Marriage Laws

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

1st off, we've already established that the word "marriage" predates religions that we have today so it's not "your" word.

It does? That's odd...

2nd, to call it something else when it's the exact same thing is to say that "marriage" is somehow better or higher than a "civil union". Somehow the "hey we'll let you go to school, just not OUR schools" thing didn't work in the south now did it?

I'm not sure I understand how these two are related.

[wig]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm not sure I understand how these two are related.

They are related because they are both things that Chubby does not understand.

[wig]

Oh calm down, Chubby. I was kidding.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by wig

I'll say it again:

Being gay is not the same as being black.

Agreed.


Edited because I don't want to get in too deep. I just like poking my nose in on occasion.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by wig

Maybe the translation to Canadian was bad.

We get confused by the weird way you guys pronounce your o's.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Call 'em all that from a legal, governmental perspective, and leave the term "marriage" where it should be--the Church, and in religious ceremonies.

I don't understand why it has to be called something different? There's marriages being performed everyday by Judges for people who choose not to participate in organized religion... where is the big ruckus telling these people that they can't call their relationship marriage?

Call it marriage all the way around. To me there's no real point in calling them different names.

PS - Just to clear up something. I'm a strong proponent of allowing gays to marry, however I don't agree with a small minority of people saying that churchs should have to allow gays to marry. It's a private organization, it can choose to not allow "membership" based on anything it wants.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

I don't understand why it has to be called something different? There's marriages being performed everyday by Judges for people who choose not to participate in organized religion...

Agreed, but it is an easily fixable problem.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by wig

I know for 100% certainty that Fritz did not say that.

Maybe the translation to Canadian was bad.

Ok, then maybe I don't understand the argument Fritz and others are trying to present in saying what he did. Why does, letting gays marry somehow lead to allowing people who commit incest, or polygamy to marry. My understanding of the argument is that they are somehow related...

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Ok, then maybe I don't understand the argument Fritz and others are trying to present in saying what he did. Why does, letting gays marry somehow lead to allowing people who commit incest, or polygamy to marry. My understanding of the argument is that they are somehow related...

Have you read this entire thread yet? Because you have to suffer through it to be in the discussion.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Call 'em all that from a legal, governmental perspective, and leave the term "marriage" where it should be--the Church, and in religious ceremonies.

Just a question... if a religion performed a gay "union" in a church, and recoginized it, would you have a problem with that being called marriage?

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Have you read this entire thread yet? Because you have to suffer through it to be in the discussion.

Nope. But I'd be happy to look at a specific post if it could answer my question.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

It does? That's odd...

I'm not sure I understand how these two are related.

Feel free to post proof of "ownership" over the word marriage, there was a discussion earlier (I believe in this thread) over how the concept of marriage was found on tablets that pre date christainity and every other religion we have.

Then why does it have to be called a "civil union" to be ok? What's the difference? Again, this goes back to ownership over a word for which you have no right to claim as your own.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Just a question... if a religion performed a gay "union" in a church, and recoginized it, would you have a problem with that being called marriage?

By whom?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Again, this goes back to ownership over a word for which you have no right to claim as your own.

Never claimed it as my own. It isn't mine.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

By whom?

By anyone...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

By anyone...

Just clarifying. Regardless, the answer is no.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Never claimed it as my own. It isn't mine.

Excellent! So if it isn't yours, then who are you to say who can use it and who can't?

[Joe Canadian]

Ok, how about this, I'm always willing to comprimise ... we call them all "marriages," and if you get married within your church it will be known as a "religious marriage".....

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Excellent! So if it isn't yours, then who are you to say who can use it and who can't?

Strange logic. Let me illustrate why:

The car that my next-door neighbor drives is his. Let's suppose I saw a stranger sneaking into his yard, jimmying the lock, and obviously trying to hot-wire the car. Is the more appropriate response,

a: Well, it isn't mine. Who am I to say who can use it and who can't.

or

b: Go in the house, get my phone and my firearm. Call the police, and keep the guy there until they arrive.

The metaphor isn't perfect, but it conveys the idea well enough.

[Maple Leafs]

So when people suggest that they're uncomfortable with gay marriage but could accept civil unions, are you assuming that a civil union would include all the legal benefits of "real" marriage -- taxes, insurance, custody, benefits, etc?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Ok, how about this, I'm always willing to comprimise ... we call them all "marriages," and if you get married within your church it will be known as a "religious marriage".....

Ugh. I try to avoid churches that do anything "religious."

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

b: Go in the house, get my phone and my firearm. Call the police, and keep the guy there until they arrive.

You realize that there will now inevitably be a post later in this thread, along the lines of "SkyDog says we should get our guns when we see gay people" ...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

So when people suggest that they're uncomfortable with gay marriage but could accept civil unions, are you assuming that a civil union would include all the legal benefits of "real" marriage -- taxes, insurance, custody, benefits, etc?

If you're asking me (and I'm assuming you are, since this has come back up from something posted a long way back), the answer is "yes."

Somehow people have classified me as being politically conservative. However, generally speaking, I tend to have rather libertarian views for the most part.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If you're asking me (and I'm assuming you are, since this has come back up from something posted a long way back), the answer is "yes."

I'm just starting to get the sense that, with one or two vocal exceptions on each side, everyone else is actually pretty much in agreement: allow a legally binding marriage/union, just don't force any religion to perform the ceremony.

And if that's the case, the rest of the debate ("marriage" vs. "union") seems a lot like semantics.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Strange logic. Let me illustrate why:

The car that my next-door neighbor drives is his. Let's suppose I saw a stranger sneaking into his yard, jimmying the lock, and obviously trying to hot-wire the car. Is the more appropriate response,

a: Well, it isn't mine. Who am I to say who can use it and who can't.

or

b: Go in the house, get my phone and my firearm. Call the police, and keep the guy there until they arrive.

The metaphor isn't perfect, but it conveys the idea well enough.

Your metaphor isn't anywhere CLOSE to perfect. It's not even the same sport. Just so I have this right, you're equating the use of a word (for which you have already stated should only be used in the context for which YOU say it should) to someone stealing your neighbors car? Riiiiight, that's almost anywhere close to the same thing.

We're not debating using "Christ" or "Koran" or something else specific to one religion. You've already said that same-sex marriages shouldn't be called marriages even if they were done in a church. Why? Who are you to say they can't be?

And actually, if you DID go get your firearm and hold the guy hostage for trying to steal someone else's car I believe you too would be arrested as "vigilante justice" isn't exactly looked up to.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

You realize that there will now inevitably be a post later in this thread, along the lines of "SkyDog says we should get our guns when we see gay people" ...

You mean he wasn't saying that? Damn, I have to go apologize to someone...

Somehow people have classified me as being politically conservative. However, generally speaking, I tend to have rather libertarian views for the most part.

Being libertarian seems to be the new fad around here. There was a time when I was the only one admitting it, now everyone's doing it. I know, I'm a trend setter.

[RendeR]

I think it very hypocritical to simply accept a difference in nomenclature as the answer to this situation.

Marriage a ritualized joining of 2 people into the legally recognized bonding to one another.

Civil Union the legal bonding of 2 people to one another.

Now if in fact both of these titles represent the same issue on a legal basis: Why then do we need legislation to seperate them? Those with religious beliefs will call themselves married, those without will call theirs a civil union, but they will all have the same rights. So why bother with a name/label sanctifying law?

Again let me bring out the fact that those people who want to allow civil unions do NOT want them to be legally on par with Marriage. The wording of amendmants and challenges to same sex marriages consistaly limits legal protection to "married" couples, while civil unions gain nothing but recognition and a name.

Just renaming things without the legal weight to enforce the couples rights, no matter the combination of male and female in the couple, is morally wrong. This country should not accept any attempt at writing discrimination into its laws. And from watching debates and reading articles, I'm hoping the trend I see is that common sense and equality under the law will prevail over personal opinion of right and wrong.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I'm just starting to get the sense that, with one or two vocal exceptions on each side, everyone else is actually pretty much in agreement: allow a legally binding marriage/union, just don't force any religion to perform the ceremony.

And if that's the case, the rest of the debate ("marriage" vs. "union") seems a lot like semantics.

ding ding! you are correct sir!

and the semantics part boils down to one religion trying to lay claim to a word for which it doesn't "own". "we don't care what you do but you can't use OUR word" is basically their argument.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Your metaphor isn't anywhere CLOSE to perfect. It's not even the same sport. Just so I have this right, you're equating the use of a word (for which you have already stated should only be used in the context for which YOU say it should) to someone stealing your neighbors car? Riiiiight, that's almost anywhere close to the same thing.

Nope. You have it wrong. It is a METAPHOR. Let me say it more simply:

1. Person A owns something.
2. Person B is 100% positive that person A owns that something.

If Person B observes someone taking something that belongs to person A, his reaction (by your logic above) should seem to be "Well, it isn't mine, so who am I to say who can use it."

And actually, if you DID go get your firearm and hold the guy hostage for trying to steal someone else's car I believe you too would be arrested as "vigilante justice" isn't exactly looked up to.

Maybe in New York, bud-row, but not down here, thank God.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I'm just starting to get the sense that, with one or two vocal exceptions on each side, everyone else is actually pretty much in agreement: allow a legally binding marriage/union, just don't force any religion to perform the ceremony.

{Sigh} I thought I said this a very long time ago, in a thread far, far away...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Being libertarian seems to be the new fad around here. There was a time when I was the only one admitting it, now everyone's doing it. I know, I'm a trend setter.

Actually, I've leaned that way for quite some time, just without using the word.

I even voted for Browne in 2000.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

{Sigh} I thought I said this a very long time ago, in a thread far, far away...

Well, I'm with you big guy. Let the government be in the civil union business (for everyone). Let the religions be in the marriage business (for whomever they want).

With this kind of fair, evenhanded approach to controversial policy issues, you are a shoo-in for a second term as H.N.I.C.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Nope. You have it wrong. It is a METAPHOR. Let me say it more simply:

1. Person A owns something.
2. Person B is 100% positive that person A owns that something.

If Person B observes someone taking something that belongs to person A, his reaction (by your logic above) should seem to be "Well, it isn't mine, so who am I to say who can use it."

Maybe in New York, bud-row, but not down here, thank God.

we'll do this the hard way...

does anyone "own" the word marriage? we've already established you don't, but I guess we need to be specific since you could have been talking literally.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

we'll do this the hard way...

does anyone "own" the word marriage? we've already established you don't, but I guess we need to be specific since you could have been talking literally.

Ahhhhhhhhhh! Now we're getting somewhere...

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ahhhhhhhhhh! Now we're getting somewhere...

(and basically having the same discussion in 2 threads is totally throwing me off)

Waiting...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

(and basically having the same discussion in 2 threads is totally throwing me off)

Waiting...

Well, the answer to that question is where you and I will come to an impasse, my friend, so there's really no point in going there.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Call 'em all that from a legal, governmental perspective, and leave the term "marriage" where it should be--the Church, and in religious ceremonies.

The problem with this distinction is that the horse has been out of the barn so long that it's been ground up for glue and Alpo.

Mrs. Gawd and I are a classic case. We're a mixed religion couple. I come from a Protestant background, she comes from an Eastern European Jewish heritage. Neither one of us has a whole lot of time for organized religion (though I do consider myself spiritual), so we were equally uncomfortable with marriage in a synagogue or a church. We married in a conference room at a local resort in a civil ceremony. It's still called a marriage. They don't call the buckskin we got a "civil union" certificate. Yet organized religion played no part in our marriage.

It is ridiculous to make this distinction. It won't ever seep into common practice, and frankly, it's splitting hairs at best in any case. And the trouble is there are a whole lot of people on the religious right that probably aren't all that fired up about the notion of "civil unions" either.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Agreed, but it is an easily fixable problem.

No, it isn't. Think about how many state and local laws would need to be changed to accommodate your "easily fixable" problem. Think about how many tens of millions of "civil union" certificates will need to be issued to existing people who married outside of churches.

I also believe that the Bill of Rights will have a problem with a distinction, that whole separation of church and state thing.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

I also believe that the Bill of Rights will have a problem with a distinction, that whole separation of church and state thing.

I'm curious. Are you aware that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't found in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution. I'm really not trying to be condescending either. I have found that most people are not aware of that fact.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, the answer to that question is where you and I will come to an impasse, my friend, so there's really no point in going there.

Exactly the reason your metaphor doesn't hold water to me. You maintain that marriage is christianity's word while I maintain it's nobodies word.

I maintain that the government shouldn't be supporting a specific religion by writing laws that cater to what they want even if it makes people not equal.

The whole thing is over the use of 1 word, I'm sorry but it's not your word. If "you" want to take say, baptism go right ahead. That's a word that is specific to christianity. There's a difference between that and marriage and is exactly the kind of thing that I and a lot fo people take as "trying to force your religion on us". By making it law, "you" want everyone to follow your belief system; that the word marriage is Christianity's alone.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm curious. Are you aware that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't found in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution. I'm really not trying to be condescending either. I have found that most people are not aware of that fact.

Most people aren't aware that the 1st amendment only protects them from the government and not on message boards but good luck trying to convince people

I'm not a history person so I won't weigh in on where church and state is from.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Exactly the reason your metaphor doesn't hold water to me. You maintain that marriage is christianity's word while I maintain it's nobodies word.

I maintain that the government shouldn't be supporting a specific religion by writing laws that cater to what they want even if it makes people not equal.

The whole thing is over the use of 1 word, I'm sorry but it's not your word. If "you" want to take say, baptism go right ahead. That's a word that is specific to christianity. There's a difference between that and marriage and is exactly the kind of thing that I and a lot fo people take as "trying to force your religion on us". By making it law, "you" want everyone to follow your belief system; that the word marriage is Christianity's alone.

Once again, I never said, nor do I believe, that it was "Christianity's" word (and y'all should all know by now how I feel about that word--ugh), nor did I say it was my word. Be careful not to put words into other people's mouths.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Once again, I never said, nor do I believe, that it was "Christianity's" word (and y'all should all know by now how I feel about that word--ugh), nor did I say it was my word. Be careful not to put words into other people's mouths.

But then again, I have no other choice but to infer what you mean since you refuse to state "who" you think lays claim to the word "marriage", do I?

[sabotai]

I'm not a history person so I won't weigh in on where church and state is from.

Thomas Jefferson (Edit: James Madison (aka The Father of the Constitution) also used the phrase separation between church and state in describing the 1st admendment, but I think Thomas Jefferson was the first to use it, or at least it's from him that we have the earliest use of the phrase)

[ISiddiqui]

I'm curious. Are you aware that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't found in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court read it into the 1st Amendment a looooooong time ago.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I'm curious. Are you aware that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't found in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution. I'm really not trying to be condescending either. I have found that most people are not aware of that fact.

The phrase doesn't appear, but I think the words "shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" are pretty clear. We'll always argue about how to interpret that clause, but I think it pretty clearly sets up the idea of separation of church and state.

Now back to trying to figure out what the hell who owns the word marriage has to do with anything....

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Most people aren't aware that the 1st amendment only protects them from the government and not on message boards but good luck trying to convince people

Ahhhh, I beg to differ. In the time since I've been H.N.I.C., a few miscreants here and there have become all too aware that their first-amendment rights are not extended to message boards.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by digamma

Now back to trying to figure out what the hell who owns the word marriage has to do with anything....

It doesn't.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ahhhh, I beg to differ. In the time since I've been H.N.I.C., a few miscreants here and there have become all too aware that their first-amendment rights are not extended to message boards.

hehe, I don't doubt that. I would still wager to say that some of them would still maintain that their 1st amendment rights were infringed upon.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

It doesn't.

of course it does, you maintain that it should only be used in certain situations (religous ceremonies between one woman and one man).

I ask you again, what gives you the right to say that one woman and another woman can't use that same word to describe their relationship which is no different than what you call a marriage?