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.
I do not disagree that they are married in the eyes of the law and actually said that in my post. But there is more to it than a legal definition, a point on which I acknowledge we disagree.
The debate is about marriage, not one narrow definition of how you determine what is and is not marriage.
It's not my problem that the law uses a word to which you ascribe some sort of deeper, unconnected meaning. That doesn't change the Constitutional promise that all people be treated equally under the laws (including civil marriage law).
Civil marriage is a civil, secular legal construct that creates a joint legal and financial entity endowed with joint rights and responsibilities. That's what it is. The "gay marriage" debate is a debate over whether homosexuals (couples, since the law applies to couples, not individuals) should be treated equally under that civil, secular law.
Quote:
The point is, quite simply, that you cannot change something by giving it a new name.
Civil marriage is defined entirely by the language of civil marriage law. Every time the language is changed, "marriage" is changed. For instance, back in the 60's civil marriage in this country was changed from disallowing interracial couples from getting married to allowing them to get married.
Again, you're conflating religious and civil marriage when they are in fact unrelated, separate things.
IMO, the very BEST thing about homosexual marriage is that NOW, if they choose to go their separate ways, they have to get a DIVORCE, just like the heterosexuals do.
I imagine the fights over the division of community property, alimony, and child support will be fun to watch, IF the media covers them!
Before, if they wanted to "split the sheets", nobody cared. NOW however, THE LAW must be involved, with lawyers, judges, family counseling, the whole incredibly expensive annoying bit!
Yeah, I been through a divorce or two, and I know what it is like! I am very glad that now THEY will have to do the same!
"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!" When you do, you also get all the problems that come with it!
Good luck.
"Civil marriage is a civil, secular legal construct that creates a joint legal and financial entity endowed with joint rights and responsibilities."
If that is so, why are so many people dead set against a "Civil Union" that is NOT called a "marriage", between homosexual couples. The "Civil Union" would have all the rights and privileges of a "marriage", including the necessity of a court dissolving the Union (a "divorce", if you will) but it would not be called a "marriage".
In other words, the only difference would be the TITLE of the union, everything else would be the same.
It's not my problem that the law uses a word to which you ascribe some sort of deeper, unconnected meaning. That doesn't change the Constitutional promise that all people be treated equally under the laws (including civil marriage law).
Civil marriage is a civil, secular legal construct that creates a joint legal and financial entity endowed with joint rights and responsibilities. That's what it is. The "gay marriage" debate is a debate over whether homosexuals (couples, since the law applies to couples, not individuals) should be treated equally under that civil, secular law.
Civil marriage is defined entirely by the language of civil marriage law. Every time the language is changed, "marriage" is changed. For instance, back in the 60's civil marriage in this country was changed from disallowing interracial couples from getting married to allowing them to get married.
Again, you're conflating religious and civil marriage when they are in fact unrelated, separate things.
You are the one who keeps raising "religion." I have not.
You can marry your cat if you wish. Just make sure you make arrangements to transfer all your wealth to him at the time of your death, or he wont have a paw to stand on in court.
It is a she.
I choose not to be gay - even in human-feline relationships.
"Civil marriage is a civil, secular legal construct that creates a joint legal and financial entity endowed with joint rights and responsibilities."
If that is so, why are so many people dead set against a "Civil Union" that is NOT called a "marriage", between homosexual couples. The "Civil Union" would have all the rights and privileges of a "marriage", including the necessity of a court dissolving the Union (a "divorce", if you will) but it would not be called a "marriage".
In other words, the only difference would be the TITLE of the union, everything else would be the same.
It's the anti-gay marriage folks who are caught up in the TITLE. They so want the title of "Marriage" unto themselves, they don't want to share it with gay people.
Personally, I don't care one way or another what the law is called. The Constitution promises equal treatment under the law (not a set of parallel laws that each discriminate against a "competing" segment of society, but in the end somehow balance out). If the law is called marriage, then I want gay marriage. If the law is called civil union, then I want gay civil union. If the law is called eaglkjdi, then I want gay eaglkjdi.
You are the one who keeps raising "religion." I have not.
So, are they parents or not?
You edited you post to add the hypothetical after I responded. And if not from religion, where are you attitudes about the inherent nature of marriage - regardless of any civil law - coming from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield
Second, imagine this hypothetical for a moment. Suppose a law were passed that said that adoptive parents who were homosexual could not keep their children, and we're not eligible to be parents. (This is merely a hypothetical and NOT something I would advocate.) Let us further suppose that two gay parents and their children escaped somewhere where they lived in isolation, but still within the jurisdiction of this law, and there they continued to raise their children.
Would they still be the children's parents, or would they not because the law said they weren't? Are they defined by who and what they are, or are they defined by what the law says they are?
You're describing the problem of letting marriage laws discriminate against gay people. And it's something that absolutely has arisen and has wrecked great havoc in the lives of gay families. You're making the case for gay marriage by bringing up this hypothetical.
My thoughts are this: any marriage or marriage-type law in the US that bans homosexuals is unconstitutional. If a state decides to have a marriage law (which all 50 do), then that state cannot constitutionally say that heterosexuals can access the law but homosexuals can't.
It's the anti-gay marriage folks who are caught up in the TITLE. They so want the title of "Marriage" unto themselves, they don't want to share it with gay people.
Personally, I don't care one way or another what the law is called. The Constitution promises equal treatment under the law (not a set of parallel laws that each discriminate against a "competing" segment of society, but in the end somehow balance out). If the law is called marriage, then I want gay marriage. If the law is called civil union, then I want gay civil union. If the law is called eaglkjdi, then I want gay eaglkjdi.
So, it isn't EQUALITY you are interested in, it is the access to the TITLE!
Thank you for making that very clear.
The answer is for for the government to not recognize religious "marriage" . It is simply a proxy for the legal contract it now represents.
Each state should have its own laws regarding legal partnership contracts. If a couple chooses to also make a vow to God in a church, that is independent of their legal contract. The church should have the right to marry who they want to marry. Gays want acceptance into an organization that doesn't want them.
Maybe law firms specializing in legal contracts would be better suited today. Couples could choose a contract that suits them best. Instead of "until death do us part", it might make more sense to sign up for 25 years with an option to renew. Standard pre-nups with penalty clauses for breaking the rules. Too many shoes? Penalty clause. Too much football? Penalty clause!
My wife and I are married (church) and I wouldn't change anything about her. I accept her - that is part of the deal.
Kids today have been socialized differently. My kids were raised fairly traditional. Now as young adults they find they are the exception rather than the rule. My girls had a very hard time finding young men who understand the commitment and hard work required to stay married a lifetime. It requires sacrifice and discipline which is missing from a society who demands instant gratification.
So, it isn't EQUALITY you are interested in, it is the access to the TITLE!
Thank you for making that very clear.
Huh? Did you not read my post? Equality and equal treatment under the law is exactly what I'm interested in.
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.
