A proposal to solve the whole thing.

[dianaiad]

[help3434]

[dianaiad]

[McCulloch]

[help3434]

The law and government is a reflection of our government. The U.S. is not run by foreign dictators. The U.S. government is run by people we have elected and people appointed by those we have elected.

"Majority rules?" The constitution was written to protect the rights of those who might be overruled by the majority. No matter who approves of what 'side' is being protected.

I agree. That is why bans against gay marriage have been struck down as unconstitutional even in states where the majority of voters voted for the ban.

p=695045#695045]help3434[/url]"]
This is ridiculous. Having the government recognize gay marriage doesn't change any doctrine. It may force business owners and managers with certain religious beliefs to act differently, but it does change their doctrine.

Now THAT argument makes my blood boil. It says "You can think what you want, but you aren't allowed to behave according to your beliefs or indeed, behave in any way contrary to MINE."
[/quote]
That is not what I am saying. I mean in the context of a business that is open to the public. For example a business owner who holds to Christian Identity (Christian White Supremacy theology) is not allowed to refuse service to non-white customers even if mingling with non-white people is against his religious beliefs.

[help3434]

Back then the LDS church was the victim of those who wanted the government to limit the definition of marriage. Now the LDS church is on the side of those who want to limit the definition of marriage. I certainly haven't heard of any General Authorities saying that the government should get out the business of recognizing marriage altogether. Please show me any such statements from a General Authority if there are any.

Actually, given that the church had no objections to the California laws granting full civil rights to gay couples who entered into a domestic partnership/civil union, and only got involved when they demanded religious and cultural recognition of those rights as 'marriage' according to religious and cultural definitions, I think you are a bit off base here.

How am I off base? Church leaders supporting civil unions is not the same thing as church leaders saying that the government should not recognize marriages.

<snip>

Interesting idea, but I doubt it will happened. It would require more widespread change than simply expanding the definition of marriage.

Not really, no. It would, I contend, be far simpler.

How is changing how the whole thing works simpler than expanding it?

Businesses could be sued for refusing to 'do' parties celebrating a civil union...but not for the wedding.

That doesn't make sense. Neither parties or weddings (in your scenario) are legally binding events. Either businesses could be sued for both or sued for neither.

But in those countries they are called civil marriage instead civil unions, are they not? From what I understand in those countries LDS members in those countries don't face a year penalty for marrying outside the temple. The LDS church should remove the year penalty in North American even if the law doesn't change.

That's not the problem, and please don't tell me that you don't know this. The PROBLEM doesn't lie in a 'year wait." It lies in the government forcing its idea of marriage upon religious people who have RELIGIOUS objections to the RELIGIOUS aspect of a MARRIAGE.

I was going off on a tangent. It is not THE problem you were talking about in the thread, but it is something that some people consider a problem. In some countries (but not others) the LDS church make some people choose between having a wedding that includes those that don't have a temple recommend, instead of letting them have both in a short period of time.

Separate church and state here. Call marriage what it is; a custom that has predated almost every government ever historically recorded; religious and cultural, a trade of promises between people that simply cannot be enforced by ANY government. Let the government apply civil rights where it will, to whatever relationship it likes.

People can then choose. Civil unions for the rights, Marriage for those aspects that the government has no 'say' over.

Unless you can figure out how to make 'failing to love, honor and cherish' against the law, and prescribe jail time for it?

Maybe it is a good idea. Are there any members of Congress that have talked about it?

[dianaiad]

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

Today there is a huge controversy about whether or not gays may marry one another. In California, where gays had every single one of the civil rights that the government could grant a recognized marriage, it was not enough; gays wanted to be recognized and approved of culturally as MARRIED.

nope not really a controversy. I give it till the end of summer when the supreme court rules on it. A civil union doesn't grant federal rights which makes it separate but not equal...

Do you have an issue with atheists getting married? Do you have an issue with Hindis getting married? what about buddhists?

The above marriages are still against christian theology as they are not marriages recognized before god and they are all living in adulteress sin!!!!

Which makes the laws against banning gay marriage unconstitutional. Your opinion on the matter makes no difference. Your fears and negative attitudes about homosexuality and their marriage is not enough to hold hostage our legal system and the rights of other.

Good luck on taking away the marriage rights of everyone lol and gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states this year so good luck fighting that argument.

A September–October 2014 YouGov poll found 48% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, 39% oppose, and 13% weren't sure.[14]

A Pew Research Center poll released in September 2014 found 49% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, 41% oppose, and 10% don't know.[15]

A Gallup poll conducted in May 2014 found that 55% of Americans support allowing marriage for same-sex couples, 42% opposed, and 4% had no opinion on the issue. This was the largest percentage ever measured by the organization.[16]

An April 2014 Public Religion Research Institute poll sponsored by the Ford Foundation found that 55% of all Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 39% were opposed.[17]

A Pew Research Center poll released in March 2014 found 54% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, 39% oppose, and 7% don't know.[18] It also researched support for same-sex marriage among Republican leaning voters in the United States. 61% of Republican leaning voters aged 18–29 support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while only 27% of Republican leaning voters over 50 years of age are supportive.[19] 52% of Republican voters aged 18–50 support same-sex marriage.[20][21]

there is also the lack of public support to ban gay marriage to. No amount of gerrymandering can prevent this....

There is no controversy except in the minds of those who have negative/fearful thoughts about LGBT's and them getting equal rights.

[Bust Nak]

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

Today there is a huge controversy about whether or not gays may marry one another. In California, where gays had every single one of the civil rights that the government could grant a recognized marriage, it was not enough; gays wanted to be recognized and approved of culturally as MARRIED.

nope not really a controversy. I give it till the end of summer when the supreme court rules on it. A civil union doesn't grant federal rights which makes it separate but not equal...

The Federal government does not recognize marriages between same sex partners either; that is a separate issue from the right to marry in a state. However, if you wish, I'll change this: CALIFORNIA gave same sex partners every single one of the rights to civil unions/domestic partnerships that CALIFORNIA gave to married couples.

The solution, of course, is to have the Feds recognize all civil unions....and not recognize 'marriages,' because 'marriage' is strictly a religious/cultural tradition with no legal force. Given that it will have to change exactly as much to recognize all state marriages, I don't see the difficulty.

Do you have an issue with atheists getting married? Do you have an issue with Hindis getting married? what about buddhists?

What did I write? I mean, really. WHAT DID I WRITE?

What is there about the idea that everyone can marry who they wish according to their own belief systems, traditions and preferences went totally whoosh?

The above marriages are still against christian theology as they are not marriages recognized before god and they are all living in adulteress sin!!!!

.....and that is the problem of the Hindu, Buddhist, whoever, how, exactly? The idea is to completely separate church and state.

I'm sorry, did you actually read the proposal? I'm beginning to think you did not.

Which makes the laws against banning gay marriage unconstitutional. Your opinion on the matter makes no difference. Your fears and negative attitudes about homosexuality and their marriage is not enough to hold hostage our legal system and the rights of other.

Do me a favor. Pretend that I'm not a homophobe, a hated Christian, an idiot or a bigot.

Then read the proposal again. You know, take your preconceptions of me out of the mix and READ THE PROPOSAL.

Then perhaps you will figure out that if the government actually went for this, it's the 'Christians" (and other religious systems) that LOSE here. Think about it. If 'marriage,' the religious/cultural/traditional aspect of it that involves vows that the government simply cannot enforce, has no legal force, and the government assigns the civil rights to 'couplehood' to anybody it wants to irrespective of religion, sexual orientation or whatever, the churches lose their political clout in that area.

Of course, I think everybody gains, myself; everybody gains the 'right to the rights,' and the ability, moreover, to marry according to their own beliefs and preferences. There is no downside here.

Unless of course the goal is not to get the rights and ability to marry, but rather to shove the noses of everybody ELSE in the manure and crow "NYA NYA WE SHOWED YOU!"

the problem is, those who take that tack don't get any more than they would my way...and they end up being as oppressive as those they have been fighting.

Good luck on taking away the marriage rights of everyone lol and gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states this year so good luck fighting that argument.

Well, that settles it. You didn't read it at all, did you?