The Texas Inquisition

[Conan71]

I agree with you on this one. 'Marriage' should be kept as a religious/traditional ceremony, performed as you wish. What everyone should be granted by the government in the form of certain rights and benefits should be called a civil union.

The way you and Red Arrow said it is the best way I've ever heard it put.  Marriage is a spiritual concept in the first place, and I don't believe government has any business meddling in spiritual concepts.  From a social aspect, recognizing  domestic unions seems just.  But, that doesn't mean either that you turn around and re-write thousands of years of scripture or theology to make it okay by God or any other tradition which does not approve of same sex marriage.

My biggest problem of all is how much the "D" word (discrimination or discriminitory) gets thrown around.  That is probably the one thing which has become a turn-off to me, don't ask me why, maybe because it's over-used.  Azbad, you say we don't see it because we aren't gay, but being a white, Anglo, hetero male, I feel like I've got a pretty large target on my back.  Supposedly we are the white devils still holding everyone else down. I've done nothing in my life to promote that at all yet I hear on a regular basis about how much everyone else is discriminated against.

I honestly believe that if two men or two women choose to live together 30-40 years (or 5 or 10), own property together, etc. they should have the same rights to retirement, survivorship, and insurance benefits.  If the government is willing to dole out social security survivor benefits to my wife (if I were married), why shouldn't a life partner in a same sex union be able to recieve the same benefits, assuming that their union was legal and the survivor depended partially or fully on the other partner's income, which is basically the standard recognized in "traditional" man/woman marriages.  That's not asking for any special treatment for which heteros don't get now.

I'm friends with a lesbian couple that owns a house together and one of them was just recently impregnated.  They are going to raise a child or possibly children together.  I really don't see why that union, as far as the secular world is concerned is any different than if I chose to get re-married at some point and have another child.  In both cases, I think the spouse and child are equally as entitled to any survivor benefits.  One should not be any less entitled than the other.

Where I draw the line on civil unions is where it could be abused to get around immigration laws, and yes, I'm quite well aware that happens now with heterosexual marriage.

[RecycleMichael]

Civil Unions?

Why get the Teamsters involved?

[Gaspar]

I find that religion is discriminatory.

Did you know that you can get fired for your sexual preference?

[custosnox]

The problem here is everyone is equating marriage with a civil union.  In most cases, a marriage is a very uncivilized union.

[dbacks fan]

The problem here is everyone is equating marriage with a civil union.  In most cases, a marriage is a very uncivilized union.

Ya think?

[custosnox]

Ya think?

Mine was very barbaric to say the least.  And from what I have seen, it was comparitivly mild.

[nathanm]

My biggest problem of all is how much the "D" word (discrimination or discriminitory) gets thrown around.  That is probably the one thing which has become a turn-off to me, don't ask me why, maybe because it's over-used.  Azbad, you say we don't see it because we aren't gay, but being a white, Anglo, hetero male, I feel like I've got a pretty large target on my back.  Supposedly we are the white devils still holding everyone else down. I've done nothing in my life to promote that at all yet I hear on a regular basis about how much everyone else is discriminated against.

Well, our policy on gay marriage is discriminatory. Right now, the government is calling its part of the process "marriage."

I think what makes more sense than carving out a new civil union and going through the work of amending all the laws that mention marriage to change it to civil union is to let churches who want to marry gay people do so and let churches who do not wish to do so make that choice. Sort of along the lines of how I can't get married as a Catholic since I'm not Catholic. I don't think anybody is for forcing churches to perform ceremonies they aren't comfortable with. Nobody is forcing them to do second marriages today. There are churches perfectly happy to do so, however.

I don't get where the idea that churches will be forced to rewrite scripture or whatever comes from.

That said, as long as we're all stuck with the same thing from the government's perspective, whatever its name, it doesn't really matter in the end.

[Conan71]

Well, our policy on gay marriage is discriminatory. Right now, the government is calling its part of the process "marriage."

I think what makes more sense than carving out a new civil union and going through the work of amending all the laws that mention marriage to change it to civil union is to let churches who want to marry gay people do so and let churches who do not wish to do so make that choice. Sort of along the lines of how I can't get married as a Catholic since I'm not Catholic. I don't think anybody is for forcing churches to perform ceremonies they aren't comfortable with. Nobody is forcing them to do second marriages today. There are churches perfectly happy to do so, however.

I don't get where the idea that churches will be forced to rewrite scripture or whatever comes from.

That said, as long as we're all stuck with the same thing from the government's perspective, whatever its name, it doesn't really matter in the end.

Huh?  Government sanctioning same sex unions necessarily requires that new laws be passed and others amended.

Via our consititution, churches already can recognize any ceremony or sacrament they like without government intervention.  They can marry anyone they want and it's recognized within the church, but the government can refuse to legally sanction that marriage. 

As far as the comment about re-writing scripture, it's pretty self expanitory but appears to have gone over your head: Just because the government may eventually recognize same-sex marriage doesn't mean that years of tradition within religious faiths will change.  There will still be *gasp* "discrimination" from churches regarding it.

[nathanm]

As far as the comment about re-writing scripture, it's pretty self expanitory but appears to have gone over your head: Just because the government may eventually recognize same-sex marriage doesn't mean that years of tradition within religious faiths will change.  There will still be *gasp* "discrimination" from churches regarding it.

Churches, being private religious institutions, can discriminate against whoever they like when it comes to refusing sacrament or whatever. They shouldn't be required to accept gay marriage.

The Government, on the other hand, should not be in the business of discrimination, except insofar as necessary to make up for past discrimination against a group and then only so long as it remains necessary. As an example, affirmative action was certainly needed at one time, although I don't think it generally is today.

That's what I find so annoying about the anti-gay-marriage people. Nobody is asking their church to accept it, only the Government. Hell, it would be unconstitutional to force it on a church, so it's really just a distraction from issue of government recognizing same sex marriage.

[custosnox]

I think I'm with Nathan on this one.  This whole civil union thing is just trying to call the same thing by another name.  If it is a marraige, then it is a marraige, and that falls into the class of an individuals religious beliefs.  The "civil union" part of it is where the government comes in and decides on if they can be together or not.  While two completely differant things, unless you you seperate the terminology out on both sides of the fence, then it shouldn't be done at all.  As such, the discrimination by the government is nothing more then an extention of the religious beliefs of the current majority.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I think I'm with Nathan on this one.  This whole civil union thing is just trying to call the same thing by another name.  If it is a marraige, then it is a marraige, and that falls into the class of an individuals religious beliefs.  The "civil union" part of it is where the government comes in and decides on if they can be together or not.  While two completely differant things, unless you you seperate the terminology out on both sides of the fence, then it shouldn't be done at all.  As such, the discrimination by the government is nothing more then an extention of the religious beliefs of the current majority.

I love how people are perfectly fine letting the state determine the status of their religious ceremony. 

[Gaspar]

Government recognition of marriage is discriminatory.  Why should the government recognize me (as a married man) differently than my single friends?

Why should their be an advantage/disadvantage on either side?

Mostly this relates to property law, and shared decision making, but why shouldn't a single person have the right to share and distribute their property as they wish without government sanction?  . . .and why should marriage be a motive for shelter from government plunder?

As for decisions, I should be able to name anyone I wish as proxy for me in the event that I lose the power to make choices for myself. Actually I can.

You are free to be whatever religion you want, yippee for you, but when government recognizes religious sacrament as a further means for plunder or as a shelter from plunder, than you have discrimination.

The government has no right to dictate a different standard for an individual based on the way they live their life, or who they choose to live with, as long as their actions do no harm to the rights of others.

The only motive for government to promote any form of civil union is to dictate morality and grant favor for one lifestyle over another by providing shelter from plunder.

The government sanction of marriage has become an industry.  Divorce attorneys plunder billions every year dissolving these contracts, when a simple civil filing would be just as effective.

If I am unmarried and share a home with a female roommate some states go so far as to impose civil union under common law marriage. 

So, why should the government grant concession for one lifestyle over another?
How is this not discriminatory?

[Conan71]

I think I'm with Nathan on this one.  This whole civil union thing is just trying to call the same thing by another name.  If it is a marraige, then it is a marraige, and that falls into the class of an individuals religious beliefs.  The "civil union" part of it is where the government comes in and decides on if they can be together or not.  While two completely differant things, unless you you seperate the terminology out on both sides of the fence, then it shouldn't be done at all.  As such, the discrimination by the government is nothing more then an extention of the religious beliefs of the current majority.

"Marriage" connotates a spiritual or religious union.

"Civil Union" (again that cracks me up after your comments on it) or a "domestic union" has more of a secular sound to it.

It's the whole "marriage" thing that's got the fundamentalists upset because "marriage" originated as a religious union...more or less. 

Before the literalist police get involved here, I'm quite aware that marriage has also been socially recognized for many millenia as well, but it is most commonly considered a religious rite and existence.

[custosnox]

"Marriage" connotates a spiritual or religious union.

"Civil Union" (again that cracks me up after your comments on it) or a "domestic union" has more of a secular sound to it.

It's the whole "marriage" thing that's got the fundamentalists upset because "marriage" originated as a religious union...more or less. 

Before the literalist police get involved here, I'm quite aware that marriage has also been socially recognized for many millenia as well, but it is most commonly considered a religious rite and existence.

Thatn's kind of what I'm getting at here.  Marraige is a religous union.  If a persons personal religious beliefs do not prohibit him/her from same sex marraige, then the government has no business pushing it off on them that it is wrong.  On the flip side of that, if you want to call it an "(un)civil union" or a "domestic union", then it needs to be applied across the board, otherwise the government is making a bias based on the religous beliefs of the majority.

[guido911]

I have been following this thread and am genuinely confused. "Marriage" is not simply a "religious rite", it is a legal status with far reaching implications such as inheritance, tax, and child custody. Oklahoma defines marriage in Title 43 as follows:

Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties legally competent of contracting and of entering into it is necessary, and the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained or abrogated as provided by law.

43 O.S. §, 1.

For whatever reason, gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma and DOMA has pretty much made it impossible for one state to recognize another state's decision to allow gay marriage.