Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is for both sides of the issue... if the government completely got out of the business of marraige and all anyone could get was a civil contract, and if that civil contract covered any two consenting adults, including same sex couples. BUT you couldn't get "married" by the government. To be "married, you'd have to go to a church that would sanction your marriage, but it wouldn't be a legally binding institution, it'd be strictly spiritual. Which would mean that if you were a same sex couple and you wanted the label "married" you'd have to find a church that accepted that... BUT that label wouldn't give you legal anything. To get all the legal benefits of what we call marraige today, you'd have to have a civil union which would just be a contract.
Would either side be ok with this?
My boyfriend and I have been discussing this, because we both believe that the government should NOT be in the marriage business. My thought is that neither side would be ok with this separation though because there are already several states that allow for "civil unions" that give same sex (and opposite sex) couples all the same legal rights as a married couple, but most gay rights activists aren't happy with the civil union route.
So I was wondering what you all thought of this idea? Could both sides agree to something like this?
If the government should not be in the marriage business, then it shouldn't be in the divorce business either, should it?
Ever been married according to the Roman Catholic Rite and then tried to get a divorce through the Church?
I think you have it backwards.
When two "married" people want to get a divorce, they go to a legal, CIVIL court.
Marriage is a civil contract between two people. Priests, ministers, pastors, etc. act as licensed agents of their particular states to perform marriages. If only a state can legally dissolve a marriage, then it should be the state, and only the state the one to issue the contract.
So, the way I look at it, only marriages performed by the state should have standing in a court of law.
Then, IF people want to get married in a religious ceremony they can do so. If priests, ministers, pastors, etc don't want to perform the religious ceremony for homosexuals, mixed race, agnostics, heretics or people who do not completely adhere to their particular religious beliefs, then, they don't have to. Churches are like social clubs: they don't have to make you feel welcome if they don't want to.
A Catholic Church is going to refuse to marry gay couples. We both know that.
The Catholic Church has deep pockets and any lawsuit against them is going to be for big money and big attention.
I believe that the law is going to have to be specific that guarantees a church's right to refuse to marry them.
Huh? Gay marriage has nothing to do with churches or religion or religious marriages. It has only to do with CIVIL marriage contracts. The Catholic Church is free to marry or not marry any two people (or multiple people, or people and objects) as it sees fit. Allowing gay people to contract civil marriages has nothing whatsoever to do with marriages within the Catholic Church (or any religious institution).
Again, on what grounds would the Catholic Church (or any other church/temple/mosque/synagogue/coven) be sued???
If the government should not be in the marriage business, then it shouldn't be in the divorce business either, should it?
I don't think it should be as difficult to get a divorce as it is. It's much easier to get married, than to divorce, which should be the opposite... but really, as far as the government goes, they should only be in the contract part of a marraige.
Quote:
So, the way I look at it, only marriages performed by the state should have standing in a court of law.
Then, IF people want to get married in a religious ceremony they can do so. If priests, ministers, pastors, etc don't want to perform the religious ceremony for homosexuals, mixed race, agnostics, heretics or people who do not completely adhere to their particular religious beliefs, then, they don't have to. Churches are like social clubs: they don't have to make you feel welcome if they don't want to.
well, i think it's silly because firstly, many straight couples, including my paretns got married in courthouse, NOT a church (like a civil union) yet they refer to themselves as being married.
I'm gay and if i got a courthouse civil union, it would simply tell people i'm married like my parents do.
Also, my church is FOR gay marriage. they perform gay ceremonies already, so I would ALSO be able to have a church wedding as well.. thusly making me 'married' in a CHURCH sense and ALSO a civil marriage sense.
Getting married in a courthouse is the same as getting married in a church, legally.. it is not, however the same as a civil union.
For example, in NV we have "Domestic Partnerships". They are legally binding contracts, signed by two consenting adults, paid for and sent to the Secretary of state. You have all the legal rights and responsibilities as a married couple. It does not have to be signed by anyone in the state, it's mostly just a "registration", to let the state know that you have this legal partnership. And to terminate the partnership there is a small fee and both parties need to sign the termination.
Whereas in a marriage there is an officially signed certificate of marraige in the state records... and that is something you have whether your marriage was officiated by a judge or a religious leader (ie. priest, minister, shaman).
Again, on what grounds would the Catholic Church (or any other church/temple/mosque/synagogue/coven) be sued???
On the same grounds that the Boy Scouts were sued to allow gays to be leaders of troops. It will be seen as "discrimination" rather than "religious freedom".
If the government should not be in the marriage business, then it shouldn't be in the divorce business either, should it?
Ever been married according to the Roman Catholic Rite and then tried to get a divorce through the Church?
I think you have it backwards.
When two "married" people want to get a divorce, they go to a legal, CIVIL court.
Marriage is a civil contract between two people. Priests, ministers, pastors, etc. act as licensed agents of their particular states to perform marriages. If only a state can legally dissolve a marriage, then it should be the state, and only the state the one to issue the contract.
So, the way I look at it, only marriages performed by the state should have standing in a court of law.
Then, IF people want to get married in a religious ceremony they can do so. If priests, ministers, pastors, etc don't want to perform the religious ceremony for homosexuals, mixed race, agnostics, heretics or people who do not completely adhere to their particular religious beliefs, then, they don't have to. Churches are like social clubs: they don't have to make you feel welcome if they don't want to.
Marriage is a civil contract only b/c the State decided to recognize a religious ceremony as a civic contract.
It makes as much sense as the State recognizing a Bar Mitzah or Confirmation as grounds for issuing a driver's license or allowing someone to vote.
On the same grounds that the Boy Scouts were sued to allow gays to be leaders of troops. It will be seen as "discrimination" rather than "religious freedom".
The Boy Scouts were sued because they were using public property for their activities. Apples and oranges.
How many Jews or atheists have sued the Catholic Church because they couldn't get married there? That is a better indicator of how many gay people would sue.
Even if your supposed lawsuit was a valid concern (which I don't believe), why would that be a good enough reason to keep gay people from being married? People and organizations get sued all the time for valid and completely ridiculous reasons, that doesn't mean that we get to keep entire groups of people from being treated equally under the law.
On the same grounds that the Boy Scouts were sued to allow gays to be leaders of troops. It will be seen as "discrimination" rather than "religious freedom".
Aren't there 6 states that have civil gay marriage. Have you heard of any lawsuits against the Catholic church or other religious institution forcing them to marry a gay couple ?
On the same grounds that the Boy Scouts were sued to allow gays to be leaders of troops. It will be seen as "discrimination" rather than "religious freedom".
That hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen.
That hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen.
Honestly, your fear of gays makes me chuckle.
LOL. And your utter ignorance of who I am makes me chuckle. I don't fear gays at all, LOL. But whatever. The thing that I'm concerned about is that the activists won't be satisfied with this very simple solution of the government getting out of marriages all together.
Someone else did bring up a good point, that there hasn't been lawsuits in states that already have civil unions. If this is the case then that would prove the point. However I do seem to remember something about that actually happening. I will have to Google it to be sure.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
