NationStates Jolt Archive

What would you feel like if the goverment denied you rights that other people had? This is a question everybody must consider before deciding whether or not they support Gay Marriage or not. You see, marriage is much more than sharing a last name. Marrige is something much more important, it's about your damn rights. This is why I asked my first question, because it is basically the same thing as denying gay people to marry. People who believe marriage is between a women and male don't know the background information behind marriage.

So marriage grants you more things than just sharing the same last name. You get benefits. Benifits which are very much useful for a married couple.

National benefits:
1. Access to Military Stores
2. Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
3. Bereavement Leave
4. Immigration
5. Insurance Breaks
6. Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
7. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
8. Social Security Survivor Benefits
9. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
10. Tax Breaks
11. Veteran’s Discounts
12. Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Several State Benefits:
1. Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
2. Automatic Inheritance
3. Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
4. Bereavement Leave
5. Burial Determination
6. Child Custody
7. Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
8. Divorce Protections
9. Domestic Violence Protection
10. Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
11. Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
12. Insurance Breaks
13. Joint Adoption and Foster Care
14. Joint Bankruptcy
15. Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
16. Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
17. Certain Property Rights
18. Reduced Rate Memberships
19. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
20. Visitation of Partner’s Children
21. Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
22. Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

By denying people the right to marry, you are denying them the rights listed above. Saying it is against religeon is basically saying equal rights is against your religeon. Just because your a homophobe, does not mean you should discriminate against gay people. It's genetics. There's nothing they could have done about it. You might as well say people with OCD shouldn't be allowed to vote since they would keep on pressing the vote button. Or maybe bums shouldn't have any rights because they scare you.

I'm pretty sure democracy supports equal rights. So if you say marriage is only for a male and female, either abolish every single benefit listed above, or make it so gay couples can attain them. Marriage is much much more than just sharing your last name. It comes with benefits every married couple wants.

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.

Second

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.

Wait a second. Thats too simple... where's the part of your solution where we get to enforce our beliefs on other people's lives??????

Oh, and step brothers and sisters could marry if they wanted to as well, since there's no blood relation.

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.

I'm inclined to agree except there's an existing distinction between 'civil union' and 'marriage.' In general marriage is for heterosexuals and civil unions are for homosexuals. Marriage has this superior connotation that people morally opposed to homosexuality are going to want to maintain; I doubt many conservative heterosexual couples would consent to a civil union, since it would detract from some preconceived notion of religious significance and sanctity. But it's also the same reason they're not going to want gays to have the right to marry. So I guess either way the wrath of the 700 Club will be incurred. Boo.

But your solution is the simplest option available. It really is a legal issue at this level, not religious. To me, 'marriage' is a private thing, a church thing, a spiritual thing, and it shouldn't define the rights a couple is entitled to-- because I associate it with religion, not legal benefits or custodial rights or whatever. 'Civil union' is a more appropriate term, considering the nature of the issue. If couples want that added 'specialness' of marriage, then by all means obtain it in a church or wherever would fulfill that desire. The government isn't required to (nor could it appropriately) offer it.

Or move to Canada where it will be totally legal and binding in January.

The Supreme Court of Canada made a non-binding deicision on the draft allowing gay marriage, saying that it was constitutional.

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.

Why would anyone want to rename it? It's marriage, plain and simple. What is this fixation on semantics people, especially, in the US have? This whole "civil-union" thing is just ridiculous; if it's a marriage, it's a marriage; it doesn't have to be the least bit religious to be a marriage - in fact marriage has nothing to do with religion at all.

Why would anyone want to rename it? It's marriage, plain and simple. What is this fixation on semantics people, especially, in the US have? This whole "civil-union" thing is just ridiculous; if it's a marriage, it's a marriage; it doesn't have to be the least bit religious to be a marriage - in fact marriage has nothing to do with religion at all.

I agree. But so many people are convinced it IS a religious bond, holy union, etc. etc. I'd rather it be relabeled (at least in the legal sphere) in the hope of dispelling some prejudice.

I agree. But so many people are convinced it IS a religious bond, holy union, etc. etc. I'd rather it be relabeled (at least in the legal sphere) in the hope of dispelling some prejudice.

But do religious organisations get to have a say about the legality and validity of marriage? If not, then I don't see the point in renaming anything. That'd be like letting them usurp it.

Where I live it is the government that acknowledges marriages and disolves them - what the church does is inconsequential.

Parliment here has just passed a civil unions bill. It allows Gay and de facto couples to have their relationships recognised, but marriage still stays in tact. Straight couples can 'upgrade' their civil union to a marriage if they like.

Parliment here has just passed a civil unions bill. It allows Gay and de facto couples to have their relationships recognised, but marriage still stays in tact. Straight couples can 'upgrade' their civil union to a marriage if they like.

What's the point in separating the two entities?

LOL "upgrade your civil union to a marriage".

Sounds like a freakin video game.

What's the point in separating the two entities?

it keeps a small number of christians happy.

LOL "upgrade your civil union to a marriage".

Sounds like a freakin video game.

yeah, you can do the reverse as well I think.

What about those polygamous people? They should be able to marry each other - ALL of them, shouldn't they? Your previous statements should support that too.

it keeps a small number of christians happy.

And their opinion matters more than that of others and justifies discrimination because?

What about those polygamous people? They should be able to marry each other - ALL of them, shouldn't they? Your previous statements should support that too.
Sounds good to me.

People who want to get married should be able to get married. Simple as that.

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.

Ok how would that work?

Girl: Is he available?
Friend: No, he is civil unionized!

oh honestly, people can and will still say married and get married in chruches, it just won't be a government beuacratic thing.

Jackass: "Hey, will you civil unionize with me?
Girl: "Now, fuck off, you loser."

And their opinion matters more than that of others and justifies discrimination because?

Because everyone else is either totally for it or totally against it. If you can change it slightly and hold onto more votes come election, its in your favour to.

Because everyone else is either totally for it or totally against it. If you can change it slightly and hold onto more votes come election, its in your favour to.

Seems silly to me to let some majority, or some minority which the case may be here, dictate the rights of a minority. It just doesn't make any sense.

Seems silly to me to let some majority, or some minority which the case may be here, dictate the rights of a minority. It just doesn't make any sense.
Supposedly the minority is to be protected from tyranny of the majority...

...but in a democracy sometimes you have to allow that tyrany that in order to win elections.

Clinton advised Kerry to speak out against gay marriage in the months prior to the election, to take away Bush's strongest wedge issue.

Supposedly the minority is to be protected from tyranny of the majority...

...but in a democracy sometimes you have to allow that tyrany that in order to win elections.

Clinton advised Kerry to speak out against gay marriage in the months prior to the election, to take away Bush's strongest wedge issue.

So it just comes back to appeasing discriminators and political cowardice?

So it just comes back to appeasing discriminators and political cowardice?
Exactly. Politics is a dirty game.

Exactly. Politics is a dirty game.

And the judicial system is silent in all this?

But do religious organisations get to have a say about the legality and validity of marriage? If not, then I don't see the point in renaming anything. That'd be like letting them usurp it.

Where I live it is the government that acknowledges marriages and disolves them - what the church does is inconsequential.

Well, a lot of the US government's power lies in the hands of members of religious organizations, and they act on a morality implanted in them by those religious organizations as much as any democratic ideals. So our churches in effect do get a say about the validity of marriage, even if it's not really their jurisdiction.

Well, a lot of the US government's power lies in the hands of members of religious organizations, and they act on a morality implanted in them by those religious organizations as much as any democratic ideals. So our churches in effect do get a say about the validity of marriage, even if it's not really their jurisdiction.

That sounds somewhat like a theocracy. Is there no separation of state from religious organisations?

That sounds somewhat like a theocracy. Is there no separation of state from religious organisations?

In theory there is. But the individuals more or less in control of the nation are attempting to mold it according to their vision, which is more conservative Christian moralistic than democratic and fair.

it keeps a small number of christians happy.
How come we have to make the christians happy? Since when are they above everyone else?

In theory there is. But the individuals more or less in control of the nation are attempting to mold it according to their vision, which is more conservative Christian moralistic than democratic and fair.

Scary, but is it not up to the judicial branch to halt such attempts?

Scary, but is it not up to the judicial branch to halt such attempts?

Ah, but a solid number of the Supreme Court fall in line with the President and other stringent conservatives. Bush has forged a wall of uber right-wingers. The majority is what rules, and the conservatives are the majority.

So marriage grants you more things than just sharing the same last name.
Yeah, um, how do they decide that?

Scary, but is it not up to the judicial branch to halt such attempts?
That is why you constantly hear the conservatives wailing about "activist" judges and a supposed left-wing conspiracy in the courts. They are waging a war of public opinion against the judicial system. It's dangerous for our democracy if they succeed.

Or move to Canada where it will be totally legal and binding in January.

The Supreme Court of Canada made a non-binding deicision on the draft allowing gay marriage, saying that it was constitutional.

I'm going to have to move to Canada someday.... Not because I'm gay (I'm straight), but because they have their damned heads in the game and not up their own asses.

There is nothing unconstitutional about gay marriage. Find me something that was already in the constitution that said gay marriage is wrong, and I will step back. Homophobes are trying to race to tape a sheet of paper on the constitution that says, "...and no gays."

people should be able to marry whoever they want. Its as simple as that.

Ah, but a solid number of the Supreme Court fall in line with the President and other stringent conservatives. Bush has forged a wall of uber right-wingers. The majority is what rules, and the conservatives are the majority.

So, the whole system of checks and balances is out of play?

I'm going to have to move to Canada someday.... Not because I'm gay (I'm straight), but because they have their damned heads in the game and not up their own asses.

There is nothing unconstitutional about gay marriage. Find me something that was already in the constitution that said gay marriage is wrong, and I will step back. Homophobes are trying to race to tape a sheet of paper on the constitution that says, "...and no gays."
Thank you!

I agree. But so many people are convinced it IS a religious bond, holy union, etc. etc. I'd rather it be relabeled (at least in the legal sphere) in the hope of dispelling some prejudice.

Marriage is a legal process taken by the government to unite two people to form one family. The religious part of marriage is completely separate. If you get married, you will see that the religion of marriage and the legal status of marriage are two VERY separate things. Also, to those who say that marriage should be kept as man and woman, I got news for ya.

This just in! You dont marry someone because you are a man and she is a woman, or vice versa, you marry someone because, *drum roll*, YOU LOVE THAT PERSON!

Gay marriage is neither constitutional, nor unconstitutional.

Someone mentioned "if we allow homosexuals to marry, whats stopping the left from allowing people to marry dogs and chairs?"

Weeeeell... I'm gonna have to say that this syllogism is only valid when you are under the assumption that homosexuals are not human beings. If anyone can prove to me that homosexuals are not "homo sapiens" (funny use of the term) then yes, we would allow them to start marrying dogs and chairs eventually.

BUT

Since homosexuals are still indeed, human, allowing the marriage of man and dog would be a *BIT* more extreme of a step.

Ok, so relating back the whole "Call it a civil union and it will be ok.",
What?? Civil Union. Marriage. They're just words! They would do the exact same things, why do people care what it's going to be called?! If people say "gay marriage", are the conservatives going to be like "OMG NO, BAN IT NOW", but if we call it a "Civil Union", then they'll just be like "Ohhh, ok, that's better.." ?

Now that I mentioned that, here's the plain and simple case that I make FOR gay marriage:

1) The government of the United States' responsibility is to protect the rights of the people, not limit their rights. The constitution was drafted to control the government, not the people! The only thing in the constitution having to do with people is the Bill of Rights, and that tells what the government CAN'T do to the people, not what people can and can't do with each other. The only amendment that I know of that was ever added to the constitution with the purpose of limiting the peoples' rights was Prohibition... and how well did that go over?
2) Whether you'd like to believe it or not, homosexuality is no choice. No one knows for sure whether it is genetics or not, but take it from me, a homosexual, that you CAN'T choose it. So in essense, that's *like* saying that "people with an IQ below 100 are not allowed to marry because they're not competent enough to maintain a relationship" or "black people can't marry because they're black." It's discrimination against competent, healthy individuals who can't help what they are, but want the same rights as every other U.S. citizen.
3) I still have yet to get a real answer from ANYONE, explaining to me why homosexuality,or gay marriage for that matter, is wrong. I don't want to hear anything about what the Bible or the Koran or whatever says, I want a logical answer as to why it's wrong. Don't say that "it's unnatural", because obviously it is natural or it wouldn't happen. Seriously, I'd really like to see a logical argument against homosexuality or gay marriage, not having to do with religion. Anyone?
4) We live in one of the most liberal (comparatively), progressive, and FREE nations in the world. Why are people still trying to limit civil rights? The government should have no say in personal issues. The only reason that it should ever interfere in your affairs is if you're violating someone else's rights.
5) If you don't believe in gay marriage for whatever reason, then don't get gay-married! Allowing gay marriage isn't saying 'NOW EVERYONE GET GAY-MARRIED NOW!', but is just giving people the *choice* of it. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't get one! Pro-choicers believe in just that: Pro-CHOICE. It's not saying that EVERYONE MUST GET AN ABORTION NOW... it's just giving people the choice!


Sorry that was long guys, but those are my big five. Disagreement, anyone?

Ok, so relating back the whole "Call it a civil union and it will be ok.",
What?? Civil Union. Marriage. They're just words! They would do the exact same things, why do people care what it's going to be called?! If people say "gay marriage", are the conservatives going to be like "OMG NO, BAN IT NOW", but if we call it a "Civil Union", then they'll just be like "Ohhh, ok, that's better.." ?
They would still be pissy, but they would have even less of a leg to stand on then they do now, which can only be a good thing.

Though it's been stated a few times, this is my personal opinion

The term "Marriage" brings to mind a Judeo-Christian sacrament (sp), and the Christian Church is against Homosexuality (with the possible exception of the Episcopal church... but that's another story). If Homosexuals want to "marry" in the legal sense (aka "civil union"), fine, it's their choice, just like it's a heterosexual's choice.
The problem i have is the government making any spiritual establishment admit something that's against their ideals. If homosexuals want to have a "civil union" and call it a marriage, fine, no problem. But when the government invades a church, that's when i get defensive.
Hope that was clear.

PS: I'm a Heterosexual Christian, so... yeah... this is my story, and I'm sticking to it :)

Though it's been stated a few times, this is my personal opinion

The term "Marriage" brings to mind a Judeo-Christian sacrament (sp), and the Christian Church is against Homosexuality (with the possible exception of the Episcopal church... but that's another story). If Homosexuals want to "marry" in the legal sense (aka "civil union"), fine, it's their choice, just like it's a heterosexual's choice.
The problem i have is the government making any spiritual establishment admit something that's against their ideals. If homosexuals want to have a "civil union" and call it a marriage, fine, no problem. But when the government invades a church, that's when i get defensive.
Hope that was clear.

PS: I'm a Heterosexual Christian, so... yeah... this is my story, and I'm sticking to it :)

How exactly would allowing gay marriage (or civil unions, if you will) make any particular spiritual establishment admit anything? No one is suggesting that all churches must marry gay couples. They're just saying that gay couples should be allowed to marry, in a church that chooses to marry them, and that all legal rights conferred thereof be recognized. Recognizing those legal rights has no bearing on unassociated spiritual establishments.

How exactly would allowing gay marriage (or civil unions, if you will) make any particular spiritual establishment admit anything? No one is suggesting that all churches must marry gay couples. They're just saying that gay couples should be allowed to marry, in a church that chooses to marry them, and that all legal rights conferred thereof be recognized. Recognizing those legal rights has no bearing on unassociated spiritual establishments.

I was listening to a Catholic speak about gay marrige, and he brought up a very interesting point.

"I don't see why other catholics are all pissy about this. Why should we care? I thought all non-catholic marriges were null in our eyes anyways? And if this is true, why can the protastants do the same?"

How exactly would allowing gay marriage (or civil unions, if you will) make any particular spiritual establishment admit anything? No one is suggesting that all churches must marry gay couples. They're just saying that gay couples should be allowed to marry, in a church that chooses to marry them, and that all legal rights conferred thereof be recognized. Recognizing those legal rights has no bearing on unassociated spiritual establishments.
That is correct. NO ONE has proposed forcing churches to perform any function they do not want to. Hell, I would support a church's right to refuse to marry interracial couples. Churches can do whatever they want...anything different breaks the 1st Amendment.

That said, there are churches willing to perform gay marriages (a fact the religious right ignores). To not recognize such marriages would similarly break the 1st Amendment.

I want to know how people can say gay marriage is "unatural" when news flash marriage its self is unatural! We made it up, besides who cares if gay people want to get married. It won't affect the people who don't want gay people getting marrier. So what right do they have to say gay people can't get married! Also i agree with Genevea, saying gay people can't get married is flat out discrimination!

Ok, you people all have very good arguments that make sence. But i am just stating my point of view about gay marriage. First off girls are just a lot better to look at..in my eyes. Second if we had a major increase in the population of gay poeple then our total population would go down in america and that isn't exactly the greatest thing. Then the issue of the church and the government coming in and saying that you can't be gay or you have to be gay or you have to mary a dog. I really think that the church and the gov shouldn't interfere with anything personal in your life. And my ending comment is that gay sex just really doesn't appeal to me in the least amount (or have sex with a dog or any other animal in that case)

WOMEN+MAN=GOOD :D

Go with it. Call it marriage..

And btw, the Anglican church allows Gays to marry.

I bet that in 20 years we will be arguing about Polygamos marriges....

Where do you get the idea that allowing gay marriage will increase the gay poulation? If there going to be gay chance is they already are! Also have you ever noticed how most straight guys are totaly against homosexuality when it comes to two guys, but they realy like seeing two girls together. Im one of the few straight guys(that i know of) that doesn't go nuts at any hint of two girls haveing sex.

it keeps a small number of christians happy.
well said :)

It keeps the christians happy? What ever happened to separation of church and state?

Ok, you people all have very good arguments that make sence. But i am just stating my point of view about gay marriage. First off girls are just a lot better to look at..in my eyes. Second if we had a major increase in the population of gay poeple then our total population would go down in america and that isn't exactly the greatest thing. Then the issue of the church and the government coming in and saying that you can't be gay or you have to be gay or you have to mary a dog. I really think that the church and the gov shouldn't interfere with anything personal in your life. And my ending comment is that gay sex just really doesn't appeal to me in the least amount (or have sex with a dog or any other animal in that case)

WOMEN+MAN=GOOD :D
Apparently, you don't seem to realize that gay marriage is optional, not obligatory. If you think gay sex is disgusting, don't participate in gay sex. If you think women are more attractive than men, date women. Just remember that nobody is exactly the same, so it's impossible to legislate somebody's natural feeling of love to someone else. Also, I don't think anyone here advocates bestiality (sex with animals).

Apparently, you don't seem to realize that gay marriage is optional, not obligatory. If you think gay sex is disgusting, don't participate in gay sex. If you think women are more attractive than men, date women. Just remember that nobody is exactly the same, so it's impossible to legislate somebody's natural feeling of love to someone else. Also, I don't think anyone here advocates bestiality (sex with animals).

Exacty! Thank you Alomogordo!

It keeps the christians happy? What ever happened to separation of church and state?
no, I mean, that we SHOULDN'T cave in to the demands of a small number of Christians. She was responding to someone else's question about why there are even laws like that in the first place.

Then the issue of the church and the government coming in and saying that you can't be gay or you have to be gay or you have to mary a dog.

Logical fallacy. Gay marriage does not lead to bestiality.

Ok i was mistaken about the meaning, sorry about that. But i still don't see why people think its wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone or affect anyone besides the two people who want to get married and just happen to be the same gender.

2 people should be able to go to a court house file a marriage liscense and be done with it. Have all the rights as everyone else who is "married". The term married is used in so many ways, that it's hard to seriously view it as this "super spiritual union" that the white right tries to tell us it is.

Have the state agree to give marriage benefits to the two on the marriage liscense, to break these benefits those two must file for a divorse.

Leave the ceremony to each persons religious preference.

It keeps the christians happy? What ever happened to separation of church and state?

The notion of "separation of church and state" as derived from the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment does not prohibit religious groups for influencing or even controlling the government. Instead it prohibits the government from creating or controlling religious groups.

There is nothing unconstitutional about gay marriage. Find me something that was already in the constitution that said gay marriage is wrong, and I will step back.

Find me something in the Constitution that says I can't marry my 4 year old daughter, my goat and/or my sister (all at the same time), and I'll step back as well.

Sorry, your arguement doesn't fly. Others might, this one doesn't.

Ok, you people all have very good arguments that make sence. But i am just stating my point of view about gay marriage. First off girls are just a lot better to look at..in my eyes.
That may be a good justification for you not getting married to a man, it does not justify preventing women from marrying women, or men from marrying men. Please note, there is no mainstream or visible fringe call for compulsory homosexual marraige, it is about adding an option, not forcing you to undergo a change of sexuality.

Second if we had a major increase in the population of gay poeple then our total population would go down in america and that isn't exactly the greatest thing.
Ignorning details like the fact that you have not demonstrated that a reduction would be problemative, what has this got to do with marraige? The law does not make people gay, when homosexual activies were illegal, homosexuals engaged in homosexual acts.

Then the issue of the church and the government coming in and saying that you can't be gay or you have to be gay or you have to mary a dog.
The government has never told anyone they have to be gay, although it has from time to time told people they should not be.

I really think that the church and the gov shouldn't interfere with anything personal in your life. And my ending comment is that gay sex just really doesn't appeal to me in the least amount (or have sex with a dog or any other animal in that case)

WOMEN+MAN=GOOD :D
Church should not interfere, government should not interfere. People should be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice in the eyes of the law, without interference, or no one should be able to marry in the eyes of the law. Whether or not you like 'gay sex' is no more relevent to the issue of homosexual marraige, than the lack of appeal bowling holds for me, is relevent to whether or not skittles should be banned. No one is suggesting that because heterosexual sex doesnt appeal to them, you should only be allowed to marry someone of your own gender or not get married at all, so why do you think it's reasonable to interfere in other people's marraige choices just because their choice of partner or partnership form, doesnt appeal to you? If you also decide you dont like tomatoes, should we expect you to want them banned as well?

It's genetics.

Exactly, it's an anomaly of genetics, a mistake, a disaster, an event that shouldn't have happened, an error. A burden.

We should be accepting of gays as any other mentally disabled individual with Goverment programs for counseling, support, and institutions.

They also should be open to any rights we have, but you do not let an error destroy the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is a perfect union between a man and a woman, it's not for a mistake. Take your civil union and equal rights.

Today, the 10th of December 2004, The Civil Union Bill was passed in New Zealand. The bill, which takes effect on April 26 2005, allows same-sex and de facto couples to formally register their relationships under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act. It is intended that they will have the same rights, entitlements and obligations as married couples.

HORRAY!!!! :fluffle:

Exactly, it's an anomaly of genetics, a mistake, a disaster, an event that shouldn't have happened, an error. A burden.

- Wow an expert on genetics he is. Aww, now isn't that cute? Geneticists say the darnedest things.

We should be accepting of gays as any other mentally disabled individual with Goverment programs for counseling, support, and institutions.

- Do I get to wear a hockey helmet? Can I ride a pink tricycle through the Ward?

They also should be open to any rights we have, but

- The generosity, folks...the sheer magnamity of it all, I tells you...this man's a saint.

you do not let an error destroy the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

- This bit sounds like a line out of one of the later 'Dune' books.

Marriage is a perfect union between a man and a woman, it's not for a mistake.

- Or perhaps 'Second Foundation'?

Take your civil union and equal rights.

- Definitely Second Foundation. Bloody Mule...

What ever happened to the arguement about scrapping the legal status of marriage for all couples and creating a system of civil unions? Let the churches marry who they will and let them assign that title. Their problem with gay marriage is that it uses a word they feel is tied in so much with their system of beliefs that anything tied to that word would be tied to their system of beliefs, which is something they don't want. I find it slightly hypocritical that they only bring this up now, when for years the system has been marrying atheists, buddhists, hindus, muslims, satanists and many others who don't accept the christian manner of life, but why not squash any chances of future problems and discrimination by creating an equal legal status for all to appease those in favor, and removing the religous implications for all those opposed. Both sides win. Any system that keeps both civil unions and marriage as states of legal status is creating the "separate but equal" status we see from the civil rights struggles in the 1960s...and we all know how that turned out.
Idealistically, we'd all hold hands and get along, and everyone would be able to get married free from judgement. True separation of church and state is a great idea, but totally unrealistic. I think people forget when they're talking politics that there's a difference between the ideal world of what should be and the real world where people don't make life that easy. Sure, there will always be people who are unhappy with every piece of legislation. There's no answer to any problem that has 100% approval or solvency. At least with this plan, people will have less to complain about.
And even with this system, religious homosexuals will be able to be married thanks to denominations like the episcopalian church. Not all religous groups are closed-minded...
I'm a heterosexual christian who wishes for an ideal world and recognizes and lives in the real one.

Wow, that cracked the biggest grin out of me Dobbs.

That was just plain awesome.

You can wear your hockey helmet, you can lick frozen poles, and you can ride the short bus on field trips to the park!

What ever happened to the arguement about scrapping the legal status of marriage for all couples and creating a system of civil unions? Let the churches marry who they will and let them assign that title. Their problem with gay marriage is that it uses a word they feel is tied in so much with their system of beliefs that anything tied to that word would be tied to their system of beliefs, which is something they don't want. I find it slightly hypocritical that they only bring this up now, when for years the system has been marrying atheists, buddhists, hindus, muslims, satanists and many others who don't accept the christian manner of life, but why not squash any chances of future problems and discrimination by creating an equal legal status for all to appease those in favor, and removing the religous implications for all those opposed. Both sides win. Any system that keeps both civil unions and marriage as states of legal status is creating the "separate but equal" status we see from the civil rights struggles in the 1960s...and we all know how that turned out.

I oppose surrendering marraige to religious groups. Marraige is a social institution, it doesnt belong to religious groups any more than the institution of trade does. I dont want to be 'civil unioned' rather than married just to stop some people from trying to discriminate against other people. I see no reason to hand over ownership of a ubiquitous human social institution to some groups just to pander to thier tendency to stick their noses into other people's marital affairs on the basis of discrimination against sexual practises.

As it happens if religious people find that they dont like the civil version of the social institution of marraige, instead of demanding society abandons it's long standing ownership of the social institution marraige, religious people can opt out of civil marraiges. They can hold their religious marraiges in their churches with their celebrants and if they wish marry civily, or not on sheer principal.

Exactly, it's an anomaly of genetics, a mistake, a disaster, an event that shouldn't have happened, an error. A burden. Wow. If it's so anomalous, why does it occur so frequently in nature? Assuming you accept the tenets of evolution, if something is so disastrous and such a burden, why hasn't nature smothered it by now? It's not only humans who are gay, but apes, monkeys, dolphins, dogs, rats, etc. etc. Humans may be endowed with a soul, but this doesn't exclude them from the realities of natural selection. It's been thousands and thousands of years, and we still have gays. In fact, according to some people (who are likely wrong), we have more gays than ever! That would suggest to me that homosexuality is a genetic success. What is the precise genetic anomaly anyway? What makes it a mutation rather than a variation?

We should be accepting of gays as any other mentally disabled individual with Goverment programs for counseling, support, and institutions. First it's just an anomaly, now it's a metally disabling anomaly. But I've never met a gay person who lacked any of the mental capacities of the average functioning human. I don't see gays being chaperoned for fear they might wander off and get lost, or being held in psychological institutions under medication and counseling. They're not corraled into groups and entertained with balloons and Jellybean the sock puppet (unless for the novelty of it). They're not watched for dangerous behaviors or kept locked away from society. Gay does not = retarded, psychotic, or whatever.

They also should be open to any rights we have, but you do not let an error destroy the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is a perfect union between a man and a woman, it's not for a mistake. Take your civil union and equal rights.So they're open to all the rights of 'regular' people-- except marriage. But even some mentally disabled people are permitted that luxury... besides, enough heterosexual couples fuck up marriage and desecrate any supposed sanctity that lies in it. Many of them surely don't appreciate the 'perfect union' they've entered. Mistakes abound in marriage, so why not let gays in on the fun? Aside from that, the legal definition of marriage I'm promoting doesn't exclude same-sex couplings and is the civil union fortified with all the privileges of legal marriage and without the associations or restrictions of the religious definition of marriage. I'm saying spiritual marriage and legal marriage should be separate.

"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."
- G.K. Chesterton

Obviously, there is a reason that marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman throughout the world. There are exceptions, obviously. Although, polygamy is a far more common exception than is homosexual marriage...I challenge you to find an example of a people in history prior to this past quarter-century that recognized homosexual couples as "married" i.e. a fundamental family unit. Even the Greeks who had no qualms with homosexuality did not accept so called homosexual marriage. That was not the proper structure for society.
Anyway, it's nice and easy to assume that anyone opposed to same sex marriage is stupid or just a religious fanatic. But, that's simply not the case. First of all, one has to understand why governments even give benefits at all to married couples. If all we are concerned about is equality, we could just as easily say that nobody should receive marriage benefits at all and get the government out of people's relationship. That would also be equal. Secondly, one needs to understand why it is that governments only recognize those relationships that are between one man and one woman. Why not between three people...why not between two men? Why is the government interested in getting involved at all? It's easy to set up a straw man argument of "b/c the Bible says so" and then tear it down and comment on how stupid anyone against same sex marriage is. But, if each side does that, we'll get nowhere. "Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up." So, what are the arguments of this "homophobic, fanatical" sect of America, which just so happens to make up a large majority of the population, as is evident from the recent gay marriage ammendments?

Here is a link to a good article explaining the reasons for opposing same sex marriage from a non-faith background as a matter of fact. No religious arguments whatsoever. Here is a summary of the article and the link to the full text. Don't be worried because it is from catholiceducation.org...that is just where the link is from. It's definitely not a Catholic article, as is evident from the opening paragraph of the summary. Enjoy the article and let me know what you think.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0064.html#13

Summary

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. One of us, in fact, is gay. We oppose gay marriage, not gay relationships (which are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples and should be supported by all).

Most people assume that heterosexuality is a given of nature and thus not vulnerable to cultural change, that nothing will ever discourage straight people from getting together and starting families. But we argue — and this is important — that heterosexual bonding must indeed be deliberately fostered by a distinctive and supportive culture.

Because heterosexual bonding is directly related to both reproduction and survival, and because it involves much more than copulation, all human societies have actively fostered it (although some have also allowed or even encouraged homosexuality in specific circumstances). This is done through culture: rules, customs, laws, symbols, rituals, incentives, rewards, and other public mechanisms. So deeply embedded are these, however, that few people are consciously aware of them.

Much of what is accomplished in animals by nature ("biology," "genetics," or "instinct" ) must be accomplished in humans by culture (all other aspects of human existence, including marriage). If culture were removed, the result wouldn't be a functioning organism whether human or non-human. Apart from any other handicap would be the inability to reproduce successfully. Why? Because mating (sexual intercourse), which really is largely governed by a biological drive, isn't synonymous with the complex behaviours required by family life within a larger human society.

So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important). It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and — something usually forgotten — to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good. Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society — fatherhood — especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one "lifestyle choice" among many — that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society). In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination — the undue "privilege" of a "dominant" class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed — and could be under the Charter — in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it's true, but others don't. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

I really enjoyed your post, Dimarcus. A different perspective. It hadn't really occurred to me before that rather than trying to create equality in marriage by giving all civil unions the same benefits, it would be just as fair to strip all marriages of their legal benefits. And other points were excellent and thought-provoking... if only my mind were in a mode to think. :D And now I crawl into bed with some pecan divinity and Russian notes.

Dimarcus, that is one of the more rational arguments against gay marriage I've seen offered. However, it is based on the supposition that laws should favor "the good of the species" over more immediate personal rights. That leaves the question of who defines what is "good for the species" to the majority in power, who can use that logic to oppress the minority. A very extreme example is the Holocaust, where the Jews were eliminated for what Hitler felt (or seemed to feel) was in the best interest of mankind, and he used arguments to that effect to justify it.

Certainly that is an extreme example, but it differs only in degree, not kind, from your justification of opposing gay marriage. I think such arguments make good law only when they can directly be demonstrated to prevent actual physical harm to people (such as clean air laws), and not when they are used as arguments to prevent "social harm." That route lies tyranny.

wow, some people must have really pathetic marriages if they define their union based on what outside couples choose to do. my bond with my partner isn't degraded by the fact that religious people marry in the sight of their God, even though i believe such unions are an insult to everything that marriage should mean, because the significance of my union isn't contingent upon what other people think or do. my union is with my partner, not with anybody else, so i don't have to waste my time telling other people who to marry. if only others could grow up and start minding their own business, rather than wasting all our time with their pitiful tantrums over other people's relationships.

What would you feel like if the goverment denied you rights that other people had? This is a question everybody must consider before deciding whether or not they support Gay Marriage or not. You see, marriage is much more than sharing a last name. Marrige is something much more important, it's about your damn rights. This is why I asked my first question, because it is basically the same thing as denying gay people to marry. People who believe marriage is between a women and male don't know the background information behind marriage.

So marriage grants you more things than just sharing the same last name. You get benefits. Benifits which are very much useful for a married couple.

National benefits:
1. Access to Military Stores
2. Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
3. Bereavement Leave
4. Immigration
5. Insurance Breaks
6. Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
7. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
8. Social Security Survivor Benefits
9. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
10. Tax Breaks
11. Veteran’s Discounts
12. Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Several State Benefits:
1. Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
2. Automatic Inheritance
3. Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
4. Bereavement Leave
5. Burial Determination
6. Child Custody
7. Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
8. Divorce Protections
9. Domestic Violence Protection
10. Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
11. Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
12. Insurance Breaks
13. Joint Adoption and Foster Care
14. Joint Bankruptcy
15. Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
16. Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
17. Certain Property Rights
18. Reduced Rate Memberships
19. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
20. Visitation of Partner’s Children
21. Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
22. Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

By denying people the right to marry, you are denying them the rights listed above. Saying it is against religeon is basically saying equal rights is against your religeon. Just because your a homophobe, does not mean you should discriminate against gay people. It's genetics. There's nothing they could have done about it. You might as well say people with OCD shouldn't be allowed to vote since they would keep on pressing the vote button. Or maybe bums shouldn't have any rights because they scare you.

I'm pretty sure democracy supports equal rights. So if you say marriage is only for a male and female, either abolish every single benefit listed above, or make it so gay couples can attain them. Marriage is much much more than just sharing your last name. It comes with benefits every married couple wants.

The only thing I can add to this is a hearty "A-fuckin-men!!"

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.

Only if you remove the word "marriage" for hets, too. "Marriage" should be a church ceremony only. And no church would be forced into performing any marriage ceremony they objected to. Or acknowledge any marriage as sacred that they objected to.

The LEGAL aspect of the union should be "civil union" for everyone, then...and leave marriage to the churches. Plenty of churches WILL perform marriages for gay couples. Chances are good that, if your church doesn't want to perform these...your church won't be asked, anyway, because gay people would want nothing to do with an institution that considers them as any less than other people.

I know, as a transsexual woman, I would not want any involvement in any church that did not respect MY human dignity, and did not respect me enough to consider me every bit as much a woman as one who'd been lucky enough to get born that way in the first place!

Ok, you people all have very good arguments that make sence. But i am just stating my point of view about gay marriage. First off girls are just a lot better to look at..in my eyes. Second if we had a major increase in the population of gay poeple then our total population would go down in america and that isn't exactly the greatest thing. Then the issue of the church and the government coming in and saying that you can't be gay or you have to be gay or you have to mary a dog. I really think that the church and the gov shouldn't interfere with anything personal in your life. And my ending comment is that gay sex just really doesn't appeal to me in the least amount (or have sex with a dog or any other animal in that case)

WOMEN+MAN=GOOD :D

Good for you! So it doesn't appeal to you. It's not your cup of tea? Great!! Have some fucking coffee, then. and stop trying to prevent others from having tea, if that is what they want...and quit trying to force-feed them your coffee!
WHY is that such a fucking difficult concept??

Good for you! So it doesn't appeal to you. It's not your cup of tea? Great!! Have some fucking coffee, then. and stop trying to prevent others from having tea, if that is what they want...and quit trying to force-feed them your coffee!
WHY is that such a fucking difficult concept??
because obviously if i think something is icky then it must also be morally wrong! two boys kissing is gross, and therefore it must be evil and we should pass laws against it! stop the ickiness!!!!

Exactly, it's an anomaly of genetics, a mistake, a disaster, an event that shouldn't have happened, an error. A burden.

We should be accepting of gays as any other mentally disabled individual with Goverment programs for counseling, support, and institutions.

They also should be open to any rights we have, but you do not let an error destroy the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is a perfect union between a man and a woman, it's not for a mistake. Take your civil union and equal rights.


An mistake? i think your an idiot cause you are trying to act like you know what your saying but you don't! A genetic error is being born with one arm, not being gay. There is nothing wrong with it. Oh and question what would you say about someone who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot? Let me guess you would call them a freak, news flash the gene for six toes and sixs fingers in dominant just not many people carry it. So its acctualy natural, who is to say the gene that makes someone gay doesn't work the same way. Oh and another thing haveing a mental disability doesn't mean you have to be in an institution, lots of people have mental disorders. The ones that are sent to institutions are the realy bad cases. And finaly counseling? This isn't something that can be changed, its what NATURAL for them.

Why do we care again?

I submit this: if you're really really worried about the whole 'gay marriage' issue, you've simply got too much time on your hands. Get a hobby or something.

They said the same thing in the early 60's about Jim Crow laws. Guess what? We're still here. We didn't tear ourselves apart. Now all of you, go find something to do! Or at least another thread to fill! Off you go!

Though it's been stated a few times, this is my personal opinion

The term "Marriage" brings to mind a Judeo-Christian sacrament (sp), and the Christian Church is against Homosexuality (with the possible exception of the Episcopal church... but that's another story). If Homosexuals want to "marry" in the legal sense (aka "civil union"), fine, it's their choice, just like it's a heterosexual's choice.
The problem i have is the government making any spiritual establishment admit something that's against their ideals. If homosexuals want to have a "civil union" and call it a marriage, fine, no problem. But when the government invades a church, that's when i get defensive.
Hope that was clear.

PS: I'm a Heterosexual Christian, so... yeah... this is my story, and I'm sticking to it :)

Why do some people (not necessarily you) insist that if homosexual marriage were legal that all churches would be forced to perform homosexual ceremonies. That is just ridiculous. Each church would keep its own standards about who or who not to perform a marriage ceremony for. Look at it this way. Divorce is legal. Divorce is against Roman Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholic churches do not have to and will not perform a marriage ceremony for a previously divorced person. Just because divorce is legal doesn't mean that churches have to recognize. When homosexual marriage becomes legal, churches that don't want to will not have to recognize it.

Why do some people (not necessarily you) insist that if homosexual marriage were legal that all churches would be forced to perform homosexual ceremonies. That is just ridiculous. Each church would keep its own standards about who or who not to perform a marriage ceremony for. Look at it this way. Divorce is legal. Divorce is against Roman Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholic churches do not have to and will not perform a marriage ceremony for a previously divorced person. Just because divorce is legal doesn't mean that churches have to recognize. When homosexual marriage becomes legal, churches that don't want to will not have to recognize it.

Martyr complex. Only churches think they'll be forced to wed homosexuals-everyone else knows better.

My thoughts on gay marriage are that somehow, someway, Karl Rove engineered this to be an election year issue. I remember reading articles by gay leaders as recently as a year ago saying they had no interest in the heterosexual institution of marriage. I have moved in several different predominantly gay social circles for 20 years and the idea of marriage has never been a burning issue. All of a sudden it was a big deal this year.

And now?

It seems to be fading away.

I really think the Republicans manipulated this to be an election year issue and the gay community fell right into the trap.

Only if you remove the word "marriage" for hets, too. "Marriage" should be a church ceremony only. And no church would be forced into performing any marriage ceremony they objected to. Or acknowledge any marriage as sacred that they objected to.

The LEGAL aspect of the union should be "civil union" for everyone, then...and leave marriage to the churches. Plenty of churches WILL perform marriages for gay couples. Chances are good that, if your church doesn't want to perform these...your church won't be asked, anyway, because gay people would want nothing to do with an institution that considers them as any less than other people.

I see no good reason to 'leave marraige to the churches'. They dont own marraige, they didnt invent marraige, they are simply an optional extra to marraige. Marraige is a social institution, if some religious people object to how socieity chooses to conduct that institution, no one is forcing them to participate. They could have their religious unions without getting married if they disapprove of marraige. Certainly I dont see why I should be denied a social institution that is my birthright just because some people dont want to accept that other people should have rights, even though there is no demonstrable negative effect on the part of the objectors. No church should be forced to perform religious ceremonies for anyone. Equally no church should be entitled to claim ownership or control of a social institution that belongs equally to us all. Compromising on this issue only sends the message that even unreasonable objections from non-effected but discriminitory groups will be legislated and made to seem credible, whilst removing a social asset from the hands of society and placing it in the control of particular sub-groups.

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.
Totally. I'd rather have a civil union with a woman anyday rather than marriage.

What would you feel like if the goverment denied you rights that other people had? This is a question everybody must consider before deciding whether or not they support Gay Marriage or not. You see, marriage is much more than sharing a last name. Marrige is something much more important, it's about your damn rights. This is why I asked my first question, because it is basically the same thing as denying gay people to marry. People who believe marriage is between a women and male don't know the background information behind marriage.

So marriage grants you more things than just sharing the same last name. You get benefits. Benifits which are very much useful for a married couple.

National benefits:
1. Access to Military Stores
2. Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
3. Bereavement Leave
4. Immigration
5. Insurance Breaks
6. Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
7. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
8. Social Security Survivor Benefits
9. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
10. Tax Breaks
11. Veteran’s Discounts
12. Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Several State Benefits:
1. Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
2. Automatic Inheritance
3. Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
4. Bereavement Leave
5. Burial Determination
6. Child Custody
7. Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
8. Divorce Protections
9. Domestic Violence Protection
10. Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
11. Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
12. Insurance Breaks
13. Joint Adoption and Foster Care
14. Joint Bankruptcy
15. Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
16. Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
17. Certain Property Rights
18. Reduced Rate Memberships
19. Sick Leave to Care for Partner
20. Visitation of Partner’s Children
21. Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
22. Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

By denying people the right to marry, you are denying them the rights listed above. Saying it is against religeon is basically saying equal rights is against your religeon. Just because your a homophobe, does not mean you should discriminate against gay people. It's genetics. There's nothing they could have done about it. You might as well say people with OCD shouldn't be allowed to vote since they would keep on pressing the vote button. Or maybe bums shouldn't have any rights because they scare you.

I'm pretty sure democracy supports equal rights. So if you say marriage is only for a male and female, either abolish every single benefit listed above, or make it so gay couples can attain them. Marriage is much much more than just sharing your last name. It comes with benefits every married couple wants.
So your point is that gays want to be able to get legally married because there are lots of benefits to getting married?

Ok, you people all have very good arguments that make sence. But i am just stating my point of view about gay marriage. First off girls are just a lot better to look at..in my eyes. Second if we had a major increase in the population of gay poeple then our total population would go down in america and that isn't exactly the greatest thing. Then the issue of the church and the government coming in and saying that you can't be gay or you have to be gay or you have to mary a dog. I really think that the church and the gov shouldn't interfere with anything personal in your life. And my ending comment is that gay sex just really doesn't appeal to me in the least amount (or have sex with a dog or any other animal in that case)

WOMEN+MAN=GOOD :D

Azerial...















Happy Seventh Birthday!
:)

Exactly, it's an anomaly of genetics, a mistake, a disaster, an event that shouldn't have happened, an error. A burden.
I can easily imagine your parents having this same discussion Amall.

So your point is that gays want to be able to get legally married because there are lots of benefits to getting married?
The same benefits that straight America already enjoys.

heres how i feel about the subject.

the definition of marriage is. the uniting of two people in front of their chosen god

any of that seem religous to anyone?

the fact of the matter is is that the government is breaking the law by not allowing marriages as a whole to take place with the government intervening

it is said right in the first amendment that the church must be separated from the state

or that the government cant have a say in religous matters

and isnt marriage, be it gay or straight, a religous concern?

Remove the word marriage, replace it with civil union. Make said union open to any two people above the age of 18 and at least 4 steps of relation away from one another. Problem solved.

Exactly.

heres how i feel about the subject.

the definition of marriage is. the uniting of two people in front of their chosen god

any of that seem religous to anyone?

the fact of the matter is is that the government is breaking the law by not allowing marriages as a whole to take place with the government intervening

it is said right in the first amendment that the church must be separated from the state

or that the government cant have a say in religous matters

and isnt marriage, be it gay or straight, a religous concern?
Marraige is no more a religious concern than it is an atheist concern. The definition of marraige is not as you describe.
Marraige is (like government) a social institution, not a religious institution (as has been posted earlier on this thread)... :rolleyes:

heres how i feel about the subject.

the definition of marriage is. the uniting of two people in front of their chosen god
that will come as a surprise to my parents, who do not recognize any God and were married in a 100% secular ceremony. they celebrate 29 years of marriage this summer.