, in that case, SURPRISE, you just lost the ability to get married too! How's that feel? Do unto others you know.

 

[rajakrsna]

Then, perhaps, the problem lies with the education of so many religious voters. Educating them on the facts of what our government is suppose to be like (fair and equal to ALL its people). Educating them about what marriage really is (a secular contract). Educating them that there are many different religions represented in this country and unless they want the people of those religions to constantly bang on their doors and tell them how wrong they are believing and that they are living their lives all wrong then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it to others. Sheesh...you'd think some Christians would have heard of the "Golden Rule for crying out loud.

Personally, I think that for every right of equality that a person is against sharing with all people, a right that they personally cherish should be taken away from them. Perhaps then they will see what harm they are inflicting. Like: You don't want Gary and Steve to get married because they are gay? Oh, in that case, SURPRISE, you just lost the ability to get married too! How's that feel? Do unto others you know.

If gays get married. What would they do during their spare time? Answer: Playing saxophone!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Then, perhaps, the problem lies with the education of so many religious voters. Educating them on the facts of what our government is suppose to be like (fair and equal to ALL its people). Educating them about what marriage really is (a secular contract). Educating them that there are many different religions represented in this country and unless they want the people of those religions to constantly bang on their doors and tell them how wrong they are believing and that they are living their lives all wrong then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it to others. Sheesh...you'd think some Christians would have heard of the "Golden Rule for crying out loud.

Personally, I think that for every right of equality that a person is against sharing with all people, a right that they personally cherish should be taken away from them. Perhaps then they will see what harm they are inflicting. Like: You don't want Gary and Steve to get married because they are gay? Oh, in that case, SURPRISE, you just lost the ability to get married too! How's that feel? Do unto others you know.

Our government is slow and imperfect. It may take generations for this issue to be resolved. When I was young, I though Pot would be legal by now. It still is a good system and in time, all things will become equal and distribute more justice.

As far as educating people is concerned, when we stop protecting teachers and start protecting students by giving vouchers for their education and start phasing out public education and start encouraging private results orientated schools that are better able to educate our youth and would be more efficient and would have to answer to those folks who go there instead of the bureaucrats, education will continue to be the cesspool that we send our children to each and every day.

 

[Nanda]

True, but let me expand further so rheff makes no assumptions. The mental anguish would not come from being homosexual. It would come from whatever "instilling" and "god-fearing" lecturing and judgement that would come from him as a father of a homosexual. That's where any anguish would come into play.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

 

[McBell]

Our government is slow and imperfect. It may take generations for this issue to be resolved.

Unfortunately I have to agree.
It is sad when the personal prejudices of those in the government take preference over the rights and freedoms of American citizens.

As far as educating people is concerned, when we stop protecting teachers and start protecting students by giving vouchers for their education and start phasing out public education and start encouraging private results orientated schools that are better able to educate our youth and would be more efficient and would have to answer to those folks who go there instead of the bureaucrats, education will continue to be the cesspool that we send our children to each and every day.

Switch to all private schools?
That sounds like the LAST thing that needs done.
Having all these private schools instilling what ever they like into the minds of the young ones.

 

[Smoke]

This is why I want the state out of the marriage business.

People keep saying that, and I don't know what the hell you mean.

Are you suggesting that legal marriage should be abolished, and you and your wife should become legal strangers? That if you die or become incapacitated it should be your blood relatives who make all the relevant decisions, and not your wife?

Or are you suggesting that we should still have legal marriage, but that religious groups, and religious groups alone, should decide who can be married?

I don't think anybody really wants the first option. The second option is worse than what we have now. Why should free citizens have to apply to a religious authority to be married? And same-sex couples can already have religious weddings if they want them -- not in most Christian churches, but who cares about that? There are plenty of other religions, and there are liberal churches to be found for those who want them. We can already have the big church wedding. I couldn't care less about that. What we need is legal marriage.

 

[Reverend Rick]

People keep saying that, and I don't know what the hell you mean.

Are you suggesting that legal marriage should be abolished, and you and your wife should become legal strangers? That if you die or become incapacitated it should be your blood relatives who make all the relevant decisions, and not your wife?

My living will and my last will and testament make things crystal clear who does what and when. Marriage laws now a days just provide divorce rights which can be negated with a prenup. If I was gay and had a same sex partner, I would have an iron clad legal paper endowing my partner with all rights and interest. A living will fixes hospital decisions, the only problem is social security and that needs to be fixed.

Or are you suggesting that we should still have legal marriage, but that religious groups, and religious groups alone, should decide who can be married?

NO

I don't think anybody really wants the first option. The second option is worse than what we have now. Why should free citizens have to apply to a religious authority to be married? And same-sex couples can already have religious weddings if they want them -- not in most Christian churches, but who cares about that? There are plenty of other religions, and there are liberal churches to be found for those who want them. We can already have the big church wedding. I couldn't care less about that. What we need is legal marriage.

It sounds to me like you need to see a lawyer. Only a fool would leave their estate to be handled by the state with no last wishes filed with the court house.

 

[Smoke]

It sounds to me like you need to see a lawyer. Only a fool would leave their estate to be handled by the state with no last wishes filed with the court house.

You don't understand the situation of same-sex couples. For one thing, you and your wife have rights and privileges as a married couple that cannot be created by any legal contract. For another thing, imagine that you had to travel with a packet of legal documents everywhere you went, and that even if you did have all your legal documents with you when you were in an accident, you had no way of knowing whether the hospital or the state through which you were traveling would actually honor them.

 

[Smoke]

the only problem is social security and that needs to be fixed.

You mean, your wife should not be allowed to collect your social security?

The minute you talk about social security, you've involved the state again. The minute you draw up a living will or any other contract, you involve the state -- because it's the state that has the power to enforce the contract or void it. Do you really want the state completely out of this?

 

[Draka]

Our government is slow and imperfect. It may take generations for this issue to be resolved. When I was young, I though Pot would be legal by now. It still is a good system and in time, all things will become equal and distribute more justice.

As far as educating people is concerned, when we stop protecting teachers and start protecting students by giving vouchers for their education and start phasing out public education and start encouraging private results orientated schools that are better able to educate our youth and would be more efficient and would have to answer to those folks who go there instead of the bureaucrats, education will continue to be the cesspool that we send our children to each and every day.

You know, when I talk about educating people like this I am referring to finding some way to dump out the stupidity and the bigotry. Putting kids into private (and I'm sure religious) schools is not the answer. Especially when it comes to Christian/Catholic schools. We need to take the religious bigotry and instilled prejudice OUT of the people, not find more ways to instill it.

We need to make people realize that they can't base laws on religious beliefs. That, just because your church says something is right or wrong, that it doesn't give them the right to tell other people how they can live.

We need to stop the uneducated Christian masses from passing on their prejudices to the next, innocent generation. We need to instruct, in secular, public schools that people are people, regardless of any differences, and deserve equal protection and rights under the law.

Teachers should have the ability to teach children, in social studies, that homosexuals are normal people like everyone else and deserve equal rights. Churches should have no say in this. If parents have a problem with this and voice their concern over their children being taught such a thing...well, that just points out the children that are going to need the most help to be pried away from their parents bigoted views.