Same Sex Partnership Rights (illegal, radical, Barack Obama, illegal immigration)
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.
Marriage is a religious ceremony for a man and a woman to form a covenant before God. I am against Government being in the marriage arrangement. However, a civil union should be the function that government endorses for legal purposes. That should be open to any consenting couple of legal age.
Yet the gov't has to issue a marriage license before those religions can do a ceremony. The fact that the gov't does issue a marriage license makes it a civil right. And since gov't issues those marriage license no one religious belief should dictate which citizens get issued a marriage license because of the separation of church and state.
2. This issue is generally left to the states, and there are wild variations in the rights that states give.
No amendment is necessary. The US Constitution does not ban gay marriage. This is why Bush and the right wing nazis want to get an amendment banning gay marriage. This is why Clinton was forced to sign the DOMA.
whats the big deal with gay people wanting to get married!! its like marriage is suppose to be some cure all or something, look at how many hetero people get divorced. so jus because you gay you think the marriage is going to last longer, infact you'll prolly have way more problems than married people, money, kids, sex, in-laws, work, personal issues, no disrespect but i would be totally embarrassed if i was kid growing up with 2 dads or 2 moms especially i actually played sports in high school and thats just a nghtmare, and laughing stock of the school, every kid is not going to be cool with not having a choice of having a traditional family or a gay family!! i jus dont understand y gays are so adement about getting married!!!
Sorry if i offended anyone
whats the big deal with gay people wanting to get married!! its like marriage is suppose to be some cure all or something, look at how many hetero people get divorced. so jus because you gay you think the marriage is going to last longer, infact you'll prolly have way more problems than married people, money, kids, sex, in-laws, work, personal issues, no disrespect but i would be totally embarrassed if i was kid growing up with 2 dads or 2 moms especially i actually played sports in high school and thats just a nghtmare, and laughing stock of the school, every kid is not going to be cool with not having a choice of having a traditional family or a gay family!! i jus dont understand y gays are so adement about getting married!!!
Sorry if i offended anyone
2. This issue is generally left to the states, and there are wild variations in the rights that states give.
The constitution needs no improvements, it only needs to be fully realized and applied equally. There are no second class citizens (nor star bellied sneeches) in the USA. There are only citizens.
Tallrick- Yes and No.
I certainly agree the church and state need to part company, because that has always been a problem sneaking in back doors causing strife. What the US gov't does, or how an economy fails, is not a reflection of any church doctrine, nor is it 'God's fault'. "In mea culpa we trust" sound good to you? ROFL
Can we all agree on that part? Separation of Church and State was a very wise guide to adhere (preserving the 'purity' of both)?
Constitutionally the gov't cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This war is already won on merit unless people mean to destroy the USA to suit their religion. I think those folks need to go before things get uglier than they've already made them. 'Thou shalt not kill' by any other hate crime name stinks as badly.
Religious institutions claiming they cannot accept gays as members due to their interpretation of the bible should be free to do so. Churches who interpret otherwise should be free to accept them. As things stand even pagans are short shrift from having their ceremonies legally recognized. Where is religious freedom if any faith is allowed to be denied?
Presumption on the part of Christians is that they have proprietary rights over the word marriage. Isn't that like claiming god invented the internet and is owed royalties? Marriage predates recorded history and if chinese outnumber everyone, should their popular vote decide what will be your new version of Adam and Eve? Vedic sanskrit predates jews? Tibetan sanskrit predates all? Wait wait- I've just had a spiritual epiphany that says my faith predates everyone because I was the gleam in gods parents eye. See how nutty this chicken/egg gets in a hurry?
Should it truly be spiritually based, can't hetero's call their coupling holy matrimony? I believe that's the traditional term for Christian unions but I'm unclear whether that was my specific denomination only. It's obvious to me that hetero unions and homo unions are different based on nomenclature, but I have no evidence to know the difference beyond that point.
Yes I do recognize and honor hetero union commitments, but why are you asking me (impartial 3rd party) to judge whose union is more meaningful? Why on earth have you made this a competition??? The unions are meaningful to the parties vested and are as viable as they are committed. I cannot break a promise you've made. Nothing I say, do, or judge should have any relevance. You do not need my permission to love another human being. I do NOT want that responsibility. I prefer you keep it.
The heart of the matter is something that will distress people when they get to the root of their feelings honestly. Where was your outrage and multi million dollar campaign when Carmen Electra and Denis Rodman, on some bizarre drunken escapade, got MARRIED in vegas? When your preacher is a cartoon character and you're calling that marriage, not an utterance out of the religious for defiling sanctity? Pope didn't roll his eyes? Religious didn't scream their heads off when shotgun weddings were a forced march for centuries. Hetero marriages all over the country did not suddenly doubt the promises made and kept when someone they didn't like as celebrity got married. Someone else getting married 7 times is now a reflection of your marriage?
No, this isn't a question about violating the precious word marriage. That argument isn't truthful. Tell the truth and a real discussion can take place so respect for all parties remains. The truth is ugly and scary and needs to be said out loud. Out with it!
I don't consider that a problem. There are PLENTY of people who stay together & decide not to get married. According to you, it's the same thing, no? I'll give a little frivolous example but it explains my point: I do believe Goldie Hawn & Kurt Russell have been together for I think 12 years...that's in Hollywood, a death sentence if ever....do you think they should go w/out benefits that people who meet, get married after a month & get divorced after a year receive? All in the name of the almight word of "marriage"? I think not.
Well Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel are celebrites and rich so...they don't have to worry much about health care or if someone in the hospital will let them make medical decisions for one another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
Because "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman, therefore an union of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman), cannot be "marriage."
However, local governments (States) can very well enact laws so homosexual couples can have the benefits married (heterosexual) couples do. Take Alaska, for example, where State employees (couples), regardless of sex, receive such benefits. The only problem is that unmarried (shacking up) heterosexual couples can also receive the same benefits. The couples have to prove that they live together.
The only problem I see with that is if SOME local governments don't give those rights, imagine a same-sex couples going out of state for al little vacation and one of them gets hurt. They go to the hospital and the nurses and doctors won't let the partner make medical decisions for the one who is hurt. I've heard this story countless times. Quite sad.
Yet the gov't has to issue a marriage license before those religions can do a ceremony. The fact that the gov't does issue a marriage license makes it a civil right. And since gov't issues those marriage license no one religious belief should dictate which citizens get issued a marriage license because of the separation of church and state.
Are you SURE the government HAS to issue a license before a ceremony can be done?
I've known same-sex couples to have a ceremony performed in a church before and they didn't live in any of the states that have civil unions or same-sex marriage.
I agree with what you're saying though, "And since the gov't issues those marriage license no one religious belief should dictate what citizens get issued a marriage license because of the separation of church and state."
Marriage is a religious ceremony for a man and a woman to form a covenant before God. I am against Government being in the marriage arrangement. However, a civil union should be the function that government endorses for legal purposes. That should be open to any consenting couple of legal age.
This is where you are exactly wrong. Marriage is not a religious ceremony. If it were, then people could not get married at the justice of the peace office, wholly without any religious ceremony, and yet this happens every day.
If, however, you are suggesting that the term "marriage" should be confined to those who are married in a religious ceremony, where that marriage is considered a "sacrement", and all others should have civil unions rather than marriage, I will not disagree with you. That would mean that my friends, gay couples married in our local Unitarian Church, by our Unitarian Pastor, are married, and those "straight" couples, joined in a civil service in Las Vegas, are NOT married. That, is fair, and something that I would fully support, all actual "rights", under the law, being equal.
Are you SURE the government HAS to issue a license before a ceremony can be done?
I've known same-sex couples to have a ceremony performed in a church before and they didn't live in any of the states that have civil unions or same-sex marriage.
I agree with what you're saying though, "And since the gov't issues those marriage license no one religious belief should dictate what citizens get issued a marriage license because of the separation of church and state."
Sure anyone can get married in the church if the church is willing, I've known gay couples who do this to, but it is NOT recognized by the gov't. Its just a ceremony.
Marriage is a religious ceremony for a man and a woman to form a covenant before God. I am against Government being in the marriage arrangement. However, a civil union should be the function that government endorses for legal purposes. That should be open to any consenting couple of legal age.
If it is a religious ceremony, why can you get married at the court house by the Justice of the Peace? The Captain of a ship can perform a ceremony.
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.
