Legal Gay Marriage

[FrostyM288]

With the government's new stance on DOMA, I thought this would be a topic on people's minds. There is quite a responsive thread going on whether gay marriage threatens traditional family values, but I wanted to get into the political side of the debate.

Whether or not this is the case, do you feel the government should have any control on who can/not marry whom? If so, do you feel the government should allow or disallow gay marriage?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 78:

I acknowledge the post and await moderator ruling regarding repeated uncivil content.

I also note there's no attempt to support challenged claims per my Post 76.

[Jrosemary]

The reason why this debate goes round and round can be seen in how you choose to verbalize your attack on my culture. To debate about the idea of or any thought of my God brings into this debate that your intentions is more than a debate on marriage. Its a debate to undermine all that Christians stand for. Its a hate debate against Christians. Its not a debate on marriage, it is a blatant attack on Christianity. It is racism, (and if you want to know how i see this as racism, look into my other posts. Please no pointless circle talk). I'm not saying all is but nearly all.

Moderator Comment

The parts of your paragraph that I have bold-faced are blanket statements accusing people who oppose you in the debate of "hate" and "racism." Please review the Rules.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 79:

Wait...I can't speak for all 'religious conservatives.' I do speak for me, and I do beleive that my proposal would be better accepted-

The fact so many gay folks have rejected your proposal indicates, if only to me and maybe them, that such is not "better accepted".

and a real working compromise that would not only allow gay couples to get the civil rights, but ALSO to marry.

I propose that when one demands the government removes the word marriage from that whole marriage deal, there's no "also to marry" involved.

It does mean that religions would have to give up some power; the power to give up the ability to issue legal licenses or to legally bind, contractually, those they marry...

I'm unaware they had such legal authority. Please cite.

However, since those same religions would then be protected from the efforts of gay rights activists (and others who don't like their doctrines) to force THEIR beliefs upon them, I think it's fair.

Please cite one law that says religious folks must change their beliefs.

1st challenge.

Religions can't perform contractual civil unions, and the government can force religion to recognize marriages they disaprove of.

Yet we see religious folks trying to prevent marriages they disaprove of.

Everybody has to enter into a civil union to get legal rights, and everyone can marry if they want. Sounds fair to me.

I'm certain it sounds fair to one who seeks to reserve the word marriage for their own exclusive use.

You are right; if opponents of gay marriage really ARE anti-gay, my proposal would be a complete loss for them. If, however, they are like me and only want to protect their beliefs against what they percieve to be an attack...and an attempt to force religious and cultural approval of a lifestyle they consider to be sinful, then it wouldn't be; it would simply solve the problem.

Please explain how reserving exclusive use to a word solves the problem.

The irony, for me, is that in the nearly ten years that I have been proposing this as a solution, the ONLY people who have objected to it are....gays.

Wonder of wonders. The only folks who oppose your solution are the very folks who reject to your seeking exclusive use to a word.

I've been called all sorts of names by gay rights activists; they really don't want a solution that gets them what they CLAIM they want.

Thankfully gay folks haven't been called all sorts of names.

When the CLAIM is to seek marriage, anything less than that falls short.

This proves to me, at least, that what they claim they want isn't what they really want.

Of course. Folks who claim to want marriage don't really want marriage.

What they really want is to force me, and others who believe that gay sex is sinful, to behave as if I approve of them...

HOW MANY TIME AM I GONNA HAFTA CHALLENGE THIS CLAIM BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT IT?

Please present a law that says religious folks must rescind any loving, hateful, or bigoted acts they chose to engage upon.

...to admit that their lifestyles are just as valid in the eyes of God and OUR faith as marriage between a man and a woman.

Says the one who can't show a god even exists, much less has an opinion on the actions of humans.

It's not enough for them that I don't believe I have a right to judge them...they don't believe as I do. I have no right to make them toe my doctrinal lines.

"While I seek to prevent them from using a word my doctrinal lines says belongs to me exclusively."

It's not enough that I have come up with a solution that would absolutely allow them everything they CLAIM they want...

I seek a special moderator dispensation to call this the (censored pending moderator ruling) it so obviously is.

That gay folks want marriage indicates that's what they want.

while at the same time protecting my own belief systems from being forced to accept their dictates.

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT A LAW THAT SAYS RELIGIOUS FOLKS CAN'T BE JUST AS MEAN AND INTOLERANT AS THEY WANT.

No. They want it their way.

Why the dirty sob's. How dare they conflict with me trying to have my way!

They want to shove their lifestyles down my throat, and to force me, legally, to change doctrine and beliefs to encompass their choices...and they justify their attempts by accusing me of wanting to force mine on them!

I lack sufficient mental capacity to fully explain the irony.

[dianaiad]

From Post 79:

snip for space.

Please enlighten me: how does my proposal, which allows gays to marry and consider themselves to be married, constitute my wishing to reserve to myself the exclusive right to the word 'marriage?"

Unless, of course, you have a problem with the current ability of religions to refuse to recognize gay couples as being married in the eyes of God, and to refuse to allow them the same access to privately owned institutional housing (like married student housing in a church owned college, for instance) or access to certain church rites (like communion) to those who are seen as living in sin. Indeed, that is the only reason my proposal would be a problem for gays...that they want to have the right to force religions to change that, at the point of the legal sword, so to speak.

Remember, my proposal consists of two main points:

first: any couple who wants the legal and civil rights the government affords married couples NOW would have to enter into a civil union. The government would get out of the 'marriage' game entirely, leaving the moral and cultural meaning of the word to those institutions that handle this. This civil union would include gay and straight couples...no discrimination. Everybody is the same here.

second. This means that any couple, whether they get a civil union or not, may get married, CALL themselves married, and BE married...in a church that approves of their marriage (or exchanging vows in a forest...whatever floats their romantic and/or religious boats).

This allows gays to marry. It also allows the constitutional freedom of religion that is so precious to us as a people...not just for us, but for gay couples, too.

Nobody can force their beliefs upon anybody else. Everybody wins.

Except, of course, for the gays whose true agenda is NOT equality...but rather to force everybody else to march to their tune and be forced to change their beliefs, doctrines and behaviors or be subject to legal sanctions.

As to your demand that I prove that religions have the right to conduct legal weddings....are you kidding? Really? According to California law (and most other states, for that matter) simply getting a marriage license isn't sufficient. According to the California Family Code, sections 400-402, in order to get married you MUST have a license AND find a justice of the peace OR an 'ordained or invested religious clergyman."

As you can see, it's not only that churches may now legally bind couples in marriage, they are, aside from justices of the peace (or just plain judges) the only people who can.

My idea would take that power away from religions. Civil unions would be strictly a government affair; by license; get the license, you have the civil union (rather like the way they do it in England and some European nations). No problem with religious views on whether gays can actually marry...it's rather a further, big, step in separating church and state.

Then, those who have civil unions, who wish to be married...can go get married by whomever will marry them. There you go. All fixed.

Frankly, the fact that you are accusing me of 'wishing to keep the word marriage for [my] exclusive use' is the absolute proof of my claim that gays don't want the right to marry and be married. My proposal gives them that....and you well know it. The only reason gays attack this idea is because it's not enough for them to be married and to have the civil rights everybody else does. They want to legally force the approval of those who do not now approve.

In other words, you don't want equal rights and the ability to marry. You want everybody to admit that your lifestyle IS marriage in the eyes of a God you don't believe in.

Now, I can actually see it, someday, happening with faiths who have an 'until death do us part' doctrine, and whose afterlife describes a state of bliss that doesn't include marriage...or sex, as far as I know. There really isn't, that I can see, a deep doctrinal reason for them to exclude gays from marriage, legally or morally.

However....Mormons have a very deep doctrinal belief that man and woman are actually an eternal unit; men and women are not only different, they are necessary complements to one another; one cannot be 'saved' without the other; it's an eternal unit that simply cannot happen with same sex couples. We do not believe that marriage must end with death, but that it continues.

We cannot approve, or accept, or recognize the religious idea of marriage between same sex couples. If the government redefines marriage to include same sex couples, then we have a very real reason to fear forced compliance to that...it's not as if it's the first time the government did that to us, y'know.

I'm just offering a solution that gives gays the right to marry, and protects our right to not recognize the religious aspects of it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 84:

Please enlighten me: how does my proposal, which allows gays to marry and consider themselves to be married, constitute my wishing to reserve to myself the exclusive right to the word 'marriage?"

We'll see here in a bit...

Unless, of course, you have a problem with the current ability of religions to refuse to recognize gay couples as being married in the eyes of God, and to refuse to allow them the same access to privately owned institutional housing (like married student housing in a church owned college, for instance) or access to certain church rites (like communion) to those who are seen as living in sin. Indeed, that is the only reason my proposal would be a problem for gays...that they want to have the right to force religions to change that, at the point of the legal sword, so to speak.

You've yet to present one shred of evidence for such a contention.

Remember, my proposal consists of two main points:

first: any couple who wants the legal and civil rights the government affords married couples NOW would have to enter into a civil union. The government would get out of the 'marriage' game entirely...

"Now that gay folks are wanting in on the game, let's change the rules and get government out of the game."

...leaving the moral and cultural meaning of the word to those institutions that handle this. This civil union would include gay and straight couples...no discrimination. Everybody is the same here.

If everybody's the same, why all the fuss?

second. This means that any couple, whether they get a civil union or not, may get married, CALL themselves married, and BE married...in a church that approves of their marriage (or exchanging vows in a forest...whatever floats their romantic and/or religious boats).

^^^There's the reserving.

Who owns the word marriage?

I propose that if one really had a "whatever floats their boat" attitude, they wouldn't be opposed to gays having the right to be married. Let's don't confuse terms here, "civil union" is a cobbled together term presented by folks who object to gays being married.

This allows gays to marry. It also allows the constitutional freedom of religion that is so precious to us as a people...not just for us, but for gay couples, too.

Nope. It allows folks to "civil union". If you insist on conflating the two, then what's the problem with the use of a word?

Nobody can force their beliefs upon anybody else. Everybody wins.

That's laughable.

Except, of course, for the gays whose true agenda is NOT equality...but rather to force everybody else to march to their tune and be forced to change their beliefs, doctrines and behaviors or be subject to legal sanctions.

For the umpteenth time, please present one law, proposed or enacted that tells religious folks how to believe.

Present your evidence or quit smearing an entire sector of society!

This continued "gay conspiracy paranoia" is typical of those who can't present a valid argument and must smear, slander and use fear-mongering to present their arguments.

As to your demand that I prove that religions have the right to conduct legal weddings....are you kidding?

Let's see what this is all about...

It does mean that religions would have to give up some power; the power to give up the ability to issue legal licenses or to legally bind, contractually, those they marry...

I challenge the claim based on the notion that religious institutions are providing a legal marriage certificate. It is my understanding that the state is the sole arbiter of who is actually married, in that they're the ones offering the legal rights and privileges.

I don't doubt that religious institutions offer some form of marriage certificate, but these are only valid insofar as the state accepts them, and that one must also have a state issued marriage license before they are considered for state issued privileges related to marriage.

As you can see, it's not only that churches may now legally bind couples in marriage, they are, aside from justices of the peace (or just plain judges) the only people who can.

This doesn't surprise me, given that there's a religious majority that thinks it's the sole arbiter of what constitutes a valid marriage.

My idea would take that power away from religions. Civil unions would be strictly a government affair; by license; get the license, you have the civil union (rather like the way they do it in England and some European nations). No problem with religious views on whether gays can actually marry...it's rather a further, big, step in separating church and state.

Why let religious folks dictate who gets to use a word? Especially one of such historical and social significance.

Then, those who have civil unions, who wish to be married...can go get married by whomever will marry them. There you go. All fixed.

That's about as condescending a string of words as I've ever read.

"Civil union" is NOT "marriage", no matter how you try to conflate the two. The FACT that so many gay folks want their unions recognized as marriages indicates the word has some significance to them.

Frankly, the fact that you are accusing me of 'wishing to keep the word marriage for [my] exclusive use' is the absolute proof of my claim that gays don't want the right to marry and be married.

Whether it is your implicit intent, it is the result.

You have carried on at length explaining how some religious folks object to gays being married, and how your presenting "civil unions" as an alternative is such a "there ya go, all fixed" answer, while steadfastly refusing to consider that so many gay folks seek to use a word of such secular, social and historical significance. Granted - religious folks have had a "lock" on the word marriage, but only because by force of numbers they have sought to present theirs as the only valid definition, use, or means of getting married.

Who owns the word married?

My proposal gives them that....and you well know it.

Don't deign to tell me what I know.

The only reason gays attack this idea is because it's not enough for them to be married and to have the civil rights everybody else does. They want to legally force the approval of those who do not now approve.

For the umpteenth time, please present one law, proposed or enacted that says religious folks are to be approving of their fellow human beings.

In other words, you don't want equal rights and the ability to marry. You want everybody to admit that your lifestyle IS marriage in the eyes of a God you don't believe in.

I'm in a great relationship with a wonderful old lady that I love very much, but I have no want or need for the trappings of marriage.

I am a fervent supporter of equal rights for all. Do not assume that just because I speak for an oppressed minority that I'm a member.

When one can offer some means to verify a god has an opinion on marriage, then they may have a case. Until such time I see no reason to conclude anyone knows the thoughts of a god.

However....Mormons have a very deep doctrinal belief that man and woman are actually an eternal unit; men and women are not only different, they are necessary complements to one another; one cannot be 'saved' without the other; it's an eternal unit that simply cannot happen with same sex couples. We do not believe that marriage must end with death, but that it continues.

Which is one reason I could never accept the Mormon faith.

We cannot approve, or accept, or recognize the religious idea of marriage between same sex couples. If the government redefines marriage to include same sex couples, then we have a very real reason to fear forced compliance to that...it's not as if it's the first time the government did that to us, y'know.

So then, show us one law, proposed or enacted that says Mormons must be accepting of others.

I'm just offering a solution that gives gays the right to marry, and protects our right to not recognize the religious aspects of it.

Again, you offer gays the right to "civil union", not marriage.

I ask for the umpteenth time, please present one law, proposed or enacted that says religious folks must be accepting of their fellow human beings.

[dianaiad]

From Post 84:

Please enlighten me: how does my proposal, which allows gays to marry and consider themselves to be married, constitute my wishing to reserve to myself the exclusive right to the word 'marriage?"

We'll see here in a bit...

Unless, of course, you have a problem with the current ability of religions to refuse to recognize gay couples as being married in the eyes of God, and to refuse to allow them the same access to privately owned institutional housing (like married student housing in a church owned college, for instance) or access to certain church rites (like communion) to those who are seen as living in sin. Indeed, that is the only reason my proposal would be a problem for gays...that they want to have the right to force religions to change that, at the point of the legal sword, so to speak.

You've yet to present one shred of evidence for such a contention.

Remember, my proposal consists of two main points:

first: any couple who wants the legal and civil rights the government affords married couples NOW would have to enter into a civil union. The government would get out of the 'marriage' game entirely...

"Now that gay folks are wanting in on the game, let's change the rules and get government out of the game."[/quote]

Now that's ironic; it's OK to "change the rules and get government out of the game" in terms of any religious expression in schools and other public places when it fits your agenda, but it's perfectly acceptable to keep the government IN the game whien it serves your purpose? You can't have this both ways.

From Post 84:

...leaving the moral and cultural meaning of the word to those institutions that handle this. This civil union would include gay and straight couples...no discrimination. Everybody is the same here.

If everybody's the same, why all the fuss?

I'm not making the fuss here, you are. You are the one objecting to the proposal that would result in this state of 'everybody's the same.'

From Post 84:

second. This means that any couple, whether they get a civil union or not, may get married, CALL themselves married, and BE married...in a church that approves of their marriage (or exchanging vows in a forest...whatever floats their romantic and/or religious boats).

^^^There's the reserving.

Who owns the word marriage?

Evidently you want to, to my detriment. I have no problem with you HAVING ownership of the word, either--as long as it is not to my detriment.

From Post 84:
I propose that if one really had a "whatever floats their boat" attitude, they wouldn't be opposed to gays having the right to be married. Let's don't confuse terms here, "civil union" is a cobbled together term presented by folks who object to gays being married.

IS there an 'anti-gay' faction out there that doesn't want gays to have the civil rights of marriage, or to be married...even if those gay couples do not share their religious beliefs? Sure. The thing is, sir, that I'm not one of them, and the proposal I'm making here would mess up their agenda, allow all couples to marry AND have the legal rights--while protecting freedom of religion.

.........and the more gays object to it, the more it becomes obvious that the objectors are being disengenuous when they claim that all they want is the civil rights and the right to be married. They, in reality, want to legally force people who do not believe that gays can be married in the sight of God to change their doctrines, and recognize gay marriage in the sight of God. My idea would absolutely level the playing field for everybody, allow all marriages to be recognized by the folks getting married, by the belief systems they adhere to--and all civil unions would be the same in the eyes of the government. Wanting more than that is not wanting equality. It's doing to religions exactly what you claim they are doing to you; forcing compliance to your beliefs upon those who do not share them.

From Post 84:

This allows gays to marry. It also allows the constitutional freedom of religion that is so precious to us as a people...not just for us, but for gay couples, too.

Nope. It allows folks to "civil union". If you insist on conflating the two, then what's the problem with the use of a word?

That is an unusual definition of 'conflating' the concepts of marriage and civil unions...to formally and legally separate them for the purpose of ensuring that all couples can have both.

From Post 84:

Nobody can force their beliefs upon anybody else. Everybody wins.

That's laughable.

Except, of course, for the gays whose true agenda is NOT equality...but rather to force everybody else to march to their tune and be forced to change their beliefs, doctrines and behaviors or be subject to legal sanctions.

For the umpteenth time, please present one law, proposed or enacted that tells religious folks how to believe.

Excuse me, but nobody can tell others how to believe. I have been rather clear that the agenda is a forced change in behavior.

From Post 84:
Present your evidence or quit smearing an entire sector of society!

This continued "gay conspiracy paranoia" is typical of those who can't present a valid argument and must smear, slander and use fear-mongering to present their arguments.

As to your demand that I prove that religions have the right to conduct legal weddings....are you kidding?

Let's see what this is all about...

It does mean that religions would have to give up some power; the power to give up the ability to issue legal licenses or to legally bind, contractually, those they marry...

I challenge the claim based on the notion that religious institutions are providing a legal marriage certificate. It is my understanding that the state is the sole arbiter of who is actually married, in that they're the ones offering the legal rights and privileges.

I don't doubt that religious institutions offer some form of marriage certificate, but these are only valid insofar as the state accepts them, and that one must also have a state issued marriage license before they are considered for state issued privileges related to marriage.

Moving the goalposts there a bit, are you not? But thank you for pointing out that the current practice of marriage requires both a state issued licence AND a clergyman to officiate at the wedding. In most states (not all) a license isn't enough; the wedding itself must be officiated by a justice of the peace or a licensed clergyman. While the state may not recognize a marriage without the license, it also doesn't recognize one without the clergyman. In fact, if anybody is conflating the idea of 'civil unions' and marriage, it is the state, encorporating both legal contracts AND religion. My proposal simply separates church and state in this matter. The legal rights are administered by the government, the spiritual/ethical/moral aspect is dealt with by the religion/ belief system/philosophy.

Everybody gets what they CLAIM they want. However, again, you are proving that Gore Vidal had a point; it is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.

It's not enough for you to win what you claim you want...the religions and belief systems you dislike must lose.

From Post 84:

As you can see, it's not only that churches may now legally bind couples in marriage, they are, aside from justices of the peace (or just plain judges) the only people who can.

This doesn't surprise me, given that there's a religious majority that thinks it's the sole arbiter of what constitutes a valid marriage.

My idea would take that power away from religions. Civil unions would be strictly a government affair; by license; get the license, you have the civil union (rather like the way they do it in England and some European nations). No problem with religious views on whether gays can actually marry...it's rather a further, big, step in separating church and state.

Why let religious folks dictate who gets to use a word? Especially one of such historical and social significance.

Then, those who have civil unions, who wish to be married...can go get married by whomever will marry them. There you go. All fixed.

That's about as condescending a string of words as I've ever read.

"Civil union" is NOT "marriage", no matter how you try to conflate the two. The FACT that so many gay folks want their unions recognized as marriages indicates the word has some significance to them.

Frankly, the fact that you are accusing me of 'wishing to keep the word marriage for [my] exclusive use' is the absolute proof of my claim that gays don't want the right to marry and be married.

Whether it is your implicit intent, it is the result.

You have carried on at length explaining how some religious folks object to gays being married, and how your presenting "civil unions" as an alternative is such a "there ya go, all fixed" answer, while steadfastly refusing to consider that so many gay folks seek to use a word of such secular, social and historical significance. Granted - religious folks have had a "lock" on the word marriage, but only because by force of numbers they have sought to present theirs as the only valid definition, use, or means of getting married.

Who owns the word married?

My proposal gives them that....and you well know it.

Don't deign to tell me what I know.

The only reason gays attack this idea is because it's not enough for them to be married and to have the civil rights everybody else does. They want to legally force the approval of those who do not now approve.

For the umpteenth time, please present one law, proposed or enacted that says religious folks are to be approving of their fellow human beings.

In other words, you don't want equal rights and the ability to marry. You want everybody to admit that your lifestyle IS marriage in the eyes of a God you don't believe in.

From Post 84:

I'm in a great relationship with a wonderful old lady that I love very much, but I have no want or need for the trappings of marriage.[]/quote]

In other words, you love her, but you love your freedom more; you don't love her enough to offer her the legal protections she would have as your wife. Your use of the word 'trappings' is rather telling, y'know. That is one thing about gays wanting to be married that I absolutely honor; they should have the ability to provide those protections for each other...AND to be married according to their own beliefs, in exactly the same way I want to be married in mine. My idea provides that, for all of us.

You continued insistance that it does not is a gross misstatement of fact.

From Post 84:
I am a fervent supporter of equal rights for all. Do not assume that just because I speak for an oppressed minority that I'm a member.

When one can offer some means to verify a god has an opinion on marriage, then they may have a case. Until such time I see no reason to conclude anyone knows the thoughts of a god.

However....Mormons have a very deep doctrinal belief that man and woman are actually an eternal unit; men and women are not only different, they are necessary complements to one another; one cannot be 'saved' without the other; it's an eternal unit that simply cannot happen with same sex couples. We do not believe that marriage must end with death, but that it continues.

Which is one reason I could never accept the Mormon faith.

....and the reason you put the word 'faith' in itallics, in an obvious sign of disrespect and disdain, is, what, exactly? Whether you like our beliefs or not, it is still a 'faith,' and a fairly good sized one.

From Post 84:

We cannot approve, or accept, or recognize the religious idea of marriage between same sex couples. If the government redefines marriage to include same sex couples, then we have a very real reason to fear forced compliance to that...it's not as if it's the first time the government did that to us, y'know.

So then, show us one law, proposed or enacted that says Mormons must be accepting of others.

I'm just offering a solution that gives gays the right to marry, and protects our right to not recognize the religious aspects of it.

Again, you offer gays the right to "civil union", not marriage.

I ask for the umpteenth time, please present one law, proposed or enacted that says religious folks must be accepting of their fellow human beings.

I quit with you; you are actually making factual mistatements regarding my idea. You keep claiming that I don't want gays to be able to marry, when in fact, that's precisely what my idea DOES do; it allows them to do just that.

As to your demand regarding laws....I am the great grandaughter of three men who were married according to their faith--and the laws of their community, but the federal government decided that their idea of marriage wasn't to their taste, changed the laws and threw them in prison, destroying their families and causing great hardship; not because there was any economic or moral harm to the USA, but because people outside the faith decided that they had the right to dictate to those who did not share THEIR belief system that they had to comply with it anyway. My idea prevents that from happening again--not just to religions who don't recognize gay marriage, but also to those who DO.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 86:

Now that's ironic; it's OK to "change the rules and get government out of the game" in terms of any religious expression in schools and other public places when it fits your agenda, but it's perfectly acceptable to keep the government IN the game whien it serves your purpose? You can't have this both ways.

It is my contention government should have never allowed organized, sanctioned displays of religion in any government - from legislatures to schools. It is a further contention that where government offers benefits and privileges, it should do so in a fair and equitable manner. I see no contradiction.

...leaving the moral and cultural meaning of the word to those institutions that handle this. This civil union would include gay and straight couples...no discrimination. Everybody is the same here.

If everybody's the same, why all the fuss?

I'm not making the fuss here, you are. You are the one objecting to the proposal that would result in this state of 'everybody's the same.'

The 'fuss' as I see it is one group trying to claim the use of such a culturally and historically significant term for its own exclusive use.

...This means that any couple, whether they get a civil union or not, may get married, CALL themselves married, and BE married...in a church that approves of their marriage (or exchanging vows in a forest...whatever floats their romantic and/or religious boats).

Who owns the word marriage?

^^^There's the reserving.

Evidently you want to, to my detriment. I have no problem with you HAVING ownership of the word, either--as long as it is not to my detriment.

Please explain how gays being married causes you detriment.

I propose that if one really had a "whatever floats their boat" attitude, they wouldn't be opposed to gays having the right to be married. Let's don't confuse terms here, "civil union" is a cobbled together term presented by folks who object to gays being married.

IS there an 'anti-gay' faction out there that doesn't want gays to have the civil rights of marriage, or to be married...even if those gay couples do not share their religious beliefs? Sure. The thing is, sir, that I'm not one of them, and the proposal I'm making here would mess up their agenda, allow all couples to marry AND have the legal rights--while protecting freedom of religion.

"Civil union" is a cobbled together term used to prevent one group from being married, otherwise we would have no need for this conversation.

...and the more gays object to it, the more it becomes obvious that the objectors are being disengenuous when they claim that all they want is the civil rights and the right to be married.

I find repeated attempts to besmirch the character of folks an indication one can't debate on a level playing field. Accusing others of being disengenuous is nothing but a smear tactic.

They, in reality, want to legally force people who do not believe that gays can be married in the sight of God to change their doctrines, and recognize gay marriage in the sight of God.

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, I CHALLENGE YOU TO PRESENT ONE LAW, PROPOSED OR ENACTED, THAT SAYS RELIGIOUS FOLKS MUST RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGES.

My idea would absolutely level the playing field for everybody, allow all marriages to be recognized by the folks getting married, by the belief systems they adhere to--and all civil unions would be the same in the eyes of the government. Wanting more than that is not wanting equality. It's doing to religions exactly what you claim they are doing to you; forcing compliance to your beliefs upon those who do not share them.

Actually, the one oppression I support is the oppression of the oppressor.

That one's religion interferes with another's rights is, IMO, not a valid enough reason to go on oppressing folks.

That is an unusual definition of 'conflating' the concepts of marriage and civil unions...to formally and legally separate them for the purpose of ensuring that all couples can have both.

If there's no problem with folks having both, why the need for new language?

Excuse me, but nobody can tell others how to believe. I have been rather clear that the agenda is a forced change in behavior.

I ASK FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT ONE LAW, PROPOSED OR ENACTED, THAT SAYS RELIGIOUS FOLKS MUST BE ACCEPTING OF THEIR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS.

I challenge the claim based on the notion that religious institutions are providing a legal marriage certificate. It is my understanding that the state is the sole arbiter of who is actually married, in that they're the ones offering the legal rights and privileges.

I don't doubt that religious institutions offer some form of marriage certificate, but these are only valid insofar as the state accepts them, and that one must also have a state issued marriage license before they are considered for state issued privileges related to marriage.

Moving the goalposts there a bit, are you not?

I don't think so. I am willing to admit to confusion, as I could have better worded the previous challenge.

My point remains, no marriage is accepted by the state without a state issued marriage license. That a church may have a stack of such licenses on hand as well as the church license doesn't change this.

But thank you for pointing out that the current practice of marriage requires both a state issued licence AND a clergyman to officiate at the wedding. In most states (not all) a license isn't enough; the wedding itself must be officiated by a justice of the peace or a licensed clergyman. While the state may not recognize a marriage without the license, it also doesn't recognize one without the clergyman. In fact, if anybody is conflating the idea of 'civil unions' and marriage, it is the state, encorporating both legal contracts AND religion. My proposal simply separates church and state in this matter. The legal rights are administered by the government, the spiritual/ethical/moral aspect is dealt with by the religion/ belief system/philosophy.

Gee, I wonder why in a country so full of religious folks, there'd be (possibly or actually) laws in place requiring a preacher's blessing.

The fact remains, "civil unions" is a trumped up term used to deny others the status of marriage.

Everybody gets what they CLAIM they want. However, again, you are proving that Gore Vidal had a point; it is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.

It's not enough for you to win what you claim you want...the religions and belief systems you dislike must lose.

Again, you assume too much.

I am a happy bachelor, and intent to keep it that way.

I seek the maximum freedom for the maximum folks with the least harm.

I quit with you; you are actually making factual mistatements regarding my idea.

If you think this is the case, please report the offending post/s, and we'll let the mods sort it out.

Until then, I note yet one more attempt to "debate" by besmirching one's character.

You keep claiming that I don't want gays to be able to marry, when in fact, that's precisely what my idea DOES do; it allows them to do just that.

It allows them civil unions, while reserving the word "marriage" for those groups you feel more deserving of the title.

As to your demand regarding laws....I am the great grandaughter of three men who were married according to their faith--and the laws of their community, but the federal government decided that their idea of marriage wasn't to their taste, changed the laws and threw them in prison, destroying their families and causing great hardship; not because there was any economic or moral harm to the USA, but because people outside the faith decided that they had the right to dictate to those who did not share THEIR belief system that they had to comply with it anyway. My idea prevents that from happening again--not just to religions who don't recognize gay marriage, but also to those who DO.

Please link to and quote verbatim the law that says your great-grandpappy had to respect gay folks.

[micatala]

If I might be so bold as to insert myself, as a fellow debater, into the discussion between dianadad and joey.


To joey, as far as I can see, you are misunderstanding dianaiad's proposal.

D is removing the word "marriage" from the state lexicon, but is allowing anyone to use that word as they see fit. Thus, the word is not reserved for use only by religious groups, or only by religious groups that disapprove of gay marriage. The word "marriage" would no longer have any legal meaning at all. dianaiad can correct me if I am wrong on this.

This does mean, I think it is fair to say, the D's proposal does not amount to trying to reserve the use of the term "marriage" for religious use, or prevent its use for gay marriages. I don't see that you can say D's proposal is an attempt to 'reserve ownership' of the term.




On the other hand, I think it is unfair for D to characterize objection to his or her scheme as evidence of supporters of gay rights wanting to somehow force views or behaviors on those that oppose gay marriage that they don't want. I think one can legitimately consider this scheme as problematical for a number of reasons, one of which at least joey has already brought up.

And, it is fair for joey to ask how simpy allowing gays access to marriage as it exists affects you or your church in any way. I see no evidence that this would be the case, and I don't see that you have actually identified any harm to you or your religion or your church that would result from allowing gays access to marriage as it currently exists as a secular institution.


I would agree, D's solution could be considered fair and equitable in a narrow sense for its secular and legal effects.

On the other hand, it is also fair to object to this solution.

I'll give you an example.

A while back in my state, we used to have signs on the highway informing drivers that a certain group had taken responsibility for road side clean up.

Then, one day, a gay group decided to volunteer, and were assigned a stretch of roadway and signs went up, or at least they were planned for. Some folks objected to gays having this public recognition. The governor decided that he did not want gays getting this recognition, but since he didn't think he could get away with stopping them legally, due to constitutional equality issues, he banned the whole sign program. So, no one or no group would any longer have the signs.


Now, how can one not consider this an anti-gay action? How can one consider this a really fair and equitable action? Sure, no one now gets a sign. BUt can you really tell me that the action and the change of policy does not amount to a depravation of a right, albeit a small one?


Dianaiad's proposal is not unlike what our governor did. Deprive everyone of a right or status or privilege or at least a designation because of a view which does not want to extend that existing right, status, privilege or designation to a certain group that cannot now enjoy it.

D really has no reason to object that some people might consider this unfair. D also has no reason to jump to the conclusion that this is evidence for some wider nefarious agenda on the part of gay rights supporters, especially as D has not come up with any realistic tangible negative outcome for his or her church or religion or individual rights should gay marriage become legal.


I'll give D points for cleverness in proposing this scheme. But I again say that D's claim that rejection of this scheme represents an admission of a larger agenda is fallacious, and I would suggest the scheme is not so innocent or innocuous as portrayed.



Consider, for example, if a state or local government official or body wanted to do away with the tax exemption for mormon churches because they considered mormons to be an immoral group. Suppose said official or body decided they could get away with this by abolishing tax exempt status for all religious groups.


Would D consider this fair? Would dianaiad not consider this an attack on his or her religion given the history of animosity expressed by the official towards the mormon religion?

[dianaiad]

If I might be so bold as to insert myself, as a fellow debater, into the discussion between dianadad and joey.


To joey, as far as I can see, you are misunderstanding dianaiad's proposal.

D is removing the word "marriage" from the state lexicon, but is allowing anyone to use that word as they see fit. Thus, the word is not reserved for use only by religious groups, or only by religious groups that disapprove of gay marriage. The word "marriage" would no longer have any legal meaning at all. dianaiad can correct me if I am wrong on this.

This does mean, I think it is fair to say, the D's proposal does not amount to trying to reserve the use of the term "marriage" for religious use, or prevent its use for gay marriages. I don't see that you can say D's proposal is an attempt to 'reserve ownership' of the term.




On the other hand, I think it is unfair for D to characterize objection to his or her scheme as evidence of supporters of gay rights wanting to somehow force views or behaviors on those that oppose gay marriage that they don't want. I think one can legitimately consider this scheme as problematical for a number of reasons, one of which at least joey has already brought up.

<snip to end, only for space. i][/quote]

First, thank you for identifying the true nature of my idea.

I read with interest your story regarding the signs...but I submit that it's not the same here: I am not suggesting that all the signs be removed so that nobody can have one. I am suggesting something more like this: everybody still gets to identify themselves as being responsible for part of the road clean up, but they then have to purchase their own signs; the government won't provide them. At the same time, the government can't dictate the size, style or content of the signs, either.

In all honesty, the only reason for objecting to this idea is because the agenda is not as claimed; if all gays wanted were the civil rights current married people have...ALL of them (including the right to get married and call themselves 'married,") then my idea would do that for them. The civil unions would be absolutely available to them--exactly the same as civil unions would be available to everybody else.

Currently, in California, gay couples HAVE exactly the same rights that married couples do. Not 'separate but equal,' the SAME RIGHTS. Yet they still advocate for the use of the word 'marriage."

Why is that? It's because there is a moral stamp of religious and cultural approval that comes with being married. It is the proof that everybody approves of you and thinks that your relationship is sanctioned--not just by the government (the civil union did that!) but by everybody who also shares the condition 'married.' You are approved of. if you are 'married,' "They' HAVE to approve of you. It's the law, whether their religious beliefs allow it or not.

That is the ONLY REASON for insisting upon marriage rather than a civil union which provides the same rights. It is so important to some gay rights activists that they would rather be married than enter into a civil union, even when they LOSE civil rights as a result....and it actually does. There are several states out there that recognize civil unions, but do NOT recognize gay marriages; a married gay California couple moving to one of those states loses rights rather than gains them.

However, by separating the legal contractual part of marriage from the religious/cultural side, we are enabling everyone to have both. It does work...in a way, Europe and England have been doing this for quite some time.

In other words, my idea does not take marriage away from everybody in order to keep a minority from using it. It simply allows everybody to have the rights--AND the marriage--including the societal approval that goes along with it. The only thing it doesn't do is allow gays to force religions to approve of them against thier beliefs.

And yes, it would happen. Santayana was right, y'know; history has proven that if the government has the right to enforce cultural and religious meaning, it WILL. Right now, gays want it to do so; that's why they want marriage rather than civil unions.

It's not just that they want the government to consider them married. It's that, once the government declares them married, it WILL force everybody else to acknowledge it.

And please..don't tell me it won't happen. It has happened--and with a great deal of violence and hardship. It WILL happen. It is, actually, the whole idea.

By the way, what your governor did regarding those signs was wrong.

[micatala]

If I might be so bold as to insert myself, as a fellow debater, into the discussion between dianadad and joey.


To joey, as far as I can see, you are misunderstanding dianaiad's proposal.

D is removing the word "marriage" from the state lexicon, but is allowing anyone to use that word as they see fit. Thus, the word is not reserved for use only by religious groups, or only by religious groups that disapprove of gay marriage. The word "marriage" would no longer have any legal meaning at all. dianaiad can correct me if I am wrong on this.

This does mean, I think it is fair to say, the D's proposal does not amount to trying to reserve the use of the term "marriage" for religious use, or prevent its use for gay marriages. I don't see that you can say D's proposal is an attempt to 'reserve ownership' of the term.




On the other hand, I think it is unfair for D to characterize objection to his or her scheme as evidence of supporters of gay rights wanting to somehow force views or behaviors on those that oppose gay marriage that they don't want. I think one can legitimately consider this scheme as problematical for a number of reasons, one of which at least joey has already brought up.

<snip to end, only for space. >

First, thank you for identifying the true nature of my idea.

I read with interest your story regarding the signs...but I submit that it's not the same here: I am not suggesting that all the signs be removed so that nobody can have one. I am suggesting something more like this: everybody still gets to identify themselves as being responsible for part of the road clean up, but they then have to purchase their own signs; the government won't provide them. At the same time, the government can't dictate the size, style or content of the signs, either.

Fair enough. As with nearly all analogies, it is not perfect.

However, there is still the aspect of the motivation for the change. Even if we allowed people to put up their own signs but make them pay for it, the fact is that the change would be the result of a prejudicial attitude against gays, and the intent would clearly be to express disapproval of gays.

Futhermore, the action is still a decision by the state, which essentially is putting the state stamp of approval on an expression of disapproval towards gays.

I would agree the resulting situation after the change seems to be fair in most meaningful ways, but it is still clear that the motivation and the action that produces the new situation are prejudicial.

In all honesty, the only reason for objecting to this idea is because the agenda is not as claimed; if all gays wanted were the civil rights current married people have...ALL of them (including the right to get married and call themselves 'married,") then my idea would do that for them. The civil unions would be absolutely available to them--exactly the same as civil unions would be available to everybody else.

Currently, in California, gay couples HAVE exactly the same rights that married couples do. Not 'separate but equal,' the SAME RIGHTS. Yet they still advocate for the use of the word 'marriage."

Why is that? It's because there is a moral stamp of religious and cultural approval that comes with being married. It is the proof that everybody approves of you and thinks that your relationship is sanctioned--not just by the government (the civil union did that!) but by everybody who also shares the condition 'married.' You are approved of. if you are 'married,' "They' HAVE to approve of you. It's the law, whether their religious beliefs allow it or not.

I am not following you here. How ordinary citizens feel about anyone else's particular marriage or a whole group of marriages cannot be dicated by the state. I personally disapprove of people like Brittney Spears having a cavalier attitude towards marriage. I can express my disapproval if I wish. What the state thinks about my disapproval and her attitude is and should be irrelevant. The fact that the state sanctioned her 55 hour marriage does not mean I have to approve of it.

I really don't see that your claim that state sanctioning of gay marriage means "everybody approves of you and thinks that your relationship is sanctioned" makes any sense at all.

I would agree one motivation for gay people wanting the word "marriage" is that they don't want to feel like second class citizens. I would agree that if the state sanctions gay marriage, it is more likely that more citizens will have positive attitudes towards these relationships, and fewer will express disapproval of gay relationships.

But any such change in attitudes would be simply a by product of doing what we should do from a legal standpoint; provide equal rights. And it still does not follow that anyone has to change their attitudes towards those relationships.

If you are saying that we should follow your scheme to avoid the result of having more people become persuaded that they should "approve of" gay relationships, than I would say that is a pretty poor rationale for the scheme. And your argument works both ways. If you think state sanction is meaningful, then not allowing state sanction is expressing disapproval. How appropriate is that?

That is the ONLY REASON for insisting upon marriage rather than a civil union which provides the same rights. It is so important to some gay rights activists that they would rather be married than enter into a civil union, even when they LOSE civil rights as a result....and it actually does. There are several states out there that recognize civil unions, but do NOT recognize gay marriages; a married gay California couple moving to one of those states loses rights rather than gains them.

It might be true that ONE reason for insisting on marriage is as you say, but I still do not think you can say it is the only reason.

However, by separating the legal contractual part of marriage from the religious/cultural side, we are enabling everyone to have both. It does work...in a way, Europe and England have been doing this for quite some time.

In other words, my idea does not take marriage away from everybody in order to keep a minority from using it. It simply allows everybody to have the rights--AND the marriage--including the societal approval that goes along with it. The only thing it doesn't do is allow gays to force religions to approve of them against thier beliefs.

I would agree your scheme could result in a situation that could legitimately be considered equitable. If we did implement this, there would still be the problem I raised, though, of a perception that the state is making a negative comment on gay relationships. We could potentially decide to live with that, as in the long run, I think those perceptions would largely go by the wayside after people live with the new situation for a time.

I still am not buying that allowing gay marriage using the existing scheme is forcing religions to approve of them against there beliefs. This is at best a highly hypothetical potential harm.

And yes, it would happen. Santayana was right, y'know; history has proven that if the government has the right to enforce cultural and religious meaning, it WILL. Right now, gays want it to do so; that's why they want marriage rather than civil unions.

It's not just that they want the government to consider them married. It's that, once the government declares them married, it WILL force everybody else to acknowledge it.

And please..don't tell me it won't happen. It has happened--and with a great deal of violence and hardship. It WILL happen. It is, actually, the whole idea.

I tend not to make guarantees, but yes, I am going to tell you it won't happen. You certainly have not provided any evidence it will happen. Perhaps you can provide some of the examples of the government "enforcing cultural and religious meaning" that you are referring to.

Consider that the Catholic Church is still quite free not to allow ordination of women, not to sanction divorces if they choose not to, to expect celibacy of their clergy, to expect their members not to practice certain types of contraception, even to expect their followers to follow certain dietary practices. Especially the first of these would be considered highly discriminatory if practiced by a business.



I would agree that a likely result of allowing gay marriage under the current scheme would be a higher percentage of the population would "approve of" or at least be "tolerant of" gay relationships. I don't see how this translates into any restriction on the freedoms of those who don't approve.

However, I think you should consider that even under your scheme, the same thing is likely to happen anyway. If the word marriage is used more and more to refer to gay relationships, even if the state is not involved in monitoring who applies that term to themselves, people are going to get more comfortable with it.


I also think the debates within churches on the issue will continue under either scheme. Certainly I accept that there has been controversy in a number of denominations over gay marriage, as well as the ordination and service of gay clergy. These can be very contentious and emotional. However, the state stays completely out of these controversies at the present time, and moving to your scheme is thus not likely to have much of an effect on those debates. In fact, it may perhaps make those debates more contentious to the extent that some gay rights supporters within given denominations will seek to have their denomination approve of gay marriage if they perceive the battle has already been "won" at the state level, or at least taken out of the legal arena.

But let's be clear. The debate over "religious approval" of gay marriage is already well under way and is going to continue regardless of what the state decides. We already have churches and denominations splitting over this and similar issues, but the state is certainly not forcing any approval that people do not want to give of gay relationships.

By the way, what your governor did regarding those signs was wrong.

Thanks. While he got a lot of kudos from some people at the time, I think most of the public thought he was being petty and vindictive and pandering to a certain segment of his political support. Fortunately, he is long since gone from the political scene.