Good choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
|
Good choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
apparently only you see a contradiction in my position. I'm not the one redefining marriage .It always was and always will be a religious institution .In the case of my religion it is so sacred it is a sacrament . What I say is that the state violates the 1st amendment by trying to define marriage .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Now ,the state may indeed have a compelling interest in health care... in fact I'll concede the point . That is why it has the power to outlaw,unions between siblings or close family ;and age restrictions on marriage ;or this silly slippery slope about bestiality . That is way different than the state compelling religions to do something that violates their moral values . That is an unconstitutional line the state crossed.
The libertarian minded on this board should love my position . I am taking a position that I've heard from them for years . Get the state out of the bedroom. Let the state deal with the legal contracts and "rights " associated with the union of people.
One of the rare occasions we agree Tom the state should do nothing that affects the state of marriage which after all is a regilious rite, however the state may do whatever it likes about civil marriage as long as it doesn't attempt to have religious comply. So what you get is a two stage system, a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony
I'm suggesting that the state should do is call it like it is.. They sanction civil unions regardless of the gender pairing of the couple. By the way Smoothy is right about the discrimination against polygamy.
Marriage is not just a religion it is a combination of both civics and religion. It is not the case that marriage was always a religious sacrament. In fact is probably only became a religious sacrament in the last 400 years. Western history has no such precedent for marriage being a religious undertaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Marriage is not a religion. Marriage has both religious and civil obligations.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Unlike OmabaCare- no one is compelling people not to undertake a religious commitment when they get married. People can choose a religious expression or a civil expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder
To use you favourite bottom line expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder
You rightly object to ObamaCare redefining the constituents of religion.Yet according to your formula the church should be able to define Civics. So there is no hypocrisy here?
Liberals are not Libertarians. No one in their right mind would be Libertarian.
LOL I'll let others address that . 400 years of tradition ,yet you say there is no Western history for the precedent for marriage being a religious undertaking .ok then . We disagree . Let the state license ,tax or not tax ;define civil rights all it wants to the civil union. Tell me the western tradition for calling gay couplings a marriage ;where is the history for that ?Quote:
No one in their right mind would be Libertarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, don't dismiss my claims so lightly. Our history has shown that you invariably get painted into a corner. We shall see if this is the case this time.
Try ancient Athens for a start. No it is not a disagreement. If Google the history of marriage you would see that marriage has always had some significant civil importance. Still has.
It is a nonsense to suggest that civil marriage violates the 1srt Amendment. The state can easily show a compelling interest when it comes to the institution of marriage.
Two questions for you, which you will probably not answer.
Do you agree that the state has no right to determine what constitutes a religious organization.
Do you agree, or disagree that religious organizations should define the civics of marriage? Not the legal aspect because this is not in dispute. Civics in terms of being married by someone who is not involved in religion.
Before you answer that I'll just remind you of your quote:
"If you 'separate church and state' the marriage SHOULD BE DEFINED by the church. NOT the state".
That's because you are a superior intellect and a master debaterQuote:
Tom, don't dismiss my claims so lightly. Our history has shown that you invariably get painted into a corner. We shall see if this is the case this time.
Why so recent ? Why not go to Adam and Eve ,or the 10 commandments or the many passages in the Old Testament dealing with marriage . Perhaps you are one of those who deny the role of Judeo-Christian heritage in western culture. 400 years was your marker not mine... but that marker predates the United States by 2 centuries.Quote:
Try ancient Athens for a start.
That is correct ;the marriage of man and women have had a very significant civil importance. But except for the legal power of the state ,and rights of the couple ,the state has no role or compelling interest in the otherwise religious institution.Again ;where is this cultural historical example of the state calling the coupling of homosexuals a marriage ?Quote:
marriage has always had some significant civil importance.
I did not say that .I said the state redefining what 'marriage ' is ,is a violation of the 1st amendment... The lefty's should be happy . In this aspect ,I agree that the Congress went too far in the DOMA law.Quote:
It is a nonsense to suggest that civil marriage violates the 1srt Amendment.
I stand by the last statement .The state can tax ,the state can confer licenses ,the state can dictate what the contract can contain. The state can guarantee enforcement of the terms of the contract . The state cannot call something that is not a marriage a marriage. Oh of course they will... But I will never will .A couple(heterosexual or homosexual) joined by the state without the sanction of a religion is a couple living in a civil union, not a marriage .Quote:
Do you agree that the state has no right to determine what constitutes a religious organization.
Do you agree, or disagree that religious organizations should define the civics of marriage? Not the legal aspect because this is not in dispute. Civics in terms of being married by someone who is not involved in religion.
Before you answer that I'll just remind you of your quote:
"If you 'separate church and state' the marriage SHOULD BE DEFINED by the church. NOT the state".
Hello again, tom:
Your entire argument rests on your belief that the term marriage is a RELIGIOUS term. You've been given some pretty good arguments WHY it's not, yet you remain steadfast. In fact, I've seen NO arguments from you showing how that word remains solely in the realm of the divine..
Wouldn't you think that if it were so, you'd strenuously object to the state co-opting it? But, you didn't. If you believed the state had NO involvement in marriage, it would seem that you'd REJECT all the benefits the state wanted to shower married people with.. But, you didn't. Frankly, you appear to be quite happy with the states involvement in marriage, until now.
And, by your above post, you appear to claim that ANYBODY who was "married" WITHOUT the churches sanction, isn't really married... I find that to be quite preposterous.
excon
So if the CHURCH marries gay couples (and some do) they have a religious union then right? And a civil marriage by a JP, or even a captain of a ship is a legal marriages, none of which has ever been referred to as a civil union, but as a legaly binding marriage. So how can a state government wipe out those legally binding marriages by banning gay marriage?
Isn't that stepping on the rights of those that are legally married, but not recognized by some state governments? How can states be allowed to discriminate because of church doctrine? Or even make discriminatory laws that favor one religions doctrines over another?
I contend that the state cannot force ANY particular religious practices, doctrines, or traditions on their constituents, be it school prayer, or marriage. If DOMA is indeed struck down as unconstitutional, and discriminatory, many states will be scrambling to adjust.
America is a republic, not a theocrisy, and the right of the citizen trumps the right of any church to make, and enforce religious laws, to both state and federal government. No state should be allowed to nullify federal law without dire consequences.
Banning gay marriages, be it church or civil, is a clear case of discrimination, and state over reach, as well as over reach of the church. Tell me how gay couples have less protection under the law than heterosexual couples. Then we can discuss Smoothy having the right to marry his horse(S).
I assume you mean tax benefits... as you are aware ,I am a flat tax no deduction kind of guy.Quote:
it would seem that you'd REJECT all the benefits the state wanted to shower married people with..
You are free to your opinion. I did not say they did not have whatever benefits the state bestowed on them. But if they are not married ;sanctioned by religion... they are not married.. that's just the way it is.Quote:
And, by your above post, you appear to claim that ANYBODY who was "married" WITHOUT the churches sanction, isn't really married... I find that to be quite preposterous.
but you are perfectly content for the state to force it's secular values down our throats .Quote:
I contend that the state cannot force ANY particular religious practices, doctrines, or traditions on their constituents,
Or these that civil unions do not have --Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com
Hello again, tom:
I mean stuff like being able to visit your spouse in the hospital, having a say in the care of a disabled spouse, being able to be put on their insurance, having inheritance rights, and those are just the ones off the top of my head.. I assume there are TONS more. These are rights YOU have, but civil unions DON'T have...Quote:
I assume you mean tax benefits...
Look. Gay people will NEVER be on your list of people who should enjoy FULL rights of citizenship. For the life of me, I don't know why. On the one hand, you guys LIKE freedom - but only for some..
Excon
Yeah. Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.comQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Tom they may not be married according to a religious view, but that has nothing at all to do with equal protection under the LAW. Now if your position that the church rules are above those of federal government, you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If you are say marriage is the exclusive domain of religion, again, you are just wrong. The state forces nothing on the church by allowing gay marriage, and you may not like it, or agree with it, but you are not harmed or hindered in the way YOU practice YOUR religion.
So tell me how gay marriage forces something down YOUR throat, and how it harms YOUR rights to practice YOUR religion? You cannot I bet! Not liking it is NOT a reasonable argument from you, or the church.
I'm in favor of all of that being equally applied . That is why I say the state has the right to set the terms of the contract .But they should get out of the marriage business. That should be a perfectly acceptable compromise for a libertarian like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The deeper question is why do you want us to accept that the state sanctioned union is a 'marriage ' ? What do you gain by trying to force on us something we will never accept ? I am not married because the state says so . I am married because my religion sanctified it . Again ;I've addressed all the equal rights aspect of this .;but you still want me to call a homosexual union a marriage. Isn't going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Obviously you have not read my position visa vis rights. I'm all for equal rights and application of the rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
With what limitations? OR a civil union will equal a marriage, and marriage will be the name given to the social institution conducted in a religious setting by a priest/minister (Hindu, Muslim, Wicca, Satanism, Christian), whereas civil union will be the name of the social institution created outside a religious body and performed by a JP, ship captain, etc. Therefore, some couples (male-female, male-male, female-female) will be married and some will be in a civil union, depending. All will receive the same benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Finally someone gets it . It may surprise you to know that my views are the same as Obama loyalist Cass Sunstein (husband of Special Assistant to President Barack Obama Samantha Power )Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
In a book he pennedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#MarriageQuote:
,Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an official license scheme."
Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage,” added Sunstein.
Sunstein slammed current government recognition of marriage as “an official license scheme.”
“When the state grants marriage it gives both material and symbolic benefits to the couples it recognizes. But why combine the two functions? And what is added by the term marriage?” he asked.
Sunstein explained terminating the issuance of state marriage contracts would not affect the commitments of those in the “partnership.”
“People take their private commitments serious,” Sunstein wrote. “Members of religious organizations, homeowners' associations and country clubs all feel bound, sometimes quite strongly, by the structures and rules of such organizations.”
Hello again, tom
It's NOT a question at all. I don't want you to accept ANYTHING.. I couldn't care less if you do because the law doesn't apply to you.. Call a gay marriage an abomination if you like. I'm FINE with that.Quote:
the deeper question is why do you want us to accept that the state sanctioned union is a 'marriage '
Excon
Actually no it is not. As it is the States job to define what law is and any challenges to it go up the chian for a decision. So a state to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman is not discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Without definition then anything goes. Poligimy being just one of them. Without the state saying not to then it must be allowed.
So it's just a matter of words, of semantics, and how they ring your chimes. You call it a football; I call it a footellipsoid. Otherwise, it's same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What was DOMA about in the 1st place. A word definition. It was always about the word .What got the gay communities panties in a knot?. That their relationship was called civil union and heterosexual relationships were called' marriage'. This gets rid of the distinction ,and both sides should be happy . I can live with the state calling my legal union a civil union .
No, civil unions do not convey the rights that a marriage does. If they want all the rights, they want a marriage, not a civil union.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes they do if they guarantee the same right. More important ,if all state sanctioned unions are called civil unions then how are they not equal in every aspect ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
They don't give all of these --Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com
The whole point of civil unions, which is what they used to clamor for, was to grant the same rights.
They clamor for marriage, you want them to be happy with civil unions. Separate but equal didn't work with bathrooms and water fountains either.
It would NOT be separate but equal.. It would be one size fits all civil unions.
They aren't the same thing, do not confer the same rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That means the gays want the "right " to the religious institution.. That isn't going to happen unless they are satisfied with the religions that recognize gay coupling . There is no way thatyou can tell me that the state can't construct the laws to recognize ALL the various couplings as equal in the eye of the state as civil unions .
No. The gays want the rights that come with marriage. Nothing else gives those rights, so marriage it is. And since non-religious ceremonies for secular couples are called marriage... Plus, some church bodies are already allowing same-sex marriages to be performed. The horses have already left the gate -- and the barn too.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So there it is... no compromising with the left. That's what I figured because it was the same with the right to murder babies.
If civil unions would also allow gay couples to file joint tax returns with deductions for kids and to adopt and get social secirity benefits as a surviving spouse, among other discrepencies, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the federal and state governments would allow these benefits that only married can enjoy, there would be no issue.
Civil unions are not equal under existing law. Maybe your idea will reconcile those differences and make them equal. It has merit once we get past the semantics.
I will save he abortion issue for the proper thread.
Compromise? What do you suggest?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Right, no compromise is acceptable to the left.
Are the righties willing to make a civil union be the same as a marriage, with all of the same legal rights and privileges?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello?! What do you think I have been saying through the 115 postings on this topic ?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You call it semantics... I call it a minimal requirement . Stop calling the state sanction marriage... get the state out of the marriage business.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 PM. |