Marriage

[Stargazer]

IrishEyes:

7- I do not think that gay couples should have the same legal rights as 'traditional' married couples. This is not because they are gay. It's because,imo, if the law is changed to include gay couples, that leaves the door open for other 'alternative' situations, such as three people wanting the same legal rights, etc. Where does it end? There has to be a line.

 

Yes, and my line is that there should be no marriage defined in any government laws at all. But now since there is the system with marriage and all, then why should some be excluded? And why would the doors be opened to every other possible alternative, just because you open it for some?

 

Not because they are gay? You want to exclude them only because it could open doors to other alternatives, and not because they are gay. So, that means you are ok with straight and gay marriage but nothing else. Now, this seems to contradict your opinion that you're against gay marriage. How did I misinterpret it?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

Yes, and my line is that there should be no marriage defined in any government laws at all.

I agree, If "Marriage" is a religious issue, then " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If it is a CIVIL issue, then the Gov has no right legalizing discrimination.

 

But this issue goes beyond this and does confuse me.

 

What we have is a small group of religious fanatics trying to force the Gov to legislate their personal opinion of what ALL Churches can and can't do. You would think that the general RELIGIOUS community would be up in arms! That the Gov should step in and tell them what ceremonies they can or can't provide to their individual flocks.

 

So we break this wall down. We not only allow, but force the Gov to legislate what ALL religions are or are not allowed to do and to whom.

 

And the Churches want this?

 

What am I missing?

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

So we break this wall down. We not only allow, but force the Gov to legislate what ALL religions are or are not allowed to do and to whom.

 

And the Churches want this?

 

What am I missing?

 

I suppose what the church wants, is power. If they can make the government pass some law that will help them with this, then they are for it. The church is generally against gay marriage, and so they would welcome any help from the government to stop it. I do see the paradox though. If there is complete separation of church and state, the church would lose some of its power, among them the marriage thing, since no law would have anything to do with it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

The church is generally against gay marriage,

Ah but isn't this exactly the issue?

 

Only SOME Churches are against gay marriage, not ALL!

 

Passing this law would stop some religious orgs from performing services they want to perform.

 

This would be similar to passing a law to decide WHICH of the different version of the 10 Demandments is the ONLY allowed version in the US.

 

Or passing legislation RE Transubstantiation.

 

It codifies in Government Law WHICH set of religious beleifs is the OFFICAL US ones.

 

and that so obviously violates the 1st!

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Ah but isn't this exactly the issue?

 

Only SOME Churches are against gay marriage, not ALL!

But are all churches in favour of this law then?

 

Passing this law would stop some religious orgs from performing services they want to perform.

 

This would be similar to passing a law to decide WHICH of the different version of the 10 Demandments is the ONLY allowed version in the US.

 

Or passing legislation RE Transubstantiation.

 

It codifies in Government Law WHICH set of religious beleifs is the OFFICAL US ones.

 

and that so obviously violates the 1st!

But my theory is that only some churches and the ultraconservatives wants to legislate discrimination as a part of violating the 1st amendment. And of course, I agree with what you say that it would be in violation of the 1st. But are religious institutions the only ones allowed to perform marriages?

[Stargazer]

Oh, and one more thing, I'm not against marriage because they're straight, but because they open the doors to all kinds of marriages. :)

[FredFlash]

I agree, If "Marriage" is a religious issue, then " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If it is a CIVIL issue, then the Gov has no right legalizing discrimination.

 

But this issue goes beyond this and does confuse me.

 

What we have is a small group of religious fanatics trying to force the Gov to legislate their personal opinion of what ALL Churches can and can't do. You would think that the general RELIGIOUS community would be up in arms! That the Gov should step in and tell them what ceremonies they can or can't provide to their individual flocks.

 

So we break this wall down. We not only allow, but force the Gov to legislate what ALL religions are or are not allowed to do and to whom.

 

And the Churches want this?

 

What am I missing?

 

99.44 % of the meaning of the religion clauses is determined by the way the word "religion" is defined. The U. S. Supreme Court cited James Madison's definition of religion with approval in 1878 in Reynolds V. U. S. Madison defined religion as "the duty which we owe to our Creator."

 

If marriage is a "duty which we owe to our Creator" then it is beyond the cognizance of the civil legislature. If not, it may be regulated by the civil authority.

 

Whether or not the government improperly descriminates by restricting civil marriage to one between a man and a woman is the issue to be determined.

 

What are the basic arguments pro and con?

 

FVF

[Boerseun]

Talk about thread resuscitation!

 

It's been close on two years since the previous post!

 

In my humble opinion, marriage is a civil law issue, and only serves (as far as the government is concerned) as a contract to determine the outcome of wills, the priority in which beneficiaries are determined in intestate estates, etc. It's sorta like your life being a company, and you, being the CEO of your company, appointing another member to the board. Whether you want one or ten members is your own decision, and the government's only function here is to respect and enforce whatever contractual implications that might sprout from it.

[cwes99_03]

Talk about thread resuscitation!

 

It's been close on two years since the previous post!

 

In my humble opinion, marriage is a civil law issue, and only serves (as far as the government is concerned) as a contract to determine the outcome of wills, the priority in which beneficiaries are determined in intestate estates, etc. It's sorta like your life being a company, and you, being the CEO of your company, appointing another member to the board. Whether you want one or ten members is your own decision, and the government's only function here is to respect and enforce whatever contractual implications that might sprout from it.

 

IMHO

the only reason this is an issue is because hundreds of years ago, state and church were not separate. (Of course I am of the belief that in the beginning there was only one government and that was God's, but that's another topic.)

The state therefore set rules to protect its citizens and itself from huge numbers of legal cases (hence the purpose of creating all laws, is to settle disputes by creating clear answers to questions so that there is not debate). At the time these laws were adopted, religion played a large part in their creation. That is why in most states marriage between certain family members is illegal, marriage among more than 2 people is illegal, and marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman has been illegal. Since there was no absolute law on some books stating that final issue of between a man and a woman, gay couples have decided to challenge all laws on marriage.

So of course the question is, how do we make rules for laws on marriage. Who's definition of marriage do we use? The first marriage (according to creationsists) was performed by God when he joined Adam to Eve. What other historical facts for marriage do we have? What precedents do we have on the legality of marriage? Well among those precedents we have the laws stating that a man cannot marry a first degree relative (in most states, and in those states where this is not a law, rather than challenge the legality the government just puts capital pressure on the state by not giving it certain funds until they make a law stating such), neither can he marry more than one wife (again in most but not necessarily all states, Utah recently adopted something to this effect within the last 25 years I believe), and that marriage must only be between humans (not totally sure of the reality of a law like this but I remember reading it on one of those stupid law websites that show laws about how a grown man cannot sit atop the head of a giraffe at Lincoln Park Zoo.)

So now the government is at the precipice of making another law and trying to determine whether they will be upsetting precedent, or upsetting rights groups. Basically it is only an issue because two laws are at a crossroads. Laws on discrimination (which if allowed to continue could eventually make anything a form of discrimination e.g. Irish's comment) and laws on marriage.