Should the Church marry people of the same sex ?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork

Also you were talking about the difference between "civil unions" and "civil ceremonies"... All I want to say about that, is that when I first started having thoughts about gay marriage some decades ago, I thought that the notion of "domestic partnership" or whatever should be good enough, but it ISN'T. Not from a "marriage as a thing the government is involved in" perspective.

My husband and I wanted to get him on my health insurance so that he could retire a little early, because we were going to move to AZ and he was going to be caring for his father. He wasn't yet eligible for Medicare. I wanted to put him on my coverage at open enrollment with an effective date of 1/1/20 although we weren't planning our wedding until July of 2020. So I figured I could get him on there as a "domestic partner" in the meantime. I did that, only to find much to my dismay, that the premiums for him were TAXABLE. Not only the premiums that I pay, but the portion (much higher) that my employer pays, which became "imputed income" on my pay statements, and I had to pay income tax on those amounts.

The effect of this was that I had to pay over $200/month in additional tax for the first 7 months of 2020, until I could use the life event mechanism to change him to my spouse on my health insurance, at which point the premiums were non-taxable, as health insurance premiums generally are.

So these things are not the same.

My position has always been that the government doesn't have any business disincentivizing gay marriage, or in fact any form of committed union between two people who want the rights, obligations and benefits that the state conveys to spouses. I would even say that there should be a means by which a sibling who is a caregiver for a disabled sibling can...not "marry"...but commit to the relationship in such a manner that they can put them on their insurance and have all of the other tax, estate, medical, property protections and obligations and so forth. We do not have to call that "marriage," I don't care what we call it, but the state should let adults do these contracts. That is the business end of the thing and I believe it should be available to any two consenting adults. Possibly even to MORE than two consenting adults (the non monogamists sure have thoughts on this) but I think that could cause some pretty big messes in the court system when it comes to divorce, custody of kids, estate stuff, etc. - so that is a more complex conversation and I don't think that we're ready for it.

But I absolutely do not believe that any church should be compelled to marry anybody. Not only should they not be forced to marry gay people, if a Catholic church wants to refuse to marry an atheist couple, that's their business. There is a certain "membership" component to churches. They just have to accept that they're not the only game in town. Which, I know, is hard for an organization that has pursued a "conform or die and be tortured for eternity" platform for only the whole of its existence, but that's their problem.

I don't want to live in a nation where the government enforces a state religion on its citizens. Thankfully the US was founded on the idea of religious freedom, which is freedom of and FROM religion, and specifically from a state mandated religion. No king, no combined head of the State & Church. None of that old world stuff. And I would say that if we've got citizens here who crave that sort of thing, perhaps they should be looking to move to a country where they do that, as such do exist in the world.

I have no disagreement with any of this and that is the kind of thing I was getting at with the difference between civil union and civil marriage. It extends to a lot of little things too ... whether or not you are on the short list of people who can visit your partner in-hospital, or make healthcare decisions when they are incapacitated. Yes you can use a health care power of attorney to give the decision making itself to anyone you wish, but it may be hard to actually use if it's not properly registered with the hospital or hospital system in advance, etc., might be problematic if you're not in-country, etc.

[Sonic_Spork]

Originally Posted by mordant

I have no disagreement with any of this and that is the kind of thing I was getting at with the difference between civil union and civil marriage. It extends to a lot of little things too ... whether or not you are on the short list of people who can visit your partner in-hospital, or make healthcare decisions when they are incapacitated. Yes you can use a health care power of attorney to give the decision making itself to anyone you wish, but it may be hard to actually use if it's not properly registered with the hospital or hospital system in advance, etc., might be problematic if you're not in-country, etc.

Yep.

And some may think that all of the elements of legal marriage are available without it, but they're not. There are Social Security benefits that are only available to spouses for instance. And hoo buddy if the military is involved... A single soldier may have to live in the barracks. A married one will be allowed to rent or buy a home off post to live in with his family. The married soldier literally gets paid more (in terms of housing allowance and other stipends and benefits.)

So only SOME of the things that come bundled with legal marriage are doable by other means (with more hassle and expense)...not even all of them.

I don't think that it's really a huge deal what the State decides to call it, but the contract that it offers to married people with ALL associated rights, duties, obligations, benefits and effects...yeah, I believe that's what must be offered to any consenting adults in an equal way.

You were right about the other thing too, why would anyone wish to have their wedding ceremony in a place and officiated by a person who was opposed to doing it? I think that the only time this becomes a problem (as it has) is when someone in some aspect of the wedding business fails to disclose up front that they don't do gay weddings and then the couple engages their services...only to find this out halfway through the process in a way that messes up their event planning. Sometimes after they paid a possibly large deposit, which then they have to fight over whether it gets returned or not. Those conflicts HAVE occurred.

So perhaps those entities that wish to discriminate should be required to disclose such upon first contact with any prospective clients, in order to not be civilly liable for causing these kinds of problems. I know why they wouldn't want to, though...putting "we don't marry gays" in the promotional literature would certainly limit their clientele. I know a whole lot of straight couples who wouldn't support that.

Which kinda gets to the point with churches though...if the majority of society shifts their thinking to acceptance of something that the church has traditionally condemned, then the church has to choose to keep up, or to dig in their heels and watch their congregations get older and more sparse. I know a certain Pope has decided which way he wants to go with this.

[webster]

One benefit of marriage is the ability to have status in wrongful death claims. This extends to family members, but in most states not to unmarried partners, whether gay or straight. Another benefit is housing. Unmarried partners are not considered a single household but are evaluated separately for tax credits and cost sharing reductions; in some states this means two insurance polices for health care, rather than one. Property rights do not extend to unmarried couples and it gets complex after that, are they joint tenants or tenants in common? Inheritance laws get even more complex.

It gets even more confusing state by state. Some states are “No Rights” states without marriage; for example: Alabama. Some are "Some Rights" states like VA; some are "All In" states like CT, NV.