I've been saying the same thing lately. Let "marriage" be something that happens in a church and let the government only recognize civil unions.

The arguments of traditional definition disappear. "God" is out of the equation. The laws surrounding marriage/union are greatly simplified and the blame for all the bigotry and backwardness is put squarely where it should be... back on the religious fundamentalists.

a fist, a ring, gay marriage... how long before we see the obvious photoshop?

In a democracy which has granted a financial privilege to a large majority you can pretty well expect that it will not be repealed. Unfortunately expansion of the privilege is the only plausible way forward.

Add this to the list with "taxing churches" of things that make obvious sense but will never happen.

It's not just about the word. There's end of life and inheritance and child custody issues involved.

^Yes, but I believe a 'civil union' is identical to marriage in those respects.

>> ^dgandhi:
In a democracy which has granted a financial privilege to a large majority you can pretty well expect that it will not be repealed. Unfortunately expansion of the privilege is the only plausible way forward.
Add this to the list with "taxing churches" of things that make obvious sense but will never happen.


Well, first we're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic, so whether or not a majority is given privilege or not, to me, is not so important. In fact, I don't understand why we think once a law has been set into motion that it cannot be repealed or changed, especially an unconstitutional one.

The bottom line is that marriage remains a religious institution, and therefore government shouldn't recognize it. I think the movement for equal rights in marriage would take a large step forward if the argument was more about challenging the constitutionality of it as opposed to making it equal.

There are better ways to deal with end of life and inheritance, as well. It's called a Will. And child custody has little to nothing to do with marriage, I think.

Yeah, I'm sure people would have less of an issue with making all marriage unconstitutional, rather than just letting gay people marry eachother.

uggh

There are differences between "marriage" and "domestic partnerships/civil unions" in California. And, even if you live in a state that allows same-sex marriage, with DOMA still in place, there are a lot of federal differences.


Here's the factcheck on the differences:
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html


And this is from Wiki:
---
Differences from Marriage

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
* California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3]

It still remains that if marriage is a religious institution, then it would be unconstitutional for the government to honor it with tax incentives, etc.

I don't know where the derision is coming from. I'm on your side, volumpy-pumpy. I don't care for bigotry, and I don't understand why anyone should or could take issue with two people loving each other regardless of sexual orientation. I think it's ridiculous to treat anyone differently for any reason... especially the government which is supposed to be representative of all of us.

I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.

I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.

I do support the idea of states deciding more about what they want as a state in MANY issues. I like the idea of having options. Perhaps I like a larger more involved government, perhaps I like one that stays out of things... it would be nice to be able to pick a state based on more than just weather and if their's a beach.

I don't think the constitution clearly defines marriage well enough to say homosexuals can't do it. I think that's the end of the story for now. The laws will get made and killed and made and killed until either there is a constitutional amendment or people give up. Any attempt to abolish the incentives to marriage would have about a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Think of how many people are married... voters all.

People can have their opinions as to whether or not they approve of homosexual marriage, but unless there is significant evidence that it is negative and destructive, disapproval does not always justify illegality.

Anyway, "marriage" is just a name the government has maintained to refer to a (hopefully permanent) monogamous relationship. This institution will remain, in America at least, for longer than any one of us will live... and likely until this country dissolves or reorganizes. The NAME of it may change, but the institution will remain. The reasons for this are simple. Children and health. The vast majority of studies out there conclude that divorce damages the lives of children. Monogamous parents in general, produce better families assuming they don't hate each other's guts... that's necessary gray area for divorce.

As for health, I imagine anyone who is reading this knows enough to deduce that sex with one individual instead of many almost eliminates the chances of STDs passing on. If every single person chose one and only one mate, STD viruses (as well as some bacteria) would be virtually eliminated in two generations... with the exception of drug users and very unfortunate transfusion recipients.

>> ^blankfist:
In fact, I don't understand why we think once a law has been set into motion that it cannot be repealed or changed, especially an unconstitutional one.

Largely because it does not happen, unless said law becomes unpopular.

You are right on all count on the how and why it should be changed, I have made the argument myself of what SHOULD happen many times. I am not under any illusion that it will, and I think pointing out the obviousness of that should be part of the discussion.

Prop 8 ,if applied consistently, would outlaw the issuing of marriage certificates by the state of California, but there is no way in hell the SCOC is going to rule that way.

Is that a real promotional poster? They're breaking out the raised fist on a red background for support of gay marriage?

Seems like it evokes something more radical than the issue calls for.

Two crossed swords seems more apropos.

As for the superior equality in the idea of turning marriage over to private institutions, I think you need to find a way for people to establish the same sort of legally and culturally recognized benefits and consequences of such a union with the same sort of ease and universally understood way.

A lot of the fight I'd have with this "government only recognizes purely secular civil unions" idea is that there's a whole set of nomenclature that's used in our culture, like wedding, marriage, husband, wife, divorce, etc. If churches anywhere put up a legal fight about whether gay people can use those words in reference to their marriages, the churches need to be ground under the fashionable designer heels of the gay agenda.

I do think there's something to the question of why then you would have to limit yourself to only one "civil union" at a time...but I guess my innocently non-religious answer would be "why limit it?" If people want to get themselves into that kind of situation, more power to 'em.

In blankfist's case we'd also have to worry about pig marriage, but I suppose if he can find one that the courts feel is capable of giving consent, more power to him, too.

aye, eventually, you should would have to address multiple unions, because monogamy isn't natural, nor does it have to be the norm... but you would really need to be willing to work out the kinks... hypotheticals and slippery slope arguing wont go away until you try... so keep petitioning the government for what is right: the right to choose to pursue what makes you happy.

maybe someone should write that down somewhere and make it like, part of the rules of the country.

>> ^volumptuous:
I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.
I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.


Funny, I don't know a single married couple who wasn't married in a church.

>> ^poolcleaner:

Funny, I don't know a single married couple who wasn't married in a church.



I wasn't married in a church.

Unfortunately there was a prayer included, but only for her parents since they were paying for most of it. The rest of the ceremony was purely secular and was held outdoors at an upscale local inn in the mountains.


As far as whether the government should give benefits to married people, I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe that giving those benefits to people helps the society as a whole. It's nice that I can add my wife to my military health insurance, though that doesn't mean it necessarily helps the country. I haven't looked into it that deeply, so I don't really have an opinion on marriage's benefit to society overall.

On the current issue, I cannot see any valid argument for only allowing dual-sex unions (other than religious arguments, which I don't care about).

something else i like to mention in discussions like this.

marriage licenses were issued in the US to prevent interracial marriage.

that's why it's a license, as with driving, implying a privilege instead a right.
instead of a certificate, like your birth record is.

>> ^my15minutes:
something else i like to mention in discussions like this.
marriage licenses were issued in the US to prevent interracial marriage.
that's why it's a license, as with driving, implying a privilege instead a right.
instead of a certificate, like your birth record is.


What!! You must mean incestuos marriage.You are joking ..I hope.

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^volumptuous:
I just don't think of it as a strictly religious institution. I can't think of a single married friend of mine who had a wedding with a priest or in a church. City Hall seems to be the way to go.
I agree with you that it should be abolished, but its just not going to happen in our lifetimes. So, the only avenue left is marriage equality for everyone. And not just on a state level, but repeal DOMA and tell the bigots to fuck off.

Funny, I don't know a single married couple who wasn't married in a church.


I wasn't married in a church.

>> ^csnel3:
>> ^my15minutes:
>> marriage licenses were issued in the US to prevent interracial marriage.

> What!! You must mean incestuos marriage.You are joking ..I hope.

nope. 'fraid not.
during reconstruction after the civil war, and for well into the 20th century, most US states openly refused to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples.
you can look it up in any serious history book.

>> ^my15minutes:
>> ^csnel3:
>> ^my15minutes:
>> marriage licenses were issued in the US to prevent interracial marriage.
> What!! You must mean incestuos marriage.You are joking ..I hope.
nope. 'fraid not.
during reconstruction after the civil war, and for well into the 20th century, most US states openly refused to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples.
you can look it up in any serious history book.


Well, that should be hidden part of our history. ( I guess it was to me). That is just fucked up old stuff.