gay marrige

maybe I'm missing something but it seems that the issue of gay marrige is a battle between human rights and christians. and you would really think that in a matter of law that christianity wouldn't have much of a say.

how can christian politics be so influencial when they dont have any representatives and aren't even recognized as a political party (I dont think)? why do we have to mold this country around the bible and christian morals?

could someone give me one reason why two gay people cannot get married other than its says they can't in the bible? and, I should hope not, but can bible scripture acually hold up in court or in any legal procedure?

I certainly can't give you a reason and I'll bet you won't get one.

If anyone believes in equal rights under secular law, they can hardly oppose gay marriage... but they do.

And George Bush is the representative for Christians. He named himself so. And they bought it.

Indeed, the big problem here is....what happens when a church starts performing and recognizing gay marriages? Who is the government to say 'no, your marriage is illegitimate'?

Now, the government of course DOES have oversight on this, such as with polygamy, or even determining when a marriage is absolved and a new one can take place, and, of course, regardless of what any church recognizes, it is up to the government to decide what tax rebates and legal standing it has, but still.

What happens when a relatively largish and mainstream church starts doing this?

Originally posted by Nygdan
What happens when a relatively largish and mainstream church starts doing this?

Marriages made in a church aren't legal without the accompanying marriage license, witnesses and legal paperwork. A gay couple cannot get a marriage license in most states. (Is it legal anywhere? Mass., maybe?)

In any case, churches can 'marry' people all they want, straight or gay, but without the sanction of the law, which is unavailable in most states, it's not a legal marriage, regardless of how their sex works. It's just a happy little ceremony. The couple (straight or gay) will have none of the legal rights that legally married couples have.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It's a legal institution. The church part is just a religious ritual that holds no legal benefits or meaning.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Yes I know that in order for the marriage to be legal, it has to get secular documents (which, of course, blows the 'sanctity' idea out the window). BUT, what I am saying is, we do have religious freedom here, IF a largish church was to accept gay marriage, likesay the presbertyrians, I think that that would change the debate, because, in a sense, you'd be telling the church what it can and can't do.

Can we agree that the church is overstepping it's bounds here? we need to have the religious freedom, yes, but freedom for those who disagree with the church as well. The latter is the one in trouble right now.

I understand that their are several secular representatives that are biased by their religion. They are against gay marrige on the grounds that it is immoral, obviously, but not admittedly, because of the bible.

So this would make this a conflict of difference of opinion. Where it needs to be a matter of human rights. If you are for human rights, you are against the church, bad image for the church.

Originally posted by daedalas
Can we agree that the church is overstepping it's bounds here? we need to have the religious freedom, yes, but freedom for those who disagree with the church as well. The latter is the one in trouble right now.

I totally agree. Well-said.

More accurate, I think though, is that the church is 'filling in' where the law is not doing its job. The law is standing down and the church is standing up in its place. If secular law were truly separate from the church, and performing as intended, there would be NO DOUBT that gay people be allowed to marry. And the church would have NO POWER to say otherwise.

There is no argument that gays shouldn't have equal opportunity to marriage. According to the law.

The church is 'buying' its influence with votes and support to particular candidates. They provide some of the political power, which to me is OBVIOUSLY a church/state issue.

If you are for human rights, you are against the church, bad image for the church.

Interesting idea! And it's becoming more and more true for me. I support human rights 100% and where I used to be neutral toward the church, I am more and more against it all the time because of their stand against secular equality.

More accurate, I think though, is that the church is 'filling in' where the law is not doing its job. The law is standing down and the church is standing up in its place.

vigilante injustice

If secular law were truly separate from the church, and performing as intended, there would be NO DOUBT that gay people be allowed to marry. And the church would have NO POWER to say otherwise.

the church should have no say in this matter, or any matter of secular law. What gays need to do is make a religion where marrige in the same sex is a highly treasured belief. even the church couldn't touch that one.

This topic raises an interesting question: Does the government's involvement with marriage violate the First Amendment?

Marriage has both civil and religious components, and the two are intertwined. Should they be? Doesn't that involve government interference in religion?

In the far past, marriage had no standing at law; it was purely a religious matter and the churches had full control over it. Thus, when King Henry VIII of England wanted a divorce, he could not simply, in his role as head of state, hand himself one, nor could Parliament give him one. He had to go to the Pope, who was not cooperative, hence the founding of the Church of England.

In the U.S., the Mormon church originally sanctioned polygamy. The U.S. government forbade the practice, and today's Mormon church no longer marries men to multiple women. Whatever one thinks of polygamy, surely that is a restriction on freedom of religion, hence a violation of the First Amendment.

The problem of course is that marriage has acquired all sorts of civil characteristics along with the sacred ones it started with. If the State of Utah doesn't want to offer the civil benefits of marriage to any couplings except those between one man and one woman, that's one thing. But if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wants to ceremonially unite a man with more than one woman, that ought to be fine, too. And if the Covenant of the Goddess wants to marry two women or two men together, the state should have no say in the matter.

What I'm suggesting here is that the civil union part of marriage should be separated entirely from the religious part. The state should not be able to "marry" anyone; that's a privilege of religious organizations or of couples in their privacy. It is no business of the government's. If the state wants to offer civil union benefits to couples, fine -- but let's not call those unions "marriage," whether the couple is opposite-sex or same-sex.

One alternative that's been discussed is for governments to offer "civil unions" to gay couples having all the legal benefits of marriage but without the name. My opinion is that the same should be offered to straight couples, and the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether.

Then, if a particular church wants to discriminate against gay couples by only marrying straight ones, let it. And if another church or temple or coven or whatever wants to marry not only gay couples but groups, let it. But such unions would have no force of law, and no legal consequences.

To do this would remove the concern that the state, in allowing gay marriage, is trying to redefine marriage. That's a legitimate concern, since "marriage" is a religious concept. So let's get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Let it offer only civil unions to all couples, gay or straight. And then if churches or other religious institutions, or even couples in their private vows, wish also to "marry," that's no business of the government's at all.

I do not believe that by law churches should be forced to perform gay marriages. Churches are religous, private institutions and thus, as far as I am concerned, the government has no right whatsoever to tell them how they may practice their beliefs. Since the vast majority of churches find homosexuality a sin and against their beliefs, it would be a violation of freedom of faith to force churches to perform gay marriages.

That said, I do believe gays should be able to get married. Marriage isn't the sole domain of religon. Hell, I got married the secular way: by a justice of the peace. Thus, I believe the state should allow gays to get married. There are numerous non religous JOPs that can perform non religous ceremonies. Gays should have the right to marry. However, they should not have the right to force those who oppose homosexuality to perform and aknowledge the marriage. Since marriage is more a legal institution than a religous one, it should not be denied to anyone who is of age. Religon and government should remain totally seperate.

The religous right to have their own political parties. Namely they have hijacked and taken over the Republican party. They also have a few other minor third parties, but the Republican party is their front for political action. This is a real shame, as I have always been fond of the old Republican party before the Jesus nuts took over and turned it into a political battering ram against their enemies.

That is why gay marriage has become a big issue along with alot of other things that have no business in the realm of politics.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Does the government's involvement with marriage violate the First Amendment?

On religious grounds? Perhaps. More like the 14th amendment talking about equal protection under the law.

Marriage has both civil and religious components, and the two are intertwined. Should they be?

Marriage CAN have both components, but only the legal is required. Not a religious word was spoken at my marriage, which was not in a church. And it's 100% legal. When I speak of marriage, I'm talking about current legal marriage in the USA, what states condone as law.

The church ceremony that many people choose is simply frills added onto a legal marriage.

Whatever one thinks of polygamy, surely that is a restriction on freedom of religion, hence a violation of the First Amendment.

I agree.

The problem of course is that marriage has acquired all sorts of civil characteristics along with the sacred ones it started with. If the State of Utah doesn't want to offer the civil benefits of marriage to any couplings except those between one man and one woman, that's one thing. But if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wants to ceremonially unite a man with more than one woman, that ought to be fine, too. And if the Covenant of the Goddess wants to marry two women or two men together, the state should have no say in the matter.

These pairings can (and do) take place in some churches, it's just that they're not legal unions and cannot exercise and enjoy the same legal rights as other civil marriages (with a license from the state). The churches are not being held back. They can do whatever they want. It's just that the law isn't forced to condone it.

What I'm suggesting here is that the civil union part of marriage should be separated entirely from the religious part.

Woo-Hoo! Yes!

The state should not be able to "marry" anyone; that's a privilege of religious organizations or of couples in their privacy.

RRRRRRRTTT! I disagree. The state should marry everyone as they do now. A religious ceremony should be added on if desired, as it is now. I have no interest in marrying in a church. I shouldn't have to go to church to get married! Yuck!

It is no business of the government's.

What about child support then? What about death benefits? Insurance? How will this all be regulated? By the church?

If the state wants to offer civil union benefits to couples, fine -- but let's not call those unions "marriage," whether the couple is opposite-sex or same-sex.

No. Sorry. I want to be married, not civilly unionized.

Although I understand your point of view and agree with it to a certain extent, in that government marriage and the church ceremony should be totally disconnected, I can't support taking marriage away from people who are not religious. LEGAL marriage is about law. It involves so much more than a church ceremony. And doesn't really have anything to do with the church ceremony.

But such unions would have no force of law, and no legal consequences.

And no legal benefits.

since "marriage" is a religious concept.

Not to me it isn't.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I do not believe that by law churches should be forced to perform gay marriages.

I totally agree!

Since marriage is more a legal institution than a religous one, it should not be denied to anyone who is of age. Religon and government should remain totally seperate.

Now you're talking.

That is why gay marriage has become a big issue along with alot of other things that have no business in the realm of politics.

Exactly. And why this year, they're pressing adding "one man and one woman" to the Constitution to overrule Mass. law that is allowing gays to get married. They want to take the option of allowing gay marriage away from the states, even though marriage laws are states rights!

B.H.:

Why exactly do you want to be "married," not just civilly unionized? Let's analyze that, shall we?

It can't be for the legal benefits of marriage, for all the legal benefits would obtain from civil union. So it must be for the emotional connotation, right? The idea of commitment between partners that transcends the legal.

This need not necessarily be religious in any conventional sense. If a couple were to undertake solemn vows with each other, and think of themselves as "married," then that would be every bit as much a "marriage" as if they were married in a church or other religious institution, particularly if there were witnesses and/or family participants. And for a non-religious person, that might be more appropriate than marriage in a church.

In that sense, if you wanted to be "married," not just civilly unionized, you could be. In fact, you could be without involving the state at all, and the state should have no voice in whether or not you were.

If we are truly going to separate the civil from the moral parts of marriage, then we ought also to recognize that the name properly belongs to the moral parts (which had it first, before the civil parts even existed). And so we should not be saying, as we do today, that a couple is married if the state says they are. We should say, instead, that a couple is married if they say they are.

The state can say whether their marriage is also a civil union. But it really shouldn't be saying anything about the marriage itself.

Actually, B.H., this might clarify things.

Instead of saying "religious," what I should have said was sacred. By which I mean: Held dear. Close to the heart. Binding upon the will. Emotionally powerful. Morally committing.

The sacred may or may not be "religious" in the conventional sense. But what I've described above is what I meant by the word.

What I'm suggesting is that we separate the sacred from the worldly parts of marriage, and let the state have a say only in the latter (to be called "civil union"), but none in the former (to be called "marriage").

That way, a gay couple could have all the worldly benefits of civil union, and also have all the sacredness of marriage, without someone who doesn't believe in gay marriage feeling any obligation to recognize their union as marriage (only as civil union, since that's the only part that would be law).

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
It can't be for the legal benefits of marriage, for all the legal benefits would obtain from civil union. So it must be for the emotional connotation, right? The idea of commitment between partners that transcends the legal.

Yes, you're exactly right. It's for the emotion, the commitment, the love, the spiritual, the life partnership. The "marriage" (from m-w):

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

Notice religion isn't mentioned. Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage before God is an add-on. And I'm sure you've heard that marriage predates religion and government, so who's to say who 'owns' the word? I'm speaking to the US government and the way it's set up now.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with it. The two should be (and are) separate. And in fact, we did have our own ceremony that we consider our marriage. But the word marriage is not a religious word. We talk about food flavors marrying, the marriage of painting and poetry.

I don't disagree with your concept, it's just that I'm not willing to give up the word as the perfect meaning of my relationship, both emotional and civil. The state-sanctioned marriage, which is recognized by law is important to me, too.

I see trouble down that path, too. I see the possibility of a religious administration saying that if you're not married (in a church) somehow it isn't 'real'.

So, in thoery, I don't really have a problem with your proposal. It's just semantics. But I don't think it makes sense to change the way things have been working in this country for years just to appease the religious folks.

BUT if the government would agree to allowing anyone to get civilly unionized (gay or straight) and the word marriage became a legally meaningless word, as you have proposed, I'd go for it in a second.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Notice religion isn't mentioned. Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage before God is an add-on.

And I'm sure you've heard that marriage predates religion and government

Whether that is true depends on what one means by "religion" and "government." Our precivilized ancestors had no formal government and no organized religion, but they did have means of collective decision-making and they did have religious practices and beliefs. Does that mean they had government and religion? If they did, then marriage doesn't predate those things; if not, then it does.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with it. The two should be (and are) separate.

No, I'm sorry, but if you think the two are separate now, then you don't understand what I was saying. What I'm saying is that they should be, but AREN'T separate.

What I'm saying is that any couple should be able to have a civil union recognized by the state, without also being married in the sacred sense. And vice-versa: a couple should be able to be married in their willing commitment to each other without bothering to register their union with the state. Or they could do as you have done, and have both -- but it should be recognized that they are thus doing two things, not one. The whole problem with gay marriage is that the two are joined together, not separate as they should be.

Look at it this way. Your typical Wiccan coven would have no problem marrying a same-sex couple. The Southern Baptist Church, on the other hand, would never do that. Now, let's leave the state out of the picture for a moment. We would have the Wiccan coven and the Baptist Church disagreeing on what properly constitutes a marriage. And the Baptist Church would not recognize a marriage performed by a Wiccan coven as a proper marriage, especially between two people of the same gender. And that's fine.

But when the state is involved with marrying people, as opposed to just joining them in civil unions, then either it says "OK, the Wiccans are right and same-sex marriages are legit," or it says, "the Baptists are right and marriage has to be between a man and a women." Either way, someone's going to be offended, and rightfully so.

If the sacred and worldly aspects of marriage were truly separate, though, then the state could say, "Any couple, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite sex, may register their union with the state for the civil benefits thereof. As to whether that means they are 'married,' this is none of our business, and you can all each come to your own conclusions."

They are NOT separate. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. But in my opinion, they should be.

And in fact, we did have our own ceremony that we consider our marriage. But the word marriage is not a religious word. We talk about food flavors marrying, the marriage of painting and poetry.

Those uses of "marriage" are metaphorical. Whether "marriage" in the literal sense is religious depends on what you mean by "religious." Let me explain what I mean.

Religion does not necessarily involve belief in God or Gods. (Hinayana Buddhism does not.) It does not necessarily involve belief in a personal afterlife. (My own version of Paganism does not.) It does not necessarily involve membership or participation in a religious institution. (I could give you many examples.)

What religion always involves, though, is participation in a reality larger than oneself that is held sacred. (See my last post for what I mean by "sacred.") And so in that sense, I would say that your marriage ceremony was religious.

I don't disagree with your concept, it's just that I'm not willing to give up the word as the perfect meaning of my relationship, both emotional and civil. The state-sanctioned marriage, which is recognized by law is important to me, too.

I see trouble down that path, too. I see the possibility of a religious administration saying that if you're not married (in a church) somehow it isn't 'real'.

Yes, they could. Some do that now, in fact. The Catholic Church, for example, doesn't recognize the validity of marriage performed outside itself. But so what? Unless you're a participant in that religion, why should you care?

BUT if the government would agree to allowing anyone to get civilly unionized (gay or straight) and the word marriage became a legally meaningless word, as you have proposed, I'd go for it in a second.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. And it's not just to "appease the religious folks." It's also to get the state's profane hands off of something sacred.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
I would say that your marriage ceremony was religious.

I would have to smack you if you did. But I understand what you're saying.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. And it's not just to "appease the religious folks." It's also to get the state's profane hands off of something sacred.

I get it and I agree. Unfortunately, the state (government) is far too tangled up with the church for this to happen any time soon. The church is what's pushing the government's decisions on this. And the government is allowing it.

two steps forward brings up a lot of good points. a couple could get civilly unionized and consider it a marrige, after all, the feeling of commitment and love are mental, you dont need a simple label on your union for love and commitment to be there. And if the church won't recognize it, who cares, nothing they can do about it.

And why this year, they're pressing adding "one man and one woman" to the Constitution to overrule Mass. law that is allowing gays to get married.

this just goes to show that we need to seperate church and state as quickly as possible. the church needs to be put in its place before it rewrites our constitution with religiously biased ammendments.

Originally posted by daedalas
the church needs to be put in its place before it rewrites our constitution with religiously biased ammendments.

Can I get an AMEN!

The church needs to be put in its place... by whom?

I still say that if the law would stand up and stop bowing to the church, the church would be forced to fall back into its place. The law is what is failing us here, though.

Absolutely great discussion everyone!

It appears to me that there is a lot of confusion in the minds of the greater number of the population about true bounds of government and religions. Don’t get me wrong and thing that it is a fault of the people to have the confusion. In fact I think confusion has become, or perhaps has all ways been, the strongest tool of both government and religion.
Excuse me, confusion, as a wonderful and powerful tool is really the topic of another thread.

Firstly, we are dealing with three different games here.
1. Human life as a simple animal existence
2. Government, humans agreeing to act together
3. Religion, similar to government but also modifying what we perceive as reality

All but the first are fictions i.e. (quote from m-w: “a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth b : a useful illusion or pretense”). They are human constructs that exist only in the mind and have their own rules as to how they operate.

In what I am calling the human existence there are no rules except the laws of nature. Humans can do what ever they please. This is where all desire originates.

This brings us to the second game. We as humans have come together and created societies with governments to control the behavior of them. These artificial constructs allow humans to obtain things and perform in ways that are impossible for non-united individuals.
The problem with a government is that it is an artificial being. It has no body because it lives in the minds of those that believe it to exist. Like every child it has learned and grown. It seeks to learn and grow still. It truly is artificial intelligence.
It does have a pseudo body though. It performs its actions through the bodies of its members. Through your taxes that government is able to accomplish its desires. It is true that the government is a burden on every one of its citizen’s shoulders. We carry it along and use it as a shield, a shovel, and sometimes a battering ram.
Now, I will take the position of being that government and look through its eyes. I would say: I know that I am a burden. But if to people want to get married and potentially increase the size of my virtual body I am willing to lighten their load. It is to my benefit. But if to people want to get into a ‘marriage’ that does not even have the form of something that will grow my virtual body, I see no benefit of lightening their tax load. You would not call me intelligent if I allowed my self to be destroyed.

Finally, the third game is religion. It should really come second in the order of their creation but since many of the churches have been incorporated under the government they have become legal creations of the government. Also the have adopted many of the concepts codified by the government; contracts, corporations, artificial persons….
Religions, like governments, are bodies that seek to control the behavior of humans but use a slightly different method. They have chosen the method of defining the belief structure or perceived reality of humans.
As we know what we understand to be reality comes our memory or experiences. Religion injects its own history or memories into the minds of humans; the Garden of Eden, etc… They do all this for the purported benefit of mankind, so mankind may become perfect.
One of the unspoken concepts of many religions is the idea of God the creator, even God the creator of mankind. Marriage is legally a union of to persons into a third greater person, a corporation that has is existence separate and distinct from the existence of its members. This merger of two people into a third ‘person’ (legal term) that has the ability to actually create human beings is part of what religion is all about.

I kind of doubt that many governments or religions will be contradicting their very existence to appease those in a blind rage against injustice, and I do mean blind, and I do mean injustice.