This topic was coming up a lot in the Trump thread for a few days now so I figured it could use its own thread.
It is equality to have same sex couples use a different term for their marriage?
Can a "separate but equal" policy really represent equality?
Is marriage a purely religious ceremony, or is it is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state, or even a combination of the two?
Do same sex marriages impede the religious freedoms of others?
Discuss
That is a LOT of questions. My position is as follows: The government should be out of the marriage business entirely. The only reason the government is in the marriage business is because we need laws to aid in the distribution of property during the dissolution of a marriage. This can easily be solved by creating a civil partnership that is accessible to everyone, and doesn't change any of how things currently operate.
"Marriage" is then left to individuals/religions/whatever. There is already a trend in American Society to shift toward saying "partner" instead of "spouse".
The opposition to this stance comes largely from people who are not advocating for Gay Marriage as a means for equality, but rather for gay marriage as a means for acceptance/approval. They don't want equal rights -- they want societal approval.
Also: I really hate this site now... the sheer number of adds really bogs down my browser.
Is marriage a purely religious ceremony, or is it is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state, or even a combination of the two?
The only religious aspect to marriage is the religious ceremony that some-but-not-all couples perform alongside signing the contract, and renewing vows which is neither a required part of any marriage nor does it necessarily involve a religious ceremony. Some religions also have a couple religious hoops to jump through before going through divorce if you want to remain an upstanding member of the congregation after the fact.
So, outside of a handful of ceremonies, no religion is involved in the institution of marriage. There's a lot of secular stuff the government does on a daily basis involving marriage. Most (successful) marriages last decades. I think that ratio is pretty far skewed away from religion.
Do same sex marriages impede the religious freedoms of others?
The only way a gay person's marriage has a direct impact on you is if you're getting married to them. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.
My position is as follows: The government should be out of the marriage business entirely. The only reason the government is in the marriage business is because we need laws to aid in the distribution of property during the dissolution of a marriage. This can easily be solved by creating a civil partnership that is accessible to everyone, and doesn't change any of how things currently operate.
There's actually a lot more the government does with marriage than just what to do with their combined holdings after a divorce. Here's a summarized list. While you could argue that it would be nice to get government out of marriage, if you replaced it with something else that replicated all of its benefits, at that point you're just renaming the thing, which is an absurd waste of time.
@Lithl I agree on all counts there is no reason that same sex marriages should be forced to use a different vernacular unless the alternate agenda is to degrage same sex marriage as an equal institution. It in no way impedes the rights of others and is an excellent expression of freedom for those who choose to engage in it.
@blatch Yeah adblocker is your friend. I don't see any banner ads or popups at all.
It is equality to have same sex couples use a different term for their marriage?
Nah, because "separate but equal" politics tends to slide towards one side being less equal than the other. It's also unnecessary in most cases.
Can a "separate but equal" policy really represent equality?
Nah, for the reasons above.
Is marriage a purely religious ceremony, or is it is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state, or even a combination of the two?
Both or either. In the US and most nations I've lived in it's a government/legal contract which generally has a religious component.
Do same sex marriages impede the religious freedoms of others?
Nah. If religious freedom is going to work as a social concept then legally acceptable discrimination for religious reasons can't be allowed to occur because it impinges on the freedoms of others.
This topic was coming up a lot in the Trump thread for a few days now so I figured it could use its own thread.
It is equality to have same sex couples use a different term for their marriage?
Can a "separate but equal" policy really represent equality?
Is marriage a purely religious ceremony, or is it is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state, or even a combination of the two?
Do same sex marriages impede the religious freedoms of others?
Discuss
Well separate but equal is a value system. Things don't have to be the same to be viewed equal in my eyes.
As for the different name. Yes I would say it is, they have the same rights as everyone else they are not just called the same. Examples of are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. The people are not less because I point out it is different.
Marriage as currently defined is both. I have problems with marriage as a legal institution, and, organized religion as whole but that is a different topic.
Same sex marriages do not impede the freedom of others unless you are forced to participate in them.
The opposition to this stance comes largely from people who are not advocating for Gay Marriage as a means for equality, but rather for gay marriage as a means for acceptance/approval. They don't want equal rights -- they want societal approval.
I suspect the real opposition would be the religious right not wanting separate religious marriage from legal marriage.
Civil Unions, which once upon a time I supported as a "middle ground" is just a weasel word for gay marriage to try and be moderate. It as a term had it's day a few years ago to demystify society to "evil gays corrupting marriage" and normalize the concept and give space to gays to make their strong case. In short, it's like talking to a child about sex. Early on you're going to be rather vague and use some deflection or analogy, when the child is of age you get to exacting terminology as you and the child's comfort level with the subject has reached a tipping point to the adult educational level.
Marriage was a buzzword to defend by Christianity, using Civil Union was a way to do a middle ground to get it tested. After a while, the idea failed practically since you had to have a civil union for your town, county, and state without a federal transference. After I learned that on how ridiculously local everything was, especially for business people. I was full on for gay marriage. Civil Union attempts were a good start but altogether unnecessary if we just read the Constitution properly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Well, first and foremost, isn't this a legal question with an objective answer? Like, can't we just make a chart of rights and privileges granted by the law for marriage and a civil union and see if it's 1:1, and if not, then the answer is no, they're not the same thing?
Well, first and foremost, isn't this a legal question with an objective answer? Like, can't we just make a chart of rights and privileges granted by the law for marriage and a civil union and see if it's 1:1, and if not, then the answer is no, they're not the same thing?
You could they were the same thing. You even got to use the "married" tax status.
Well, first and foremost, isn't this a legal question with an objective answer? Like, can't we just make a chart of rights and privileges granted by the law for marriage and a civil union and see if it's 1:1, and if not, then the answer is no, they're not the same thing?
You could they were the same thing. You even got to use the "married" tax status.
No. First of all, civil unions only exist at the state level, and so don't confer any of the federal benefits that marriage does, like federal tax breaks and social security benefits.
Well, first and foremost, isn't this a legal question with an objective answer? Like, can't we just make a chart of rights and privileges granted by the law for marriage and a civil union and see if it's 1:1, and if not, then the answer is no, they're not the same thing?
You could they were the same thing. You even got to use the "married" tax status.
No. First of all, civil unions only exist at the state level, and so don't confer any of the federal benefits that marriage does, like federal tax breaks and social security benefits.
Marriage only existed at the state level as well. The definition of marriage is different in every single state.
Marriage only existed at the state level as well. The definition of marriage is different in every single state.
I don't even have to look this up to know its wrong. Two posts ago you yourself admitted the government asks your marital status on your federal tax return so there is certainly a federal institution in some form.
Marriage only existed at the state level as well. The definition of marriage is different in every single state.
What is DOMA then?
It was ruled unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. It was a gross over step the federal government. Also it is important to remember states approve of marriages. Marriage rules are defined by the states and most of the rights attached to them by the states.
It was ruled unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. It was a gross over step the federal government. Also it is important to remember states approve of marriages. Marriage rules are defined by the states and most of the rights attached to them by the states.
None of those reasons were "the federal government isn't allowed to have a definition of marriage". Because that's ridiculous.
It was ruled unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. It was a gross over step the federal government. Also it is important to remember states approve of marriages. Marriage rules are defined by the states and most of the rights attached to them by the states.
None of those reasons were "the federal government isn't allowed to have a definition of marriage". Because that's ridiculous.
All rights not outlined in the constitution is given to the states.
All rights not outlined in the constitution is given to the states.
So if two people are married overseas, and want to immigrate to the US, which state gets to decide whether they're married? HINT: the federal government gets to decide.
The opposition to this stance comes largely from people who are not advocating for Gay Marriage as a means for equality, but rather for gay marriage as a means for acceptance/approval. They don't want equal rights -- they want societal approval.
I suspect the real opposition would be the religious right not wanting separate religious marriage from legal marriage.
If it were actually put forward as a legit proposal, I suspect you are correct. In practice, the opposition *I* have received when I mention it has been from people who were pushing gay marriage, not from the other side. I have, in some instances, even had the gay marriage proponent acknowledge that hte issue was not jsut one of equality, but that the goal was societal acceptance.
It is equality to have same sex couples use a different term for their marriage? Can a "separate but equal" policy really represent equality?
The separation itself puts them on unequal footing.
Is marriage a purely religious ceremony, or is it is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state, or even a combination of the two?
I've always considered marriage to be a purely legal contract. If I were to get married in a courhouse, with absolutely no religious pretext in any way, it wouldn't be questioned if I claimed to be married, provided my partner was considered "socially acceptable" in the context.
I've always viewed the religious aspects of partnerships seoarately, because they're optional.
Do same sex marriages impede the religious freedoms of others?
It really should only affect you if you plan on marrying someone of the same sex.
I think you are hopelessly deluded if you think that a country as religious as the US has law makers that " CAN'T consider what it means to a religion when it makes law..." I think that there are a fair amount of religious politicians in the US who base what laws they support solely on there religious views.
To think a politician cannot base his morality on his worldview is ridiculous. A politician really only has his constituency and his conscience to guide his actions.
This topic was coming up a lot in the Trump thread for a few days now so I figured it could use its own thread.
Is it equality to have same sex couples use a different term for their marriage?
Can a "separate but equal" policy really represent equality?
Is marriage a purely religious ceremony, or is it is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state, or even a combination of the two?
Do same sex marriages impede the religious freedoms of others?
Discuss
I don't think that 'separate but equal' can exist as a legal concept because one side or the other will inherently be 'more equal' than the other. If that weren't true, then there wouldn't be a need for two classes.
I don't see how same sex marriages impede on other people's religious freedoms. If a pastor performs a same-sex marriage, does that impede my ability to go to church for Sunday worship? Aren't weddings typically held on Saturdays to avoid that conflict?
If a religion refuses to perform same-sex marriages, then forcing it to would certainly be an infringement of the first amendment. No church is being forced to perform same-sex marriages. If a gay couple can't get married in a church, then they may certainly get married at the county courthouse. Regardless of the location of the marriage, the happy couple still needs to get a marriage licence from the local courthouse.
A public official may NOT impede a same-sex union. A public official has two options: comply or resign. The same is true for white supremacists who may be working in local government. They may hate the person applying for a licence, but they must treat them the same as white folk.
Here in Germany, civil unions exist and same sex couples can't marry because in our own "Grundgesetz" (kinda like the US constitution but not exactly the same) marriage is legally protected (and wholly secular as well as federal, the states have no say in the matter). The christian conservative parties over here argue that that means that the marriage of opposite sex partners is protected and therefore legalizing gay marriage would be a violation of that law (which has been judged nonsense by our supreme court, but nothing has come of it yet mostly because the same conservative parties are stalling). They also argue that civil unions should be equal enough, but it's not: It is not protected by law (any opposing party could remove it from the law if they have control over the legislatur, adoption is forbidden except for very specific circumstances and there are less tax benefits than for married partners). So at least over here it's not the same and marriage is purely secular (although our ruling parties don't want to accept that sadly).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is it equality to have same sex couples use a different term for their marriage?
Can a "separate but equal" policy really represent equality?
Is marriage a purely religious ceremony, or is it is a legal contract between two people sanctioned by the state, or even a combination of the two?
Do same sex marriages impede the religious freedoms of others?
Discuss
That is a LOT of questions. My position is as follows: The government should be out of the marriage business entirely. The only reason the government is in the marriage business is because we need laws to aid in the distribution of property during the dissolution of a marriage. This can easily be solved by creating a civil partnership that is accessible to everyone, and doesn't change any of how things currently operate.
"Marriage" is then left to individuals/religions/whatever. There is already a trend in American Society to shift toward saying "partner" instead of "spouse".
The opposition to this stance comes largely from people who are not advocating for Gay Marriage as a means for equality, but rather for gay marriage as a means for acceptance/approval. They don't want equal rights -- they want societal approval.
Also: I really hate this site now... the sheer number of adds really bogs down my browser.
The only religious aspect to marriage is the religious ceremony that some-but-not-all couples perform alongside signing the contract, and renewing vows which is neither a required part of any marriage nor does it necessarily involve a religious ceremony. Some religions also have a couple religious hoops to jump through before going through divorce if you want to remain an upstanding member of the congregation after the fact.
So, outside of a handful of ceremonies, no religion is involved in the institution of marriage. There's a lot of secular stuff the government does on a daily basis involving marriage. Most (successful) marriages last decades. I think that ratio is pretty far skewed away from religion.
The only way a gay person's marriage has a direct impact on you is if you're getting married to them. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.
There's actually a lot more the government does with marriage than just what to do with their combined holdings after a divorce. Here's a summarized list. While you could argue that it would be nice to get government out of marriage, if you replaced it with something else that replicated all of its benefits, at that point you're just renaming the thing, which is an absurd waste of time.
I haven't seen an ad on the site since before the switch over the the Curse network. That's why ad blockers are so wonderful.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
@blatch Yeah adblocker is your friend. I don't see any banner ads or popups at all.
Nah, for the reasons above.
Both or either. In the US and most nations I've lived in it's a government/legal contract which generally has a religious component.
Nah. If religious freedom is going to work as a social concept then legally acceptable discrimination for religious reasons can't be allowed to occur because it impinges on the freedoms of others.
EDITED TO EXTEND NAHS.
Art is life itself.
Well separate but equal is a value system. Things don't have to be the same to be viewed equal in my eyes.
As for the different name. Yes I would say it is, they have the same rights as everyone else they are not just called the same. Examples of are heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. The people are not less because I point out it is different.
Marriage as currently defined is both. I have problems with marriage as a legal institution, and, organized religion as whole but that is a different topic.
Same sex marriages do not impede the freedom of others unless you are forced to participate in them.
I suspect the real opposition would be the religious right not wanting separate religious marriage from legal marriage.
Marriage was a buzzword to defend by Christianity, using Civil Union was a way to do a middle ground to get it tested. After a while, the idea failed practically since you had to have a civil union for your town, county, and state without a federal transference. After I learned that on how ridiculously local everything was, especially for business people. I was full on for gay marriage. Civil Union attempts were a good start but altogether unnecessary if we just read the Constitution properly.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
You could they were the same thing. You even got to use the "married" tax status.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Marriage only existed at the state level as well. The definition of marriage is different in every single state.
I don't even have to look this up to know its wrong. Two posts ago you yourself admitted the government asks your marital status on your federal tax return so there is certainly a federal institution in some form.
What is DOMA then?
It was ruled unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. It was a gross over step the federal government. Also it is important to remember states approve of marriages. Marriage rules are defined by the states and most of the rights attached to them by the states.
None of those reasons were "the federal government isn't allowed to have a definition of marriage". Because that's ridiculous.
All rights not outlined in the constitution is given to the states.
So if two people are married overseas, and want to immigrate to the US, which state gets to decide whether they're married? HINT: the federal government gets to decide.
If it were actually put forward as a legit proposal, I suspect you are correct. In practice, the opposition *I* have received when I mention it has been from people who were pushing gay marriage, not from the other side. I have, in some instances, even had the gay marriage proponent acknowledge that hte issue was not jsut one of equality, but that the goal was societal acceptance.
I've always considered marriage to be a purely legal contract. If I were to get married in a courhouse, with absolutely no religious pretext in any way, it wouldn't be questioned if I claimed to be married, provided my partner was considered "socially acceptable" in the context.
I've always viewed the religious aspects of partnerships seoarately, because they're optional.
It really should only affect you if you plan on marrying someone of the same sex.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
To think a politician cannot base his morality on his worldview is ridiculous. A politician really only has his constituency and his conscience to guide his actions.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think that 'separate but equal' can exist as a legal concept because one side or the other will inherently be 'more equal' than the other. If that weren't true, then there wouldn't be a need for two classes.
I don't see how same sex marriages impede on other people's religious freedoms. If a pastor performs a same-sex marriage, does that impede my ability to go to church for Sunday worship? Aren't weddings typically held on Saturdays to avoid that conflict?
If a religion refuses to perform same-sex marriages, then forcing it to would certainly be an infringement of the first amendment. No church is being forced to perform same-sex marriages. If a gay couple can't get married in a church, then they may certainly get married at the county courthouse. Regardless of the location of the marriage, the happy couple still needs to get a marriage licence from the local courthouse.
A public official may NOT impede a same-sex union. A public official has two options: comply or resign. The same is true for white supremacists who may be working in local government. They may hate the person applying for a licence, but they must treat them the same as white folk.