I think the gay community should change the focus from gay marriage

[searchingforlight]

to a system where marriage is only a religious ceremony. I would like to see Civil Union be the norm for everyone and marriage a church rite only. The fact that we have such a fuzzy line between Church and State in this area opens the door to religious zealotry in the political process.

This would not have to be passed by congress but could be a grassroots movement across the country where people refused the marriage ceremony in favor of commitment ceremonies until the focus changed. Civil Union for all. Marriage on a church by church basis.

[Chovexani]

1. I think straight people need to stop telling us what to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4396589&mesg_id=4396589

[leftofcool]

2. Ditto!

And I'm not gay

[tekisui]

5. Seconded,

from a straight guy.

[AuntPatsy]

8. agree

[MrCoffee]

9. +4

says the straight guy.

[yodoobo]

10. True, but we'll need straight people to get anything fixed

Unless the GLBT population rises to 50.1%, getting some buy in from the straights is probably a good idea.

[Chovexani]

14. Fail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4396589&mesg_id=4396589

[yodoobo]

23. fail is what we wanted Prop 8 to do

It didn't

But there is no need to be rude unless it really enjoy it or something.

honestly I'm not really sure what you are trying say with your link. I didn't participate in that thread and I'm not going to spend 30 minutes analyzing it to decipher your unstated point.


But I firmly believe that getting people on your side, is a good path to getting what you want. Just ask President Elect Obama

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yodoobo]

61. don?

Apparently you think I am someone else. I assure you, I'm not don. If you believe that I am "don", then please click alert and let the mods decide.

and no i didn't troll. i attempted to engage you in polite discussion and you responded with the childish, trollish "FAIL". very rude.

Look, we're trying to achieve the same goals.

Its probably best that you and I ignore each other, since we share the same goals, speak the same language, but do not appear to understand one another.

I wish you all the best with whatever you got going on there.

/plonk

[Rockholm]

11. +5.

[ronnykmarshall]

17. Damn right.

[searchingforlight]

19. 1. Thank you for directing me to the post.

I don't see every post and there is food for thought here.

2. I don't presume to tell you what to do. I have opinions just as you do. I will support the idea of equal status for everyone.

3. If you think they aren't framing the question, you are mistaken.

[Toasterlad]

82. Wrong Place AGAIN! The Past Two Days Have Driven Me CRAZY!

[Midlodemocrat]

20. Absofuckinglutely.

:thumbsup:

[LeftHander]

29. ding the fucking dong

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

36. Yup.

That's me, doing the breeder bounce in agreement.

Two of my best and most loved friends in the whole world, one my pastor, are a gay couple in a committed and long-term relationship. These are two men who can teach ANYONE how to love in a healthy and constructive manner. Their love is an example for everyone, regarding what a truly healthy relationship is and can be.

The mere thought that any three-toothed, knuckle-dragging, non-opposable-thumbed anacephalic has any right, reason or need to comment on that relationship or their rights as fully-realized humans of love, kindness and service for so many people...well, it makes me want to break out a truckload of #10 cans of industrial strength whoopass and a can opener. How DARE they? Just who the fuck do these slugs think that they are?

[question everything]

42. I read you original post and it is powerful

however - there is always however - before we can get there we will have to take faith and religious beliefs out of our political system.

The reason why all the candidates expressed their objections to gay marriage is that they did not want to offend the church crowd. The reason why Obama would talk about Jesus was because he wanted to convince every one that he was a Christian. And it took the courage of Collin Powell to raise this issue.

Once we do not kick out gays from the military; once our candidates say that their religious beliefs are between them and their gods; once they refuse to pander to the religious crowd, then we should be able to promote both gay marriage and right to abortion as issues of equality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4389178

[Chovexani]

49. I agree 100% with that.

And this is where religious people need to step up and say enough is enough. I know there are Jews and Liberal Christians who do but they are generally drowned out by the wingnuts.

As much as I can't stand him, I wish more people would have responded like Colin Powell did to the whole "Obama is a Muslim" rumor (I refuse to call it a smear, a smear implies something is wrong with being Muslim).

The proper response to "you're a Muslim!" is not "NO OMG OMG NO I'M LEIK TOTES A CHRISTIAN YOU GUYZ LOOK AT THIS HUGE CROSS SEE?!?!?!" It's "I'm not a Muslim, but why should that matter? Muslims are Americans, too. As are Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans and atheists and agnostics."

It's a two-way street, really. Once you get religion involved in government, the reverse becomes true also, and that's damaging to religion. Sad that fundies have such a hard on for temporal power that they're blind to that.

[Alameda]

59. How about listening to other people to get an understanding?

Calling people bigots does nothing to foster understanding. It sounds like the poster is honestly trying to understand and start a dialog.

[KittyWampus]

64. I think your attitude is part of the problem because Civil Unions for EVERYONE solves the problem

You're entitled to choose your own path. But if you're unable to listen to alternative solutions, you're close mindedness will hold us all back.

[unsavedtrash]

71. hell yeah!

:thumbsup:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

74. Exactly...great post!

[Toasterlad]

76. Best Response I've Read In Two Days

[Irishonly]

80. agree

[Starry Messenger]

100. truth to power. n/t

[Beetwasher]

117. Pithily And Poignantly Well Stated

n/t

[myrna minx]

122. Exactly. n/t

[amdezurik]

3. when you come right down to it, that is how it is

it is just that cults like to think they own the whole concept. but in fact the very act getting a license "marries" you in a legal sense. All the cults did was supposedly "witness" it to gawd (and to collect a fee of course...). Prop 8 and the others just made it illegal for 2 people outside their narrow definition of what is a "human" to even apply for a license.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. The licence is fuzzy at best when it comes to marriage

you still take it down to your rabbi, preacher et all who signs it and has the authority to marry you

Take that authority away

The city people should do the whole thing... period, but that is required if then you want to go down to your preacher

The power to marry will be gone... in a civil sense

Study how this works in Mexico and France... because that is EXACTLY what we need

[amdezurik]

26. does not need to be religious now, at least in Ca

Officiants in California:
Clergy, Justices, Judges, Magistrates, Marriage Commissioners (current or retired).
Frequently Asked Questions by Marriage Officiants
A few California counties allow a member of your family or a friend to officiate at your civil marriage ceremony.
Deputy for a Day Program

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Read the first one

Clergy

I want clergy removed from that list

That gives them way too much power

[amdezurik]

32. why? if that is your CHOICE why not?

At no time is "clergy" REQUIRED, it is only an option offered. I see no problem with it being moved from the first option offered, but why punish those who have a different CHOICE then you? Even though all to many stepped over the line this cycle, religious folks should also not have rights denied to them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Because it gives them the power to DEFINE what the term means

we are no longer an agricultural nation where getting the justice of the peace is a pain

By the way... churches have fought this removal, all the way to war, in some cases

They realize what this means... and it is a huge loss of power in civil society

[amdezurik]

51. well they fight the removal of course

and in the course of the fight shit like prop 8 happens...

so why not MOVE instead of REMOVE? if that becomes (even if only symbolicaly) a lesser choice but still a choice it takes a lot of the symbolic power away without kicking them to the curb.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Correct me if I am wrong, but has anybody suggested, in a legal sense

to remove clergy from those authorized to certify marriage licenses?

Last time I checked NO

They are not reacting to this. They are reacting to a society that is becoming increasingly secular and even thinking of allowing ahem, gays and other groups to have the same rights

One of the things in the yes on 8 propaganda was that they'd be forced to marry the gay... which is a blatant lie and they knew it

I say we go for broke and REMOVE them from the whole thing, legally speaking.

What they do inside the Temple or Church walls regarding religious marriages, ain't my business, but as a secular society they should not even have that power to certify a marriage licence

[amdezurik]

55. Ok you're just tail-biting now (no pun intended)

first you claim they ONLY way is to remove clergy from the mix altogether, then i suggest that either extreme is bad and go for a compromise and now you are saying nobody suggested doing that? Do you read your own posts? YOU set up the conditions, YOU began this little squabble and now YOU are trying to back out by denying your own writings?

Geez

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Did I get elected to either the state house or the US House and

missed the memo?

If I did, that was quite the painless campaign, didn't even realize I was running... Hey HUBBY, pack yer bags, we are on our way to DC! We get the Federal Health Plan too WHOOHOO! I wonder, can I include my feathered kids as dependents. :sarcasm:

I will send letters SUGGESTING those who I have hired to make the laws to do precisely this

But I am not one in the position to WRITE that legislation... see the difference?

And this is NOT an extreme position. This is the position of many OTHER secular Republics. Why? It works.

[BOSSHOG]

4. As a white male joe sixpack military veteran

I think the gay community should be left the fuck alone. If they want to get married so be it and fuck the hateful religious zealots who don't fucking approve. If the sanctity of marriage is so fucking important to these constitution hating bastards, how come so many of them get divorced?

The line is "fuzzy" only because of the persistent actions of haters who want to use that alleged fuzziness to their advantage.

[Vickers]

67. What he said.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Word for word.

[LoveIsNow]

6. I just think that we need to get off our asses

and start demanding our rights instead or asking politely. Hopefully the fact that the right to marry was actually taken away from us in California will get people angry because angry people do things.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

7. You need to read the Florida one...

... '.. and anything that looks like marriage...'

So doesn't matter WHAT you call it.. if it LOOKS like it.............

[Alameda]

60. Ooooh that's interesting. Do you have a link?

[sweetpotato]

12. Trying to legislate a definition of marriage as between man and woman is wrong

Marriage is two people who agree to pool resources and share a life together.

Why does it have to be limited any more than that?

[xchrom]

13. marriage IS secular under the law -- not religious.

no need to change a damn thing -- but for people to stop denying my rights to equality.

[goodgd_yall]

54. I don't think opponents get that

and its not discussed enough. Although, it's possible the difference is too complex (though it really isn't) for opponents to gay marriage to understand.

[xchrom]

112. i don't think liberals get it either -- or therre wouldn't be this thread. nt

[Booster]

16. I'd bet anything that if it was put to them that ALL people,

including gay and SINGLE people, either receive the same benefits they have or they also lose those benefits, they would change their tune and vote against discrimination. Hit them where it hurts.

[gollygee]

18. I'm so tired of this

1. It won't work. See Chovexani's thread.

2. 4 years ago, these proposals failed by a huge margin. Now, they're BARELY failing. Same-sex marriage is almost a reality, and NOW people want to change the name? It feels like the people who are suggesting this are the ones who don't want to share the word "marriage", not just the right-wingers.

3. The right-wing will not like it if state marriage stops being a reality. They will consider it to be a destruction of marriage, and they will blame gay people. Which will make things worse, not better.

[Old and In the Way]

21. Not a popular thread, but I wonder the same thing.

I'm all for legal rights for gay couples. I'm all for gays marrying in a church, too. But do we want government interfering with religious institutions and demanding changes in their dogma/beliefs structure? Seems to me that the government should assure the same body of legal rights of civil unions for gays and heterosexual couples, but leave the religious marriage definitions to the churches. If you don't agree with a particular body of teachings in the church you attend, nothing is stopping you from finding a church that is more in line with your beliefs. If a gay church doesn't want to marry heterosexuals, they shouldn't be forced to. I'm an agnostic on the whole religion issue.

[gollygee]

22. Nobody can force a church to marry anybody now, and nobody ever will

Why do you think this would make churches have to marry anybody they don't want to? They already don't have to marry any couple they don't want to, and they don't even have to give a reason.

[Lars39]

24. This isn't interfering with religious institutions and demanding changes in their dogma...

this is about not letting churches interfere with a basic human right.

[Rockholm]

25. Churches are not effected by this at all.

[Old and In the Way]

43. I admit to being ignorant on Proposition 8.

So maybe I should have stayed off this thread. I assumed that people voting "yes' were motivated by a specious argument that a gay couple's right to marry would mean that their church would be forced to allow gay marriages to occur. I find it hard to believe that Californians would reject the idea that legal civil unions should be restricted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. That was one of the arguments made by the yes on 8

:-)

And they were wrong on it, but false info was never stopped in a political campaign

[dkofos]

27. I think the gay community should DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL TREATMENT under the law.

[The Craw]

37. Some Republicans argue gays are 'separate but equal'

It's a bit like how African Americans were denied their rights as citizens....

[dkofos]

50. Some repubes need a lesson in equality.

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. Equal treatment means all common-law partnerships should be treated equally.

The government should not be in the business of recognizing which common law unions are sanctioned as "marriage", a religious concept that has no real application to nonreligious folks (unless they are new-agers or something who see some spiritual value in giving their partnership a special name, in which case they are free to have a secular group sanction their union as a "marriage".) This applies to both gay and straight people. The notion of having to get a marriage license is absurd in a civilization that had common law unions with or without religious marriage for centuries before Puritanism came along and insisted that marriages be sanctioned by an authority. In fact, before the Renaissance the vast majority of civil-unions were common-law and as such unlicensed and non-marriage (marriage being a cultural-religious ceremony of pledging that ought have nothing to do with the state in the absence of Puritanism.) They had the same or similar standing as married folks under common law by virtue of a reasonable observation of the fact that they were living together.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. Hold on for a sec- beat the fundies at their own game...

If a legal challenge could be mounted that "marriage" is a religous contract that the state has no right to regulate, then anyone could get married by any church willing to marry them. "Civil unions" could take the place of marriage licenses only to establish the legal issues re: property, etc. Civil Unions already have legal precedents.

Am I naive to think this could be a path to equality?

[Gormy Cuss]

30. I think that's a perfect solution

for 1896.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

[orleans]

33. um...i don't think so. people seem to be generally happy with

the concept of marriage and how it is now. we just need to get gay people included in this rather than tearing the whole thing down and starting over. otherwise it would be like tossing out your computer rather than just upgrading the software. this country needs to upgrade.

and for all the straight folks who say marriage is a tradition i say fine: stay married.

[justiceischeap]

34. I don't agree but...

Why is it just the gay community that has to do anything? The problem is the straight community not doing anything at all. The gay community are working our asses off to get things done but it's our straight brothers and sisters who aren't standing beside us just as vocally demanding equality.

[The Craw]

35. Someone needs to bring the gay Log Cabin Republicans back to reality

How any gay can be a Republican is beyond me, as gays are regarded as 3rd class citizens by the Republican party...

[IndianaJones]

38. gays are regarded as "3rd class citizens" by the Democratic party. nt.

[The Craw]

39. Really? Tell that to Barney Frank

The Democrats do NOT treat gays as 3rd class citizens-they are the ones trying to cut through the right wing oppression of gays.

[Toasterlad]

87. What's Obama's Position On Same Sex Marriage Again?

Just because the Republicans are worse, doesn't mean our side shines. Stop pretending it does.

[yodoobo]

62. Its truly insane

I'm very much of the mind that people are entitled to their own opinions and views, no matter how fucked up they are.

But damn, these people are fucked up.

[ColbertWatcher]

40. The sentiment to find a solution is correct, but ...

... the problem isn't the equality under the law that gay people are seeking, the problem is that once again religious people inserting their church into everyone's state.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Marriage Is A Legal Term. What You're Trying To Do Is Make The GLBT'ers Mountain Even Harder To

climb.

Marriage is a legal term, and though some religions use the same term for their own religious beliefs, marriage in and of itself is a civil term with legal, not religious, ramifications. Asking the entire country to do away with the term altogether is simply just not going to happen. Asking the GLBT'ers to abandon their REAL need of equal rights for a far more challenging, unrealistic and petty one of changing the friggin word that is used to describe it, is just plain dumb.

[Barack_America]

65. IMO, it's time to change the legal definition of "marriage" to "civil union".

For all of us.

I am straight and not a religious person. I resent the fact that in order to get full couple's rights I have to be "married". I want a civil union.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

75. Marriage is a legal term in this country

[Barack_America]

78. That's a mistake because it is primarily a religious term.

I don't want my union to have any religious connotation whatsoever and I resent the fact that my government forces this upon me.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

81. Your government isn't forcing anything upon you

In THIS country, marriage is both a legal (civil) and religious term.

I resent the fact that my government DENIES ME MY CIVIL RIGHT to marriage.

[Barack_America]

89. If I want full rights as a couple, my government forces me to call myself "married".

At this point, the word "marriage" is associated with hatred as far as I'm concerned and I have no desire to associate myself with it.

We need to switch to the European practice of separate civil and religious ceremonies.

And the civil ceremonies (and all the rights it provides) MUST be available to EVERYONE. That people are being denied their rights in large part because of the word the Government chooses to use to define full legal rights for couples pisses me off. That's what I was trying to get at.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

93. Whatever -- get married and call it whatever you want

That's the argument gays hear all the time.

[Barack_America]

95. Wow. That's interesting.

I've protested getting "married" because it's not a right that's available to everyone and somehow that's worthy of criticism?

Okay.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

96. The point is, the "civil unions for all" argument is ridiculous

Straight people aren't going to want their marriages demoted to a civil union, and marriage is LEGAL term in this country. We're not France.

And, you didn't say you protested getting "married" because it's not a right that's available to everyone. You said you haven't gotten married because you have a misinformed hangup on the word. Marriage isn't just religious in the US.

I'm civil unioned, and that's a 2nd class union in NJ. I want to be married.

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. Are you religious? If not, it is a meaningless affirmation.

Marriage is a religious or cultural concept (like if you are a member of a secular lodge or association -- or gang -- that has similar beliefs where you pledge to do something and are held to that pledge by your fellow congregants or members.)

And this "we are not France" business sounds familiar.

Funny, for centuries most people were not married in church, they were common-law.

Straight people will be quite happy to know they don't need to pay a pointless fee to have the government register their church ceremony with a license and certificate. If straight or gay people are religious, they will suffice to know that they are married in the eyes of god -- and the church they are in. It is strangely authoritarian for to insist that the state recognize that they met all the religious requirements to be considered properly wed. The state shouldn't enter into it -- and didn't, before the age of bureaucracy created the modern doctrine of "freedom to take any action only when permitted and authorized". The state is expected to recognize that they are common-law partners by virtue of the attestation of ANY notable official witness, be it the pastor who married them or a local lawyer, whether they were married (a religio-cultural ceremony) or not. The same procedures for dealing with any civil issue whether married in a church or not.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

102. I'm not religious

Marriage is a religious and legal concept in this country. It provides legal rights, protections, and responsibilities. Straight people aren't going to want their marriages demoted to civil unions, no matter what you think.

In case you didn't know, you still have to pay for a marriage/civil union license, the same price for whether or not the town or clergy does it. It cost us about $30 for our civil union license, which Pacifist Patriot (a minister friend on DU) signed off on. It would have cost us the same amount for the mayor to do it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

104. The answer is to remove "marriage" from the equation. That is a private determination.

We should have separation of church and state. The state has no power to tell a Jewish couple they weren't authorized to be wed in an Orthodox synagogue because one of them was a non-Jew, or what have you. Therefore the state's only role beyond merely recognizing that they are living together as a household is either to tax the couple or interfere. The state should treat households equally. It would also help with the single parent thing if the state got out of the business of hypocritically promoting marriage and recognized households and the posessions/rights/family ties they hold in common by extension as common-law marriages as and when they exist.

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. I am simply saying it shouldn't be up to the state to license ceremonial marriage.

A priest or lawyer or captain of a spaceship can attest to whether someone is wed or living together, as the case may be. if it is an actual church involved, the "rules" should be whatever the church says they are, or rather, the state should be obliged to accept the attestation of the witness(es) as to whether they are living together as a household (married or not). If someone wants to call themselves married, all they need to do is find a church or secular organization that endorses such ceremonies, just as if someone wants to call themselves Jewish, all they need to do is to find a synagogue willing to convert them. Does the fact that the state has no business saying who is or is not Jewish or Christian, somehow demean the concept Judaism or Christianity? There was a time when people said it DID and were proud to register their religion and get a certificate or card to carry! Same with political party identification and the way party members are or were privileged in some states/societies.

[BattyDem]

44. No one can get married without a state-issued, MARRIAGE license

Therefore, marriage under the law, is secular. Why should the term be changed because bigots refuse to acknowledge that fact? Clergy are granted the right to perform marriages by the state. They can perform all the "ceremonies" they want, but without power granted from the state, those marriages are not legally valid.

It seems to me that the churches are using the power they are given to claim some sort of "ownership" of the institution of marriage. So ... take away that power. If states stop granting the right to perform legally binding marriage ceremonies to religious institutions, then marriage will truly become secular in every sense of the word, which it should be. Churches will be free to perform ceremonies in order to provide a religious blessing to the marriage, but all legal aspects of marriage should be handled solely by the state.


edited: typo :blush:

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Here is the critical word, you used LICENSE, good for only a finite term

giving CLERGY the right to FINALIZE this

And you only get your CERTIFICATE after the LICENSE is finalized

Clergy, don't care who or what, should NOT have that power in a secular state

[BattyDem]

57. "Clergy should NOT have that power in a secular state"

Exactly! There's no reason why they should have it. Religious people are free to have ceremonies in order to get a religious blessing on the union, but there's no need for that ceremony to be state-sanctioned.

[Ms. Toad]

66. Then fine, change the marriage statute to

remove clergy from among the group of individuals authorized to perform a marriage. That wouldn't bother me a bit - I've already had to have both a sacramental marriage (which is not recognized by the state because we are not an eligible couple) and a legal one (in a jurisdiction which recognizes same gender marriages).

But removing clergy from the list of people authorized to perform marriages doesn't require changing marriage to civil unions which (as I have explained far too many times) requires legislative action in each of the 50 states to create a new and separate legal status of civil union in each state, numerous court battles in each of the 50 states to interpret all of the statutes and case law which currently correlate relate marriage - but not civil unions - to the various rights associated with marriage, federal court battles to gain inter-state recognition of civil unions across state boundaries, and battles in each country in which we want our civil unions recognized.

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. it's called common-law marriage and always existed in states that derive from English common law.

Marriage "as such" is a religious and/or tribal ceremony that the government has no business sanctioning either way. If someone wants their same-sex common-law union to be called a marriage, all they have to do is join a church or group that recognizes their union as a marriage. Otherwise it is (should be considered) no different than any other common-law union/partnership. Same as for people who as they used to call it in the old days have been "living in sin" for twenty years should also have the rights of common law marriage (or "civil unions", the new fancy term) conferred to them automatically, by virtue of common law. That's how things got done in the pre-Puritan era. Just as a 16-year old orphan can be considered the guardian for his younger siblings by judicial precedent (aka common law) unless that right is taken away by the courts due to poor guardianship.

The government should not be in the business of sanctioning membership in lodges or masonic chapters either. Same principle. It is a personal cultural institution, like free assembly.

[Ms. Toad]

85. You need to study a few marriage statutes

and the literally tens of thousands of additional statutes and case law interpreting and applying the statutes.

Common law marriages, for your information, are also often governed by statute. In Ohio, until around 1991, all a couple needed to do to be legally married was to live together, to be legally eligible to be married, to hold themselves out as married, and to be perceived as married. No license, no ceremony - but that common law marriage was every bit as legally binding a marriage - as the one entered into by the statutory process (whether through the sacramental route or the civil route).

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. Yes, and that is the manner it should be.

There are innumerable statutes and revisions of statutes that have dragged down this country into a bureucratic
nightmare, with the resultant cultural flame wars when the government is forced to vote on explicitly condoning
every single behavior that would otherwise proceed anyhow (because Americans, being so god-damn free, can't sneeze
without the government specifically authorizing it.) Meanwhile, every single one of these statutes is tweaked
to enable the optimum flow of heartless, profit-driven corporatism, meaning the corporations and the wealthiest
citizens write the statutes so that society conforms to their needs while we sit and worry about issues that
could basically be regarded as religious or cultural questions. When a society is truly free, culture is allowed
to exist without argument over if it is properly licensed or not.

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. Which is the problem right there in itself. The gov't should keep its hands out of marriage

Licensing marriage is just another tax and fee, if not a mere tracking mechanism, along with every other license promoted by the "Wilsonian progressive" wing of the party. You think they come out and inspect that boiler after Joe the Plumber (or rather Joe's actually licensed boss) pays a permit fee to have it installed? Apparently not.

[fishbulb703]

94. uhh, ever hear of a common law marriage?

I wish people understood our legal system a bit better =/

[BattyDem]

124. We're not talking about the options and/or legal rights of straight couples

We're talking about giving gay couples the right to have a legally binding contract that is recognized by the state. The entire argument against it is based in religion.

You're right, people don't understand our legal system because if they did, they would understand that civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things. Civil marriage is a legally binding contract. Religious marriage is purely ceremonial without the state-issued, legally binding marriage license. The church is acting on behalf of the state.

I can get married without any church being involved, but I can't get married without the state being involved. Common law marriage is legally binding in some jurisdictions, but not all. Either way, it is the STATE that recognizes the legality of a common law marriage. No matter how you look at it, there is no legally binding marriage of any kind unless the state says so. So why are the churches allowed to dictate the terms of marriage? Why are the churches allowed to claim that they "own" marriage, when in fact, it's the state that "owns" marriage?

[noonwitch]

48. Get the foot in the door, then move from there

It makes sense. I actually agree that all marriages should be defined by the individual churches involved and the government should be in the business of civil unions, for gay or straight people.

Individual churches can then decide who they will marry and who they won't marry, and that should be that, as long as gay couples don't expect a baptist pastor or catholic priest to officiate.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

106. Individual churches already can decide who they will and won't marry

Nothing is going to change that.

So why should gays have 2nd class status?

[goodgd_yall]

52. I think that's a good idea

The alternative is dialogue and discussion of the differences between a civil marriage and marriage in the religious sense. One is strictly a civil contract---nothing about god blessing the union (although, of course, gay and lesbian couples are always able to have their own ceremony later that can be more god-oriented). Marriage in a religious context is untouched.

[Barack_America]

63. I agree somewhat. I am straight and I want a civil union.

I do not want to get "married", but I am forced to if I want the rights of a "marriage".

Let the religious nutballs define "marriage" however they want to. It's time for this country to take away the limitation of full couples' rights being granted only to those who are "married".

[XemaSab]

69. I think that was the best way to fight prop 8

To make the argument that marriage is both civil and religious.

[Ms. Toad]

73. Marriage is not fuzzy at all.

Marriage is a legal status authorized by one or more statutes in each state.

Each state determines who may marry individuals; each statute I have studied authorizes a means by which religious bodies may have one or more person registered with the state to either perform marriages on behalf of the state and/or to legally record marriages performed in accordance with the practices of their faith community.

For this to happen, the couple must be legally eligible to marry, and the individual or individuals named to carry out the marriage must be registered with the state which grants them the authority - or must fall into the "Quaker" exception (Friends do not generally have "hireling" ministers, and in our faith the couple marries each other in the presence of God and those present. The individuals present are merely witnesses to the mutual promises and to the procedure - one or more people are designated to sign the state license to certify the marriage was properly carried out.)

No church is required to perform a marriage just because a mixed gender couple has a license and walks in through the door now (think all of the restrictions on Catholic eligibility for marriage, for example), and none will not be required to in the future merely because the statute is changed to read "two people" rather than "a man and a woman."

The understanding of marriage has recently come to be argued as fuzzy starting about 8-10 years ago when the religious right finally got it through their thick skulls that they could not fight marriage statutes using the bible to impose conditions on marriage - BUT - if they could frame it as preventing the state from interfering with the practice of religion they might not only win, but they would also pick up a lot of support from folks who think the state should keep its nose out of the business of churches. I was appalled when I first heard the reframed argument from liberal friends who hadn't thought through the Catholic example I gave above - and who sincerely thought that expanding marriage to same gender couples might force churches to violate their religious beliefs. I am quite tired of explaining that it will not.

Marriage is a well established legal status, with an extremely complex interrelationship between literally tens of thousands of state statutes and cases, as well as between the 50 states, the federal government and other countries. The legal status of marriage accommodates religious entities' desire to have their sacramental unions legally recognized by permitting churches to register qualifying marriages with the state - not the other way around.

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. "Quaker exception" huh? Church-state intermingling, says I.

Marriage is patently a religious or cultural concept that the state should not regulate.

Common-law unions are easy to regulate. Either a couple meets the state standard for considering
a couple to be common-law or not. Whether or not they were married in a church.

And I'm religious BTW. But most people I hear making this argument are secular because it's a
church-state separation argument. The state has no business saying which churches are licensed
to wed or whether those churches are allowed to have "licensed" priests or not.

A common law ceremony can (or could) be done by any relevant official, be it the captain of a vessel
in international waters or an elected official or officer of the court. All this overlay of license
and fees is post-Wilsonian Progressive (or post-Puritan) stuff, designed to regulate who is or is not
allowed to be considered properly wedded.

The standard should be what used to be considered common law. Are they of age, are they living
together, if they are raising their kids in a good home environment, are they attested by some
aforementioned local authority, (attestation is all that should matter) who are their dependents.

It should be possible for people who are common-law wed to get a divorce or care for a child or
visit a sick in-law, that is after all the purpose of civil unions.

Marriage "per se" is a concept between members of a church or synagogue or secular organization,
one organization may only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman, another may only marry
Armenians who have fasted for seven days straight or what-have you.

it is a form of assembly that the state has no business distinguishing from other forms of common law union
that have existed for thousands of years and formerly outnumbered church weddings by an order of magnitude.

(And they only called it "formal marriage" if it was done in a church, because the whole concept is
a pledge that has no application outside of a theological or philiosophical context for those believers!)

I can only assume anyone, gay or straight, wishing to have their union sanctioned in a ceremony by
a church or similar organization is an adherent of that group's philosophy of marriage and not merely
looking for free-floating affirmation. Even if they are, it's not the state's business to determine
if someone was wed in a church. Merely if they are simply put a family, or self-described and attested
to be living together as a household. Since that is the definition of civil unions, this whole fight
about how civil unions don't go far enough strikes me as not much different than if the entire US
decided to elect its (kleptocratic) leaders on the singular principle of whether or not the US should
license shorebirds as illegal immigrants or merely let them through.

[Ms. Toad]

115. The reality is, that througout the world, in this day and age

marriage is a well established legal status. Marriages from one political subdivision are recognized and reciprocal rights granted by other political subdivisions. That is true for common law marriages only if they are recognized as marriages by the political subdivision in which they are entered into. It is not true for civil unions at all.

You may wish it were otherwise, but it is not.

The "Quaker exception," for marriages - along with other exceptions - was created to permit all couples qualified under state law to be married in their faith community and to have that marriage recognized. Just as the law was drafted - or amended at some point - to permit faith communities to gain legal recognition for their marriages by registering their ministers with the state and authorizing them to act on behalf of the state, it was also changed at some point to permit Quaker marriages (which according to our beliefs do not involve ministers) also to be legally recognized. If the state is going to grant legal recognition of sacramental marriages between individuals who meet all other state requirements for marriage, the state cannot discriminate between churches based on the details of the ceremony.

[baldguy]

77. I can see the screaming headlines in the RW media now: "Gays Fight to END YOUR MARRIAGE!!"

"If the homos win all REAL marriages will be dissolved, our children will be forced into the GODLESS foster system, and we will all be forced to engage in unnatural associations!at the risk of our very souls!"

Don't give the American Taliban any more ammunition.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

83. Very good point

[baldguy]

119. oops

wrong spot

[Barack_America]

98. Who said it would be retroactive?

What's wrong with the European style? I would prefer it.

[baldguy]

120. Fascists never let the facts stop them from demonizing their chosen target of hatred.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

79. I think the straight community should stop telling gays what rights we're allowed to have

Fuck that shit.

[WhollyHeretic]

84. I am so tired of this moronic idea.

There is no need to take away marriage and put in something else. Just include everyone in marriage. If you try and take away marriage you will piss off the bigots even more. They will feel even more justified in saying that gays are trying to destroy marriage. Marriage is not a religious institution. My wife and I had not mention of god in our ceremony but we are still married.

[Toasterlad]

86. Gay People Will Be Married Long Before Straight Couples Get Civil Unionized

I can't believe how tired I am of this stupid argument.

1) Civil unions are not marriage, and never will be. That is, they will never carry the legal, societal, and emotional connotations of marriage. That's why straighty won't go for them, and why we won't settle for them.

2) If we called the drinking fountains "unity waterfalls", do you think the racists would have been cool with sharing them with the black folk?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

108. I was reading this to my wife, LostinVA, and she just said she's going to use your post

Spot on.

:thumbsup:

[Toasterlad]

121. Use It For WHAT?

It would make a lovely sampler.

Welcome back, Haruka! :hi:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

125. I don't know what nefarious plans she has for it

Thanks!

:hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

91. I think uninformed straight folk need to shut the hell up

and go mind your own bigoted people, who are the problem. Straight hatred and prejudice is the problem.
You should be here asking questions not telling people what to do.

[fishbulb703]

92. bi here. i agree 100%

[KitchenWitch]

97. I think you should just shut your pie hole on this issue.

No apologies for being blunt, but you need to STFU.

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. dup n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

109. I don't see anything wrong with the OP.

:shrug:

If the right to marriage as such (i.e. "civil unions are unacceptable") is such a red letter issue,

(I thought the UN defined it as freedom of association, not the right
to have that association blessed by a seal of government approval)

how come the right to housing isn't?

Lots of people have lost their homes since the government started tearing down public housing in these cities
that have marriage equality ordinances.

Meanwhile they are busy trying to regulate marriage to make it more "fair" institution
instead of leaving it up to individuals.

Presumably next they will be trying to regulate who is and is not Catholic or a Freemason.

Like in Rwanda, where the notion of not regulating who is or is not Hutu or Tutsi
was considered unimaginable some years ago. I mean, how could you tell? Consider
the stigma of being mistaken for a Tutsi and not be able to flash your "mixed"
marriage certificate and prove otherwise?

I for one am happy whenever one is free to do something that does not require blessing from the authorities to be performed.

[KitchenWitch]

111. I think straight people should really stay the fuck out of trying to decide what gay people should

have. Period. That is the issue I have with the OP. And I am in a heterosexual marriage.

[Leopolds Ghost]

113. Since I think the gov't should not say who is or is not married, the whole issue is moot for me.

Other than having to explain my position using analogies. The whole debate is like a fight in the courts over who gets to call themselves Protestant in the eyes of the law, or whether to license trans-atlantic migrating swallows.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

101. Marriage is strictly a civil contract.

It's only religious if you want it to be.

You can be married by a judge, with NO religious authority involved.

A few ministers will marry gay couples, such as Unitarian Universalists.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

103. EXACTLY

LostinVA and I were married by Pacifist Patriot (a UU minister). We were also going to have a Catholic priest do a reading at our wedding, but his dad had a stroke the day before the wedding.

Of course, according to NJ law, we're second class citizens who are only entitled to a civil union.

[JackBeck]

110. I think women should be exclusively given over as property.

And in return, the bride's father receives 2 horses, 6 pigs and a bag of non-hybrid corn seed to be planted in the Spring.

[Jamastiene]

118. I like my 100 foreskins idea better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=87599&mesg_id=87789

They would have to REALLY want that marriage awfully bad in that case, wouldn't they? :evilgrin:

[Chan790]

114. I used to think this way as well...

problem is that it just doesn't work in practice because the opposition is recessivist and incrementalist...they want no union of any sort for gays and are willing to fight that fight one inch at a time. They would agree to this compromise and immediately begin hedging to take back another small piece...and another small piece...and another small piece.

I didn't understand this at first either. They've shown it from their conduct. Thus, we can give no quarter...we have to fight for the permanent entrenchment of the whole pie.

[javijon]

116. Has this historic week taught you nothing? n/t

[LeftyMom]

123. Straight people don't want their marriges demoted.

A civil unions for everybody thing might have been a good idea from the get-go, but doing it at this point would involve completely restructuring societal expectations and even language with regard to a dominant social institution. That aint gonna fuckin' happen.

[kenny blankenship]

126. We're fighting to capture Hamburger Hill - it's hard enough already.

What you propose is like taking Hamburger Hill and putting it on top of Mount Everest.