Government needs to get out of the business of marriage period.

I don't understand why a religious ceremony should have any bearing on a legal situation when we as a country have separation of church and state. Why is it a license issued by a state government must have a certification by a marriage performer who is most usually a religious figure.

Civil Unions should be the only thing the state grants. If you want to get married in a religious ceremony with or without the state granted civil union arrangement that is great too.

I don't understand why religious figures aren't needed to dissolve marriages if they are needed to start one up.

This is the screwed up situation that allowed John and Cindy McCain to get a marriage license even though John was still married to Carol. That didn't make any sense to me either.

And I do think that any two people who depend on each other for shelter or benefits ought to be granted these same rights regardless of the sexual nature of the relationship. Most of the estate benefits are there to provide a roof over people's heads so a brother and sister or sister and sister or brother and brother living together need these benefits just as much as any married couple.

People get married all the time without religious figures being involved.

"Marriage" is not a religious construct alone. The religious aspect is separate from the legal aspect - totally separate.

Getting a marriage license from your state is apparently meaningless if there is no marriage performer signing onto the marriage certificate.

Usually the marriage performer is a religious person. Or it could be a justice of the peace, but usually it isn't.

The religious part is totally separate. People go down to the county courthouse and pick up a "marriage license." Then they get married by the clerk of courts or justice of the peace or other completely secular representative of the government. Afterwards they are married.

The religious aspect is completely voluntary and has no bearing one way or the other on the legality of the marriage.

My wife told me we could get married in Las Vegas but "No Elvis".

The problem was that Liberace was $50 more!

Unless the ceremony is performed by a government official it is not legal.

If government stays out of it, isn't it just going to remain a states rights issue? Which I know a lot of people are not happy with. Since it's a civil right and shouldn't be left up to the states.

Its easy to say 'keep the government out' but if the ultimate goal is getting gay marriage legalized everywhere, the government would have to get involved for that.

If we are leaving it to the states then you are saying that each state has the right to determine its own laws. Should we then respect the decision that each state makes?

Why can't the Federal Government say they recognize marriages/civil unions when you get the license. Then we take the religious part out of it and say the religious argument has no bearing on the civil unions debate anyway because it becomes a matter of legal contracts. Religious figures can still determine who they want to approve in their for show marriage ceremonies but it has no bearing on the legal rights and responsibilities of a civil union.

"If we are leaving it to the states then you are saying that each state has the right to determine its own laws. Should we then respect the decision that each state makes?"

If the government is always going to remain out of the marriage issue, then it will be a states issue. My point was, no one really seems happy keeping it a states issue because cross sex marriage isn't a states issue.

"Why can't the Federal Government say they recognize marriages/civil unions when you get the license. Then we take the religious part out of it and say the religious argument has no bearing on the civil unions debate anyway because it becomes a matter of legal contracts. Religious figures can still determine who they want to approve in their for show marriage ceremonies but it has no bearing on the legal rights and responsibilities of a civil union."

Again, though, goverment recognising civil unions and enforcing them everywhere is still giving them a role. They can't stay out of the situation.

adoption, death, wills, etc.--family matters. That is one of the reasons Schiabo was such a jaw dropper. It became a national debate, incorrectly IMO, with DOMA. And then the neo theos went nuts getting states to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage. the only thing that can fix that at this point is the SCOTUS declaring that gay marriage is an equal right of the kind covered by the 14th Amendment to the COTUS. The COTUS overrides ALL other law that is deemed inconsistent with the COTUS, state and federal, even treaties.

IMO< the very best thing the GLBT community can do now on this issue is focus on SCOTUS appointments.

Actually, K and R, and no fucking shit!

It's precisely because of the entanglement between government and religion, government instituted and proctored convoluted connections between the rights, responsibilities, and privileges associated with "marriage" that we're having this argument in the first place.

I am violently opposed to any marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise, as respected by any government body, which ought to be staying out of our personal lives anyway.

Buddhist, Christian, Jewish cannot have the ceremony of our choice? Yes we could all get married by the license provider but think about that - it still would not make same-sex marriages legal because the power of the licenser comes from the government as does that of all the other marriage performers. It is not about who preforms the wedding. It is about the legality of the wedding once it is done.

We will have to fight for this for a long time.

And there is no such thing as a license, because the very existence of one presents the opportunity to discriminate, for the state to say who can and who cannot, which is why we are in the fix we are in.

Let the government deal with roads, defense, schools, regulating markets, consumer safety, etc., but stay the hell out of our personal relationships, faith based or not.

though - how do we handle those fights in court over divorce, survivors benefits and etc.

These historically have been handled differently state by state, much as is the case today, but over time more and more issues have developed that require adjudication.

Joint ownership of property, of stocks and bonds, insurance benefits, etc.

But since brothers and sisters, and mothers and sons, for example, have commonly been able to establish common estates that include consideration for practically all of the elements found in "marriages" including child guardianship, I'm thinking that the establishment of these kinds of legal unions would be a good idea.

Should it be federally recognized or not, I do not know, but if it grew popular throughout the states it could become universal.

This scenario protects the rights and responsibilities for all kinds of meaningful family and straight and gay unions, without letting religion be involved.

That's my utopian idea.

Unfortunately, far too many Americans think it's fine that JudeoChristianity is all up in our government business.

us to allow true freedoms.

Civil Unions ARE the only thing the state grants. The term used is "Marriage".

Religion should have nothing to do with it. Gays have been able to get married in Churches that accept them, for eons. No big deal.

What Proposition 8 does, is forbid Secular Civil Unions, in the name of principles of a particular sect of a particular religion, inspired by a guy who preached only tolerance and love for all.

Weird, no? So what is this fight really about?

Dang I didn't realize.

My point was that marriage IS a civil union, taking place at City Hall, and only a religious ceremony if people wish it so, but in addition to the civil wedding. It just is given more weight by Hospitals and probate judges when the time comes to establish rights...

Excellent point.

Can be, and often is, a justice of the peace. Most states require a license and a "solemnification" which is as simple as going before a judge and acknowledging that the couple is to be married.

such as JPs and judges, IMHO.

Whether anyone wants to go to a JP, Judge, ship captain, or witch doctor is up to them.

By the time my wife and I had gotten our license from the courthouse in Las Vegas, the JP had quit for the night, so we had the kids scout around the block and pick out an all-night wedding chapel. I had wanted Elvis, but we settled on a non-religious ceremony instead.

And as a minister and a married person, I have walked my talk. My husband and I were married by a judge-it wasn't until nearly a year later that we had a religious ceremony. As a minister, I have legally married only one couple (in 14 years), but have participated in many spiritual weddings. To me, that was more comfortable. I really didn't like being "an arm of the state" as it were, because it compromised my commitment to spiritual matters being separate from secular ones (for the record, my Order doesn't get involved in political matters except in this one area--and then it is up to the individual minister to decide if he or she will legally marry someone).

I again extend the offer to spiritually marry anyone. I live in NW Arkansas, and if you need this service, PM me.

whom one is sleeping with. I think households should be the only consideration by the government.

nothing more nothing less. The parties involved in the contract determine what the relationship is based on.

That is why it is discrimination you are preventing a group of consenting adults from contracting.

Loving v Virginia is quite clear. That USSC decision needs to be enforced. If the enforcement means ending state sanctioned marriages I am fine with that, meanwhile our rights are not negotiable, they are universal - we are all equal.

Marriage is a religious sacriment and does not belong in our legal system or constitution.

All unions should be Civil Union.

When some say they want to get married because of the legal advantages, it makes my blood boil. Why should married people get legal and tax advantage???? If you are living with someone, you already have the advantage of "two can live as cheaply as one" almost, at least they share a lot of big bills. If anyone should get a tax break, it's people living alone. They certainly should be financially penialized for choosing to not be married.

Furthermore...each adult person, gay married, whatever should decide who they want visiting them in the hospital...not the hospital and not the law. Many people are closer to friends than they are to family members.

And your comments came up regularly as ones that I wanted to say "yeah, that's right" about, agreeing with you, that is.

So, props! :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4695386&mesg_id=4696822

Why does this always keep getting brought up?

Edited on Sun Dec-21-08 02:25 PM by gollygee
1. The right-wingers big issue is that they claim gay people want to "destroy marriage". If marriage were done away with, it would be quickly and easily spun as marriage being destroyed, and guess who would take the blame? It would make things worse for gay people, not better.

2. The right-wingers don't want gay people to have any rights. In fact, strike that. They don't want gay people to exist, period. If a few have to exist here and there, they want them to be quiet and without rights in the closet. Some states have even passed laws that not only can gay people not marry, they can't do anything that looks anything like marriage no matter what you call it. Yes, some anti-gay people are ok with gay people having civil unions, but that's because it's something less than what they have. They don't want gay people playing their reindeer games, no matter what the games are called. If marriage were called "civil unions", only straight people would be able to have "civil unions".

3. There has been a huge change of public opinion on this issue. Several years ago, anti-gay marriage ballot proposals won by ridiculous margins, including in blue states, with no real advertising from the right-wing. But the proposal in California came very very close to not passing and required a huge amount of advertising money from the right wing to pass. Gay marriage will happen before too long. If Obama replaces a conservative Supreme Court justice or two, it's potentially one Supreme Court case away from being a reality. The current way of fighting for gay rights is making huge progress. Why should gay people change a winning strategy?

4. It's insulting to say, "Well then we won't let anybody marry!" Because that's really how it comes off.

might agree with you. As it is, however, it is going to be much easier to grant the right to marry to 5% of the population than it will be to take it from 95% of the population. Besides, you cannot write good songs about getting civil unioned.

Don't try to turn back time or re-invent the wheel. Just include same gender couples in the defnition of marriage. Once Massachusetts and Connecticut did it, the controversy about it died down relatively quickly and has nnow disappeared. It will be the same nationally, I promise. Just think how great it will be to be done with it, once and for all.

Bill, I love you so
I always will
Come on and civil union me,
Billlll.

One of my BIGGEST problems with the right wing gay-bashers is how they turn a blind eye to the REAL threat to "the sanctity of marriage" ... ADULTERY!!! Which their very own candidate was guilty of on at least one occasion.