Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

But I'm calling for a recognition of Marriage, but respect that it is a religious ordinance. Next, you call the laws that the secular government put around this ordinance as just a framework. Finally you expand the framework to situations where religious sanction would not be forthcoming, using different terminology to sneak it past the hard right.

I would believe that the majority of Christians are more moderate. But when such an contentious issue as Gay Marriage arises, and a proposed solution as offensive as defiling a sacred institution gains momentum in secularist camps, it polarizes these moderates with the Christian Right. This inflates their numbers, and thus their power.

When a better solution is put in place, where the values that Christ taught are applied, this may let the Moderates decide for themselves without fear of eroded morality. You have to find a solution that accomplishes the Civil needs without offending Christian standards if you want to get anywhere.

While the idea I have championed from the beginning of this thread may not satisfy the extremes, I think the majority of Christians could support it. I'll continue to cling to this pipe dream, but if you force the issue, you know where I must stand.

Then until that can be resolved, then the Homosexuals will be told that they can't have their civil rights. I will, of course, blame secularists for their unwillingness to approach the problem from their own principles.

I understand your insistance that it be the faithful, but I don't understand your reluctance to find a better solution.

Such conclusions are drawn when all available information is processed. How many anti-war protesters focus on the horrors that are inflicted on the civilians in Iraq because of the invasion and ignore the horrors that were inflicted on the civillians of Iraq under the previous regime? The Supporters of the war are given the same rhetoric they reject in the first place, and have to fill in the blanks.

Likewise, You seem to be hiding something in your reluctance to work with my scenario, and quick to see Religion slapped into submission when I am presenting another alternative.

Lost in the shuffle is the moderate position. The War in Iraq is horrible, but necessary. Saddam had to be taken out, and a different government installed. It seems to have been poorly executed, and likely would have benefitted from a better plan (Maybe even a plan?) but the war itself was inevitable, whether you fight it in Iraq or on American soil.

Conversely, the Moderates see both the need to preserve that which religion teaches is sacred and the need to grant civil rights to a certain minority. These two appear to conflict, therefore you have to think differently to come up with a solution to this dilema.

When I see a person who so vehemently touts the seperation of Church and State proposing a solution that sees the State overriding the Church, I am left with some blanks to fill in. Was I too quick to rule out stupid and lazy and proceed straight to duplicitous?

But you are suggesting that the government step in and override this and force their definition on all.

How did that work with polygamy?

 

Gnarff, marriage isn't exclusively a religious ordinance, and you will never get enough people of reason to see things that way to create such a legal distinction.

Because I'm not a politician and have no interest in coming up with pie-in-the-sky Utopian solutions that have no prayer of ever being implemented? As I've said before (many, many times), I actually have no problem with taking the word "marriage" out of our legal code, but you need to realize just how unlikely such a thing would actually be. Pretty much every group you can think of -liberal, conservative, religious, or secular - is going to oppose this. Each group would have its own reasons, to be sure, but the end result would be the same.

Watching a little too much Fox News? That's the conservative position, Gnarff. Outside of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or the Bush administration, how many Conservatives have you heard actually praising our pre-surge strategy in Iraq?

How does allowing private gay couples to have private gay marriages override the church, Gnarff? Your answer always comes based on your belief that marriage is a purely religious institution. Aside from the fact that some religions do practice gay marriage (which, on it's own, defeats your argument that if marriage is religious, gay marriage should be illegal), the fact remains that not a lot of people agree with you on this, nor are they about to start.

1891. That was 120 years ago. Given how pissed off you get about this and how frequently you feel compelled to bring it up, I'm beginning to wonder if you don't really live in Bountiful.

 

That is it. Gnarff, ask yourself one question: "What effect has a civil law marriage of gay couples for the mormon church?" None. Probably it is from a Mormon religious point of view irrelevant. And what about a heterosexual couple? I am catholic, and for the catholic church civil weddings, let alone unions, are irrelevant. Don't you have two wedding ceremonies, too? A civil one and a religious one? You don't lose anything because of gay marriage.

That it is called "marriage" is simply because the partnership of two persons together, usually man and woman, is traditionally called that. Gay marriage is an unlucky term. Personally I'd simply call it civil union. But to allow for it is to simply and pragmatically accept the legal requirement for a framework to address the reality of homosexual couples living together with legal problems similar to a traditional marriage. A civil union is a solution to such problems.

It is ridiculous to deny them that just because they are homosexual and some people call it gay marriage, which can't be, because marriage is between a man and a woman ...

 

Really drew? Considering they are illegal in 96% of the country? Barred by constitutional amendments in 54% & YOU don't think that a LOT of people agree with gnarff?
Pretty funny as either percentage wins him any vote i've ever seen.


No matter how loud the gay minority yells & gets its position blown out of proportion in the press, so far, 54% of the country has already stated "no!, we will not allow this to happen in our state!" & guaranteed it by constitutional amendment.
So no matter what it will NEVER be legal in over half the country.

Remember an amendment to the U.S. constitution has to be approved by 3/4 of the states(with 27 already against it, no chance at all)

 

I think he was referring to the belief that marriage is a religious institution, not whether the majority is for or against gay marriage.

And it's a little bit silly to refer to California as 2% of the country, seeing that it has 12% of the populace.

 

I was actually refering to the number of states Vukodlak, 2 out of 50. that's 4% which leaves 96% against it. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

As far as population goes, it wouldn't matter if 1 state had half of the total population of the country as far getting laws passed. The constitution only allows amendments if 75% of ALL the states agree on it. All you need is 13 states to refuse to ratify an amendment & it is dead.

 

Never heard of context, Martaug? I didn't say that not a lot of people agree that gay marriage should be illegal. I said that not a lot of people agree with Gnarff that Marriage is exclusively a religious institution. My parenthetical was in parentheses for a reason.

 

Semantics: What does the word country mean? The geographical country, the political divisions which in the USA would be the states or the people?

54% of the states have either banned gay marriage or confirmed that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. If the law was presented to the people to vote on how many people actually voted? What percentage of the vote was for and what percentage was against?

I hate statistics but Drew and Splunge convinced me that they have their place but please don't toss statistics around with out being very accurate about what they are and what they are proving.

Based on personal experience my stats would be something like 20% of people are strongly against same-sex marriage, 20 to 25% are mildly against, 15 % to 20% are for and the rest don't care, roughly 40%. Also depends upon where you live. Some areas are more liberal, some more conservative.

Who wins on this one is who can get out the vote.

A couple of links that might shed some light.

http://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/lgb/062005.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

From Wiki:

 

Define people of reason. It seems that to you, anyone that does not abandon their point of view to embrace yours fails to qualify as a person of reason.

So you admit that you don't give a flying fadoo about a solution that works for the greatest number of people? All you care about is subjugating a segment of the population that subscribes to something you discount. How is that any better than racist policies that supposedly went out of style decades ago?

How long is it before anti discrimination laws demand that Religious authority lose the right to refuse to recognize such unions? Even worse, how long before a Minister who is opposed to such unions is brought up on charges for refusing to reside over a gay wedding? The laws are in place in Canada for that to happen...

By leaving marriage in the hands of Religion, that makes it strictly a theological issue, and the Politicians are free to handle the civil requirements. I looked at a company's site where they listed benefits of employment. They recognize couples that live together but not are not legally married. Could that not get legal recognition, regardless of gender, rendering the whole Gay Marriage thing irrelevent? It leaves us what is sacred and still accomplished the mandate of Civil Rights.

Is that decision still binding? If that decision to keep marriage as strictly between one man and one woman is still binding, then this same sex marriage debate is over, Straight people win. If the court was to change that now, it would be unfair to that minority was denied their freedom back then.

We claim that society as a whole requires a strong, traditional definition of Marriage. By eroding that which is sacred, society suffers. We claim, with supporting studies, that the traditional form of the family is the most important unit in society. By changing that structure, you alter the foundation of society, which we have to live in.

You also neglect the religious origin of Marriage. Rather than have the state take the ordinance for itself, recognize that such laws are a framework. It is that framework that can accommodate homosexuals without interfering with Religious groups. Maybe it's time to recognize the irreconcilable differences and find a solution that works for all as opposed to insisting on a win-lose situation.

And what percentage of the apathetic 40% will care enough to vote. That means that those that don't support the change will win.

AS an aside, Nakia, that is what I would I was talking about. The State granting Civil rights to gays in a way that does not involve religion...

 

I guess we had better bring back Separate But Equal too, then, because as it stands now, the fact that African Americans are no longer forcibly separated from Caucasians is unfair to the Blacks who couldn't enter a White restaurant prior to 1954. According to your logic, the repudiating trial (Brown v. Board of Education) should have been overturned because it would be "unfair to the minority that was denied its freedom back then." Case closed, right?

 

Gnarf, I agree with you that Civil Union is a good compromise. It gives civil rights to same-sex couples and leaves the interpretation of traditional marriage alone. I think NJ took the right step.

It seems to me that the problem is the word marriage. It pushes buttons not just with the hard core religious but with others. Granting Civil Unions which give the same legal rights and privileges to people as marriage is more apt to pass. Eight states and the District of Columbia of already done this to at least some extent.

Mass. and Ca. use the word marriage. So the DC and 10 states have granted legal rights to same-sex couples. So 20% of the states have laws that give legal rights. This enforces my belief that it is simply the word 'Marriage" that causes the problem.

 

Not true. I think T2 is a person of reason, and we don't agree on anything. I frequently butt heads with Chandos about things like the Clinton legacy or the comparative greatness of todays politicians vs the politicians of yesterday, yet I still consider him a person of reason. I agree with LKD even more rarely than I agree with T2, yet we always seem to be able to find some degree of common ground and, yes, I consider him a person of reason. Reason isn't about the place you occupy on the political spectrum. A person of reason is a person who thinks things through and tries to at least see someone else's point of view...especially when he doesn't agree with it.

Can you please read my responses in context, Gnarff? The statement you quoted was part of a much larger argument that you completely ignored. Let's look at the whole thing.

In this post, I made it quite clear that I am amenable to civil unions, but expressed reservations about whether we would actually be able to pass such a sweeping reform. Gay rights groups are going to oppose this because they don't just want the right to have a "civil union". They want the government to recognize their right to "marry". Right-leaning Christian groups like Focus on The Family are going to oppose this because they have a stated goal of eliminating the separation of Church and State. A measure like this actually strengthens that separation. Many secular groups are going to oppose this because they don't see marriage as a religious institution and don't want anyone telling them that whether they can or cannot marry. Now, if this could be passed, I'm all for it. I'm just not holding my breath, and you shouldn't, either.

Does the catholic church have female priests? Do orthodox Jews have female rabbis? Does the KKK admit African Americans?

From bill C-38 (the Civil Marriage Act), section 3.1

120 years ago, the Utah Territory chose to abandon polygamy as a condition for Statehood, therefore gays should be denied the right to marry on the basis of their sexual orientation. Think about what you are saying. One injustice doesn't justify another, Gnarff.

Well put. The one slight hole in your logic is that the 1954 decision specifically countermanded the earlier decision, whereas the decision of the Utah Territory to abandon polygamy still stands today, but just as a past injustice doesn't justify a current one, a current injustice in no way justifies another current injustice. As much as Gnarff tries to link them, gay marriage and polygamy are two completely different issues.

 

Hmmm... This brings up an interesting question. People move. All the time. It is a certainty that people who lived in one these 10 states or DC have got a same-sex marriage/civil union granting them the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Subsequently, some of them have moved to some of those other 40 states that do not acknowledge any type of same-sex union. What happens then?

In terms of their everyday life, I'm sure they just go about calling themselves married. But how do they fill out income tax forms? As single or married? If one of them falls ill, who gets to make the decisions at the hospital? Who is considered next of kin if one of them dies?

Prior to same-sex unions, I know it was common practice for states to acknowledge marriages performed in a different state. Heck, many people go out of state to places like Las Vegas to GET married. While I agree it would be sneaky if you lived in one state that didn't allow same-sex unions to get one while traveling in another state. However, I think it is quite another thing to be living in a state that allows same sex unions, get one, and then at some point later on (say you get a new job in another state) move somewhere that doesn't allow them.

Are there any laws on the books regarding this? Is a state required to acknowledge a marriage/civil union performed elsewhere provided it was legally obtained?

 

Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, our federal government currently does not recognize any gay unions or gay marriages. On the state level, some states that legally recognize same-sex relationships also recognize similar relationships contracted in other states and, with the exception of New York, those relationships are not recognized in states without such legal recognition.

 

Drew is correct and this brings up a need for a Federal law recognizing Civil Unions. Alas, with the current administration and congress it is doubtful that will happen. Can any of you Constitutional experts tell me if this would need to an amendment or could Congress just pass a law?

I do think that if people would stop arguing that civil unions be officially called marriage that there is a chance that might happen. I truly believe that only the hard-core conservative religious want to deny any rights to same-sex couples. As long as it isn't called marriage I think many people would just ignore it, not care.

As Drew has pointed out there are churches who will 'marry' same-sex couples. I believe that Monaco has two ceremonies, one is religious and one is civil. You can be married in a church and then you go get married in a civil ceremony.

 

Nakia, that is an argument I made months ago in another thread. If the gay community were willing to call their union something -- anything -- other than marriage this would be a lot easier to promote and get approved in many states.

In reality though, the overriding sentiment is "why can't we call it marriage." I can't say I blame the gay community for that sentiment. The term marriage has a deeply sentimental meaning to many people -- for the gay community it is a right they have been denied. For them to call it anything other than marriage is akin to segregation.

 

Hokay, T2Bruno, I understand what you are saying but based on personal experience the gays I have known want basically to be given certain legal rights granted to traditional couples. I think but can't prove that it is a vocal minority that is demanding that it be called 'marriage'.

Marriage is based on or comes from religion. Society grants certain rights and expects certain responsibilities from those who are marriage. If I understand the law in Monaco you could be married in a church.. This is a true marriage but it gives you no legal rights or responsibilities.

If we want to get married in this country we get a license from a civil office then we decide if it is to be a religious marriage or a civil marriage. If we choose a religious marriage we go to a church and have a priest/minister officiate at the ceremony.

As far as I'm concerned those demanding that the union be called marriage are being "dog-in-the-manager". From a pragmatic point of view they are only hurting themselves and a lot of other people.

I don't see it in the same category as segregation. Segregation denied people certain rights and kept them as second, nay third class citizens. A civil Union would grant the same rights and privileges as marriage.

When Koch granted civil unions to the people of New York city straight couples took advantage of it as well as same-sex couples. Unfortunately it was only an executive order so didn't last.

PS: Before we get into a discussion of gay Rights and segregation that really is a separate topic.

Marriage is religious but governed by secular law and I stand united on that.

 

Nakia, you are now arguing pretty much the same thing as Gnarff has been arguing. Sure it seems like an issue of semantics and for many purposes it is. Why should it be called something different though? You cannot lay claim on a word which has been extensively argued in this thread. According to Gnarff he has no problem with hindus, muslims, atheists you name it calling their life long committments marriage as long as it is between a man and a woman but when it is same sex then it is not ok. Making your relation to another human offical in the eyes of hte state and the faith of your choice is called marriage. Why not let everyone call it that or why should we change the word just to appease a certain group of people. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I don't follow the logic. So you guys are saying that you would be fine with a gay 'civil union' but object it being called marriage - because that word is reserved for the religious marriage? But then, surely, you must view all marriages not conducted by a religious authority as 'civil unions' as well - despite the fact they are commonly referred to as marriage. So the word 'marriage' is clearly co-opted to mean something different than a religious ceremony already. The same objection should be present at any non-religious use of the word marriage. I find it interesting and suggestive that it isn't.