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?

[FrostyM288]

Some people might say that marriage is a religious matter and should be left completely up to the churches. I feel this isn't the case because marriage is so pervasive in society now a days that it can fall under governmental jurisdiction.

A parallel to this is how Kleenex wanted to trademark their name "Kleenex" but asked about it too late. By that time the name was pervasive in all tissue products and the government said no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Marital status is too interwoven into the government already (forms, taxes, healthcare, etc) to remove them all. I would say that, if people feel that marriage is outside government, then everything related to marriage should be changed to "Civil Union". So, when you check you do your taxes, you check your "civil union status" instead of "marital status".

Now assuming, government should have control over marriage, they should allow gay marriage. Most talk against gay marriage consist of how it will be hurtful for the kids and promotes sex-filled lifestyles and other non traditional family values.

Even if these associations were true, I don't feel the government has the right to disallow certain marriages because of them. If it were found that marriages below the age of 21 resulted in worse marriages and families, would you think that the government should disallow marriages until that age?

[Kuan]

Whether or not this is the case, do you feel the government should have any control on who can/not marry whom?

No, the government should stay out of marriage unless there is some type of proven negative effect that a action could have.

If so, do you feel the government should allow or disallow gay marriage?

Allow.

[Kuan]

Some people might say that marriage is a religious matter and should be left completely up to the churches. I feel this isn't the case because marriage is so pervasive in society now a days that it can fall under governmental jurisdiction.

I think it is a religious term, it would be best to replace it.

Marital status is too interwoven into the government already (forms, taxes, healthcare, etc) to remove them all. I would say that, if people feel that marriage is outside government, then everything related to marriage should be changed to "Civil Union". So, when you check you do your taxes, you check your "civil union status" instead of "marital status".

Exactly, it is interwoven. I think we should just use the term civil union for everyone. Give everyone the same rights and benefits that come with marriage.

Now assuming, government should have control over marriage, they should allow gay marriage. Most talk against gay marriage consist of how it will be hurtful for the kids and promotes sex-filled lifestyles and other non traditional family values.

Non-traditional doesn't mean it is evil. I'm no expert but to claim that gay marriage has a negative effect is just an attempt to justify a position that is losing.

Even if these associations were true, I don't feel the government has the right to disallow certain marriages because of them. If it were found that marriages below the age of 21 resulted in worse marriages and families, would you think that the government should disallow marriages until that age?

Well, on average most people don't get married until after 21. Unless your in Mormon culture, that's completely different. If they can prove that marriages below the age of 21 have harmful effects, I would not mind considering the government making a law so that you can get married after 21.

[FrostyM288]

The last statement was more rhetorical. Meant it as "if you feel gay marriage should be disallowed because it is bad, then you would also agree with this circumstance as well".

It was to get to the foundation of the anti-gay marriage notion that government can say you can't do something because some people believe there is a vague correlation between gay marriage and something bad.

(Though I believe if there's a well supported scientifically backed causation relationship to something obviously dangerous, then the gov't can butt in *cough* global warming)

[Lux]

The thing with marriage being a religious institution is a problem of semantics. In any case, I don't recall many churches complaining about the government using marriage as a legal term until they thought they could claim supremacy over it in order to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

The fact of the matter is "marriage" has become a legal status. If religious institutions don't want to perform religious weddings for same-sex couples, I agree they should not in any way be pressed to. But as far as legal marriage goes, it is entirely the government's jurisdiction. And I don't think there is any reason for the government to forbid two consenting adults from getting married.

[Kuan]

The thing with marriage being a religious institution is a problem of semantics. In any case, I don't recall many churches complaining about the government using marriage as a legal term until they thought they could claim supremacy over it in order to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

The fact of the matter is "marriage" has become a legal status. If religious institutions don't want to perform religious weddings for same-sex couples, I agree they should not in any way be pressed to. But as far as legal marriage goes, it is entirely the government's jurisdiction. And I don't think there is any reason for the government to forbid two consenting adults from getting married.

I would agree that marriage is just a term we use to express something, it has become a legal status. I would completley agree, but there will need to be compromises and a civil union term instead is perfectly fine. Its the exact same thing, just a different way of saying it. If this is all the other side wants, fine, give it to them. It is just a term, why does whether it is a marriage or civil union matter, if both sides get the same treatment and same perks.

[Lux]

I would agree that marriage is just a term we use to express something, it has become a legal status. I would completley agree, but there will need to be compromises and a civil union term instead is perfectly fine. Its the exact same thing, just a different way of saying it. If this is all the other side wants, fine, give it to them. It is just a term, why does whether it is a marriage or civil union matter, if both sides get the same treatment and same perks.

In some countries, civil unions allow different rights than marriage. Plus, it seems to be a case of separate but equal. If they were advocating for calling all legal marriages civil unions and leave 'marriage' as a religious term, I would consider that more valid, but they're trying to do it only for same-sex couples. Religious institutions don't have a say in what marriage is or is not anymore, save for the religious marriages within their own churches.

[Kuan]

I would agree that marriage is just a term we use to express something, it has become a legal status. I would completley agree, but there will need to be compromises and a civil union term instead is perfectly fine. Its the exact same thing, just a different way of saying it. If this is all the other side wants, fine, give it to them. It is just a term, why does whether it is a marriage or civil union matter, if both sides get the same treatment and same perks.

In some countries, civil unions allow different rights than marriage. Plus, it seems to be a case of separate but equal. If they were advocating for calling all legal marriages civil unions and leave 'marriage' as a religious term, I would consider that more valid, but they're trying to do it only for same-sex couples. Religious institutions don't have a say in what marriage is or is not anymore, save for the religious marriages within their own churches.

All I am advocating is to get rid of marriage as a legal term, let the religious have it. Instead, give everyone a civil union. If they want to perform a separate ceremony in their own religious ways, that is perfectly fine.

[Lux]

All I am advocating is to get rid of marriage as a legal term, let the religious have it. Instead, give everyone a civil union. If they want to perform a separate ceremony in their own religious ways, that is perfectly fine.

I don't personally have a problem with that- if we all decided to rename wallets 'dlagles' they would still be small folding cases used to carry money and credit cards.

However, I do not see the point. And seeing as the issue with the word marriage only arose when gay marriage became a realistic possibility, it seems clear as water to me that it's not marriage used as a legal term they object to, it's marriage applied to homosexuals that is bothering them. I questions the necessity to make a fuss over a semantics issue in order to indulge a few churches with their desire to interfere in state affairs, but I'll agree it's not a huge concession anyway.