The church can do whatever it wants, but the government has a vested interest in a definition of marriage that works for all religions, and classes of people simply because it means federal and state benefits and protections under the law that only marriage can bring.

Bestiality and polygamy are illegal, and if you want it changed so you can marry your horse, or a herd of them, then find someone to petition your government like the gay people, black people and woman have done.

If it offends your religion senses, don't do it, and write your religious leader not to do it, or sue the government not to make you do it. Once the court rules on it though you like every other citizen are bound to the same law.

Long story short, the judge(s), will decide. Good luck Smoothy, hope it works out with your horse, or the animal(s) of your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

oh I know what it says alright .Do you know what the 1st amendment says ? If you " separate church and state " ,then marriage should be defined by a church. Not a state. The state can deal with all the legalities of the contract between 2 indivduals ,but it cannot define what is a marriage (which is sacred as an institution ,or a sacrament ,a covenant between a man and a women to GOD).

---

Tom, you vehemently criticize the other side for saying the state should be able to define what a religion is when it comes to Obama Care. Yet you are doing exactly the same thing here. You want to apply a religious test to people who may want a civil marriage.

Why does marriage have to be strictly in the domain of religion in the first place? Who made that rule? What religion is a court house marriage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Tom, you vehemently criticize the other side for saying the state should be able to define what a religion is when it comes to Obama Care. Yet you are doing exactly the same thing here. You want to apply a religious test to people who may want a civil marriage.

---

No I'm saying that the state sanction of unions ,either man /women or same sex is NOT marriage .it is setting civil law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Why does marriage have to be strictly in the domain of religion in the first place? Who made that rule? What religion is a court house marriage?

---

A civil union... a contract..

So a Jewish couple who exchanges vows in a synagogue isn't really married? Or a Muslim couple in a mosque? My Hindu friends aren't really married? Do I even want to know about my agnostic friends who got married by a Unitarian minister in a park?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So a Jewish couple who exchanges vows in a synagogue isn't really married? Or a Muslim couple in a mosque? My Hindu friends aren't really married? Do I even want to know about my agnostic friends who got married by a Unitarian minister in a park?

---

I did not say marriage is Christian . I said marriage is religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I did not say marriage is Christian . I said marriage is religious.

---

So if my agnostic friends were united by a JP in the park, it wouldn't be a marriage? The difference between a marriage and a civil union is who unites the couple? Then you had better make sure those civil rights bestowed are exactly the same ones as the rights given at a marriage!

I have no problem with that. Let the contracts be equal under the law.. . that is a state issue. I stand by my definition of marriage.

I think you've aced this one tom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I think you've aced this one tom.

---

Tom and I aren't in a contest.

So how does one do that? The rights that come with civil unions are vastly inadequate as compared to marriage rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

no I'm saying that the state sanction of unions ,either man /women or same sex is NOT marriage .it is setting civil law.

---

I would say you are holding a contradiction.

You want to say that religion should be DEFINED by the church and not DEFINED by the state for the purposes healthcare.

Yet you also want to say:

"If you separate 'church and state', then marriage should be DEFINED* by the church. Not a state." ( * my emphasis )

You further go on to say that the state can deal with the legality of marriage, but it cannot define what marriage is.

You seems to believe that it is the role of the church to dispense the sanctity of marriage to people who don't believe that marriage can or should be defined in these terms.

Yet you complain when the state forces individuals to violate religious beliefs by supplying contraceptives.


Tut

Try to stay with me... marriage is a religious institution that the state has no business being involved in . The state's compelling interest is the contracts that come with the union... period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Tom and I aren't in a contest.

So how does one do that? The rights that come with civil unions are vastly inadequate as compared to marriage rights.

---

There is no contest, tom is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

There is no contest, tom is right.

---

Not yet.

I think that laws against gay marriage will go the same way as sodomy laws. More and more states will legalize gay marriage until there are just a few holdouts in redneck states like the
South and Utah, then the supreme court will strike down the last state laws that ban gay marriage. It will take another few decades, but I think it is just a matter of time.

I still think they are being grossly unfair to polygamists. If these guys are gluttons for punishment and want more than one wife... and can afford it... why shouldn't they.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Apparently, you think the word marriage BELONGS to religious organizations.. It doesn't. Be that as it may, when DOMA goes down, it's NOT because of the 1st Amendment.. It'll be because of the 14th, and the 14th has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with CIVIL RIGHTS.

This is really simple.. IF, what you say COULD have been done, had actually been done, we probably wouldn't be here today.. But, it wasn't done.. It was TALKED about like you're talking about it here. BECAUSE it wasn't done, people who joined in civil unions DID NOT have the same rights as those who entered marriage... The challenge to DOMA is about THOSE rights...

excon

---

So your saying sexual preference is a civil right? I guess that leaves the door open for anything and everything. That is not a place I would like to go. Is that what is going on here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

So your saying sexual preference is a civil right? I guess that leaves the door open for anything and everything. That is not a place I would like to go. Is that what is going on here?

---

So anyone who goes to a JP (non religious) to get married really isn't married, but is civilly united?

Sexual orientation is a preference, a choice? When did you choose to be straight? What age were you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

try to stay with me ... marriage is a religious institution that the state has no business being involved in . The state's compelling interest is the contracts that come with the union ...period

---

The states compelling interest is health care this is why the state wants to redefine religion for healthcare purposes.

Yet you want to say that the church's compelling interest is marriage. This is why you want to redefine marriage for relationship purposes.

Can anyone else besides Tom, see the contradiction?


Tut