[cdad]

Library's closed. I'll ask tal or excon.

Good choice.

[tomder55]

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

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 .
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.

[paraclete]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[Tuttyd]

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 .

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.

What I say is that the state violates the 1st amendment by trying to define marriage .

Marriage is not a religion. Marriage has both religious and civil obligations.

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.

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.

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.

To use you favourite bottom line expression.

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.

[tomder55]

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 ?

[Tuttyd]

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 ?

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".

[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.

That's because you are a superior intellect and a master debater

Try ancient Athens for a start.

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.

marriage has always had some significant civil importance.

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 ?

It is a nonsense to suggest that civil marriage violates the 1srt Amendment.

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.

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".

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 .

[excon]

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

[talaniman]

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).

[tomder55]

it would seem that you'd REJECT all the benefits the state wanted to shower married people with..

I assume you mean tax benefits... as you are aware ,I am a flat tax no deduction kind of guy.

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.

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.

[tomder55]

I contend that the state cannot force ANY particular religious practices, doctrines, or traditions on their constituents,

but you are perfectly content for the state to force it's secular values down our throats .

[Wondergirl]

I assume you mean tax benefits ...as you are aware ,I am a flat tax no deduction kinda guy.

Or these that civil unions do not have --

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I assume you mean tax benefits...

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...

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

[Wondergirl]

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...

Yeah. Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com

[talaniman]

but you are perfectly content for the state to force it's secular values down our throats .

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.

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.

[tomder55]

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...

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

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.

[tomder55]

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.

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.

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.

[tomder55]

Or these that civil unions do not have --

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com

Obviously you have not read my position visa vis rights. I'm all for equal rights and application of the rights.

[Wondergirl]

Obviously you have not read my position vis a vis rights. I'm all for equal rights and application of the rights.

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.