NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of the arguments you hear for or against same-sex marriage is centered around the disagreement over whether marriage is a religious institution, or a legal one.

If it is a religious one then I think that of course it wouldn't be allowed on religious grounds, but on the same hand if it is religious then there shouldn't be any special treatment for married couples by the government unless you live in a theocracy.

If it is legal institution then naturally it should be allowed on the grounds that there is no reasonable legal grounds for it not to be allowed (the argument used in Canada by the way) and naturally religious groups cannot be forced to acknowledge such unions.

What do you all think? :confused:

It is both a secular issue (courthouse or justice of peace marriages) and a religious issue (marriages performed by clergy, accompanied by the piece of paper you get from the civil authorities aka your marriage license.)

I believe civil authorities should be able to issue a marriage license where they see fit (which may allow same gender marriages) and religious authorities should remain free to disallow such marriages in the eyes of their congregation. This is nothing new: second marriages could not be sanctified in the church, so those who divorced and remarried were forced to undergo a civil ceremony, knowing that in the eyes of their religion, they were not married.

Well, at its origins, I'd say it was a religious thing... However, it's long since been "stolen" from religion, and put into the hands of the government (well, government as we know it essentially replaced religion as the ruling class, so I guess it isn't that marriage has been taken away from religion, it's that there has been a managemnt change, and contrl over marriage has been passed on...lol)

Heck, the only reason religious marriages are held to be legally binding is because the government has granted the power to the Church to create legally binding marriages ("By the power vested in me...")

So, in this day and age, I'd say that marriage is largely a legal thing, with the religious aspect of it only as strong as the couple wish it to be... Meaning, if the couple doesn't wish religion to play a role, it doesn't... However, the government will have a say no matter what...

So, on these grounds, I agree with your second statement (and Canada's ruling)... Since it is no longer purely a religious system (and religion's role is largely symbolic if anything as of this point), it should not be held to religious standards...

It probably depends on whether you have a secular state or not.

"God's own country", "God bless America", "In God we trust", "So help me god" doesn't sound very secular to me.

Across the water it's "For King, God and Fatherland".
In Germany, the marriage law permits gay marriage. But the supreme court there prohibited gay marriage "since it's against christian tradition".

Interesting enough, the Chinese don't have any law against homosexuality, and never had. Which doesn't stop them to raid gay bars - to check the fire safety, and then shut them down, because they don't comply. No bar or disco really complies, but who has the resources to check them all ... And the Chinese would probably benefit most from gay marriage - no more pressure to get married and have a child - leave that to those who really want a child, or two.

Religious.

If it is legal institution then naturally it [homosexual marriage] should be allowed on the grounds that there is no reasonable legal grounds for it not to be allowed (the argument used in Canada by the way) and naturally religious groups cannot be forced to acknowledge such unions.

We have plenty of bans on various acts and behaviors without invoking religious maxims to reinforce the idea. Simple majoritarian interests have and will continue to form the basis of most law, and will certainly prevail in cases of minorities attempting to subvert the traditional social definitions of the great majority. :)

Religious. Hence I'm not for Gay Marriage. Not that I'm against gays or anything, but it's against my definition of Marriage.

I think that marriage should be first and foremost a secular institution, with religious groups choosing whether or not to acknowledge that marriage. It's like religious groups influencing sex education in America: we should be considering the social and ethical issues for humanity before the concerns of a religious group.

I think marriage should be a personal issue. The only basis it should have in State law is that you cannot marry if you're a minor. Two, three, 165 people should be allowed to marry without regard to sex.

If you want State benefits to being married, then you simply file a Declaration of Marriage and when you're no longer married, a Declaration of Divorce and the State may only intervene in cases of there being children of said marriage.

From what I can tell, there are no religious benefits to marriage.

If people want a religious marriage, then of course they are bound by that particular religious laws concerning marriage. If you want a three way marriage done by a Christian church, too bad. However, plenty of religions out there whose priests will gladly marry you to how ever many people you want.

It ain't perfect, but it's the way it should be. Marriage == Personal.

Marriage was originally a secular institution. Weddings were, however, often performed in front of the church building, this being a commonly used place for public activities, for people to see. That's why the pillories were there, too... As far as I remember weddings were moved inside the churches about 500 years ago. I think it's ok that churches perform some kind of blessing of married couples, but having them decide who can and who cannot be married just seems a bit weird to me...

A lot of the arguments you hear for or against same-sex marriage is centered around the disagreement over whether marriage is a religious institution, or a legal one.

If it is a religious one then I think that of course it wouldn't be allowed on religious grounds, but on the same hand if it is religious then there shouldn't be any special treatment for married couples by the government unless you live in a theocracy.

If it is legal institution then naturally it should be allowed on the grounds that there is no reasonable legal grounds for it not to be allowed (the argument used in Canada by the way) and naturally religious groups cannot be forced to acknowledge such unions.

What do you all think? :confused:
both; the marriage that is recognized by the government of America is strictly a legal matter...you don't get legal marital rights just from having a religious ceremony, you have to go get the marriage license first. however, many people believe that they need to be married in the eyes of God, and that is their personal choice.

the debate over gay marriage is strictly legal. nobody is arguing that religions should be required to marry anybody, and gay marriage advocates are typically liberals who wouldn't dream of forcing any private organization or individual to marry any couple against their beliefs and wishes. all that is of issue is the GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL RECOGNITION of unions. that's it. religion has no place in this debate, period.

and to anybody who claims that American marriage is inherently religious or Christian, please feel free to speak with my parents via email (i will give their email addresses via telegram if you send me one)...they will be celebrating 30 years of secular marriage this July.

It probably depends on whether you have a secular state or not.

"God's own country", "God bless America", "In God we trust", "So help me god" doesn't sound very secular to me.

"In God We Trust" and "Under God" were both added in the mid 19th century. "So Help Me God" is not a required oath for American citizens, though the majority will opt to use it because the majority believe it is a valid oath.

and have you looked at the back of the American $1 bill? "Novus Ordo Seclorum" mean anything to you? :)

Religious. Hence I'm not for Gay Marriage. Not that I'm against gays or anything, but it's against my definition of Marriage.

You getting married is against mine. Tough shit.

What do you all think? :confused:

Yes.

I agree it can be both. People can choose to have a religious ceremony or they can choose not to, both are legal in the eyes of the law. I had a secular wedding.. the word God was never mentioned once and my husband and I made sure of that. We did not get married in a church nor would we of even considered it. Yet, our marriage is just as legal and just as valid as any religious one. So, I say both. I also say there is not one valid argument I have ever heard against gay marriage. All arguments against are based on discrimination or some stupid out of date bible passage and that is not a valid argument.

It is both a secular issue (courthouse or justice of peace marriages) and a religious issue (marriages performed by clergy, accompanied by the piece of paper you get from the civil authorities aka your marriage license.)

I believe civil authorities should be able to issue a marriage license where they see fit (which may allow same gender marriages) and religious authorities should remain free to disallow such marriages in the eyes of their congregation. This is nothing new: second marriages could not be sanctified in the church, so those who divorced and remarried were forced to undergo a civil ceremony, knowing that in the eyes of their religion, they were not married.
I applaud your answer, and agree for the most part... except that I believe civil authorities shouldn't go by what *they* see as being "fit", but rather what is most ethical.

In other words, marriage licenses should be issued by civil authorities to both hetero- and homosexual partners who seek them.

What do you all think? :confused:

Yes.

Marriage is both religious and legal. We can argue over who had it first left, right, up, down, and sideways, but it doesn't really matter. The government should have no power to tell a church that they must perform any given marriage, and the church should have no power to regulate legal marriage.

Does anyone here know the true origins offormalized pairings?

Did Grog and Skuk pray to the great wolly mamoth before becoming man and wife and settling into a nice new hole in the cliff together?

As near as I can tell, even in today's religious weddings the text of the vows is a promise to the other. It may be done "before God", and it may be blessed by your clergyman, however in both civil and religious services the vows are almost always exchanged between the participants.

And, in the context that this argument is presented lately - wherby religion has some inate "ownership" of the term, then if you are going to start stating that this is in the purview of God then you best also determine WHICH god has original ownership of it. All other marriages will then become "unions" as they clearly stole the concept from the Sun Pig God of Aku Peewee (or whatever).


You know - In the old days clergy used to be used exclusively to christen and bless boats "and all who sailed upon them", however I think you will find few who would tell you that shipbuilding is an inherently religious occupation....

In other words: Who cares if religion used to be the official keeper of the marriage vow. None of them can prove initial ownership, and so none can dictate the terms of it to others.

Yes.

Marriage is both religious and legal. We can argue over who had it first left, right, up, down, and sideways, but it doesn't really matter. The government should have no power to tell a church that they must perform any given marriage, and the church should have no power to regulate legal marriage.


Agreed, This is why, for example, the legislation on gay marriage in Canada specifies that no-one can be forced to officiate over such a wedding, and no religion needs to recognize such a pairing within their congregation.

All it does is state that the government WILL recognize such a marriage as legally equivalent should two people find a qualified officiant who is willing to perform the ceremony.

I believe the government needs to stop recognizing marriages of all sorts, thereby ending discrimination and this so-called "marriage penalty" created by short-sighted lawmakers.

Oh, but what about inheritance rights, you say? Jeez, we have wills for that. But what if they have no will? Well, then everything they have goes to the state. If they didn't write down what they wanted to give to their loved ones, then too damn bad. People need to be better organized anyway.

And hospital visitation? Why not just allow the person to have a list of people allowed to visit them in a hospital? It can be part of their insurance information or whatever. This way, there are no ludicrous laws giving the person's parents veto power over who can see them in a hospital even if they are grown up and have kids of their own. Again, if you don't name someone, they don't see you. You don't name anyone? You get no visitors.

Parental rights? Ummm...those are determined by whose name is on the birth certificate and have nothing to do with marriage anyway.

Property rights? Things need to be divided 50/50 anyway. Two people buy a house and decide not to love together, then they sell the house and split the sale price evenly. That or they cut the house in half, whatever. If people can't come to an agreement, then we go King Solomon on them.

Come on people...is there any valid reason to have legal marriages, other than "it's the way we always did it"? We "always" had slavery, discrimination against blacks, women refused the right to vote, etc. So this argument doesn't hold water. Preserving the "sanctity" of marriage? We're lousy at that too. Look at our divorce rates, adultery rates, abuse rates, etc. if you don't believe me. Preservign the "traditional definition" of marriage? I could define marriage to mean "watermelon soup" tomorrow and it would be every bit as valid a definiton as what we use it for today. Aside from that, to preserve the "sanctity" or "traditional definition" of marriage, let's leave that to churches and not the state. The state has better things to do.

Or maybe it doesn't, wait...at least in America. This is the nation that cares more about "moral values" than the economy, terrorism, civil rights, the war in Iraq, etc.

Oh, but what about inheritance rights, you say? Jeez, we have wills for that. But what if they have no will? Well, then everything they have goes to the state. If they didn't write down what they wanted to give to their loved ones, then too damn bad. People need to be better organized anyway.

Yes, and most of it goes to Uncle Sam anyways. Of course, if you are married, the logical implication is that you have both been contributing to your assets. As such, there is no inheritance tax on something you pretty much already own.

Do you, out of curiosity, have a will? Do you go to a lawyer and update it every single time you buy something?

And hospital visitation? Why not just allow the person to have a list of people allowed to visit them in a hospital? It can be part of their insurance information or whatever. This way, there are no ludicrous laws giving the person's parents veto power over who can see them in a hospital even if they are grown up and have kids of their own. Again, if you don't name someone, they don't see you. You don't name anyone? You get no visitors.

If you get no visitors, who, pray chance, makes medical decisions for you should you be incapacitated?

Parental rights? Ummm...those are determined by whose name is on the birth certificate and have nothing to do with marriage anyway.

Have you ever heard of this little thing called adoption?

Property rights? Things need to be divided 50/50 anyway. Two people buy a house and decide not to love together, then they sell the house and split the sale price evenly. That or they cut the house in half, whatever. If people can't come to an agreement, then we go King Solomon on them.

And yet again, people get screwed. Only one can benefit from owning the house, as only one can claim it for the income tax break. Should one die, even if the partner had a will, the surviving owner has to pay income tax on the other 50%. Chances are that they will have to sell the house just to pay the taxes.

Come on people...is there any valid reason to have legal marriages, other than "it's the way we always did it"?

Those who are married are in a unique situation. The laws put in place for marriage are designed to protect people in that situation.

its a secular institution.a quick an easy contract to note that two people are legally family and one household.its a simplification of the many contracts the person above me mentioned.

religion has its place in marriage,but not in decideing who can marry.

A lot of the arguments you hear for or against same-sex marriage is centered around the disagreement over whether marriage is a religious institution, or a legal one.

If it is a religious one then I think that of course it wouldn't be allowed on religious grounds, but on the same hand if it is religious then there shouldn't be any special treatment for married couples by the government unless you live in a theocracy.

If it is legal institution then naturally it should be allowed on the grounds that there is no reasonable legal grounds for it not to be allowed (the argument used in Canada by the way) and naturally religious groups cannot be forced to acknowledge such unions.

What do you all think? :confused:


Personally, I think its both. Of course, I also think that even if it were a solely religious issue, gay marriage should still be legal. Some religious groups perform gay marriages already. By saying those marriages aren't worthwhile is a violation of freedom of religion and is the government effectively establishing one religious belief as superior to another. Further, denying rights to gay couples is a violation of the right to equal protection under the law and to due process. How many consitutional rights are we prepared to deny people just because they are a minority?

Oh, but what about inheritance rights, you say? Jeez, we have wills for that. But what if they have no will? Well, then everything they have goes to the state. If they didn't write down what they wanted to give to their loved ones, then too damn bad. People need to be better organized anyway.

What about the instances where people have left a will but it is contested by "blood family" and the person they leave things do (ie their spouse) doesn't get them?


And hospital visitation? Why not just allow the person to have a list of people allowed to visit them in a hospital? It can be part of their insurance information or whatever. This way, there are no ludicrous laws giving the person's parents veto power over who can see them in a hospital even if they are grown up and have kids of their own. Again, if you don't name someone, they don't see you. You don't name anyone? You get no visitors.

Won't argue there.


Parental rights? Ummm...those are determined by whose name is on the birth certificate and have nothing to do with marriage anyway.

Actually they do. Say my spouse has a child and then dies twelve years later. I've been there for that child, but because I didn't legally marry my spouse, I cannot adopt that child and s/he gets sent on to the closest blood relative, further deepening his/her emotional crisis at losing one parent by ripping him/her from their remaining parent.


Come on people...is there any valid reason to have legal marriages, other than "it's the way we always did it"? We "always" had slavery, discrimination against blacks, women refused the right to vote, etc. So this argument doesn't hold water. Preserving the "sanctity" of marriage? We're lousy at that too. Look at our divorce rates, adultery rates, abuse rates, etc. if you don't believe me. Preservign the "traditional definition" of marriage? I could define marriage to mean "watermelon soup" tomorrow and it would be every bit as valid a definiton as what we use it for today. Aside from that, to preserve the "sanctity" or "traditional definition" of marriage, let's leave that to churches and not the state. The state has better things to do.

The best arguement I've heard for legal marriage is that it allows you to get all those rights you are saying could be handled other ways instantly. You don't have to have 100 affidavits and wills and power of attorneys. It's automatic.

[QUOTE[
Or maybe it doesn't, wait...at least in America. This is the nation that cares more about "moral values" than the economy, terrorism, civil rights, the war in Iraq, etc.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Agreed, This is why, for example, the legislation on gay marriage in Canada specifies that no-one can be forced to officiate over such a wedding, and no religion needs to recognize such a pairing within their congregation.

All it does is state that the government WILL recognize such a marriage as legally equivalent should two people find a qualified officiant who is willing to perform the ceremony.


Gotta love the Canucks :)

I applaud your answer, and agree for the most part... except that I believe civil authorities shouldn't go by what *they* see as being "fit", but rather what is most ethical.

In other words, marriage licenses should be issued by civil authorities to both hetero- and homosexual partners who seek them.


Which is basically the way it is. To my understanding (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) civil authorities such as judges and justices of the peace CAN refuse to perform a ceremony but they have to document a reason why and there are very strict limits on such reasons.

Religious officials on the other hand have the right to deny to perform any ceremony and do not have to provide a reason. Which is as it should be.

Religious. Hence I'm not for Gay Marriage. Not that I'm against gays or anything, but it's against my definition of Marriage.
is it ? which religion control's the deffinition of Marriage?

"In God We Trust" and "Under God" were both added in the mid 19th century. "So Help Me God" is not a required oath for American citizens, though the majority will opt to use it because the majority believe it is a valid oath.

and have you looked at the back of the American $1 bill? "Novus Ordo Seclorum" mean anything to you? :)


And then there's the ever wonderful Treaty of Tripoli "The United States of America is in no way founded upon Christian beliefs." Or something to that extent. Gotta love Washington and Adams.

is it ? which religion control's the deffinition of Marriage?

Greedy Pig's religion.

Wasn't that obvious from the post?

=)

They are inter-connected. Mostly it's emotional {religious?} but with getting married you get legal benifits you wouldn't have otherwise.

We have plenty of bans on various acts and behaviors without invoking religious maxims to reinforce the idea. Simple majoritarian interests have and will continue to form the basis of most law, and will certainly prevail in cases of minorities attempting to subvert the traditional social definitions of the great majority. :)

Those bans are for a compelling reason that serves to protect society. IE we don't allow murder or theft. We don't need Christianity to tell us these are wrong--there is a compelling interest for banning them. I challenge you to give me a compelling public, non-religious or ick factor, reason for banning gay marriage.

<listens to the crickets chirp in the background>

They are inter-connected. Mostly it's emotional {religious?} but with getting married you get legal benifits you wouldn't have otherwise.

Emotional != religious. Trust me, you can be in love without god having anything to do with it.

Greedy Pig's religion.

Wasn't that obvious from the post?

=)
They all say it is a religious thing ... while it may of origionaly been such it is not now ... nor can you agree who has the right to control of what "it" is

If I created a religion that said it was perfictly fine for gay marrige how is that any less valid then any other religion saying it is not valid

I think the best solution to the gay marriage issue in the united states is to get rid of marriage as a legal entity entirely. Replace it with the civil union where love and emotion are neither required nor implied, but its purpose is provide benefits for both parties currently provided by the legal definition of marriage. Also, the civil union, by having a different definition than marriage, would be open to any two people where it is mutually beneficial, whether they are in love or just living together. Thus, gays, straights, and asexual alike would be able to get the government recognition and accompanying rights currently offered only to man-woman couples, and the "moral" definition of marriage would remain unchanged. The definition of marriage would then be thrown out of the courts and into the churches, where it belongs.

Yes, and most of it goes to Uncle Sam anyways. Of course, if you are married, the logical implication is that you have both been contributing to your assets. As such, there is no inheritance tax on something you pretty much already own.

Therefore, if something is in both people's names, this is exactly true. Who says they have to be married for this to work? The same could be true of a car owned jointoly by a father and son. If the father dies, the son gets the car and pays no inheritance tax. Marriage isn't the issue; whose name is on the deed is. Of course, that presents problems of its own, but those problems largely exist under today's system.

Do you, out of curiosity, have a will? Do you go to a lawyer and update it every single time you buy something?

I am 22 years old and doubt i will be dying anytime soon. That said, I own virtually nothing that's worth fighting over. If I did, I would have a will. My most expensive item is my laptop, and whoever wants that badly enough can have it.

If you get no visitors, who, pray chance, makes medical decisions for you should you be incapacitated?

That can also be part of your insurance information. A person can request to be taken off life support in their insurance information in specific situations if they decide.

Have you ever heard of this little thing called adoption?

Of course I have...in which case, parental rights are changed through means other than marriage anyway. Adoptive parents can be those other than married couples as well...legal parental rights should and must stay intact in some form, but being married needs not be a requirement for this.

And yet again, people get screwed. Only one can benefit from owning the house, as only one can claim it for the income tax break. Should one die, even if the partner had a will, the surviving owner has to pay income tax on the other 50%. Chances are that they will have to sell the house just to pay the taxes.

Under current tax codes, this is the case. However, this is not written in stone that it has to be this way. Who says that a couple can't share a tax credit? Other than the current tax codes, but those are changed 500 times a year anyway, so what's one more?

Those who are married are in a unique situation. The laws put in place for marriage are designed to protect people in that situation.

A lot of people are in "unique situations." Marriage is hardly unique; most people get married at least once in their lifetime. Right now, there are laws for marriage and laws for everything that goes with it. Why not just clarify the laws on everything that goes with it and throw the marriage laws out? We don't need this many laws anyway.

Therefore, if something is in both people's names, this is exactly true. Who says they have to be married for this to work? The same could be true of a car owned jointoly by a father and son. If the father dies, the son gets the car and pays no inheritance tax. Marriage isn't the issue; whose name is on the deed is. Of course, that presents problems of its own, but those problems largely exist under today's system.

You are incorrect if you are trying to describe the current system. Under the current system, having both names on the deed does not get you out of paying inheritance tax, at least not on large items such as a house. I am well aware of this, as I currently jointly own a house.

I am 22 years old and doubt i will be dying anytime soon. That said, I own virtually nothing that's worth fighting over. If I did, I would have a will. My most expensive item is my laptop, and whoever wants that badly enough can have it.

Wrong. According to you, it should all go to the government.

That can also be part of your insurance information. A person can request to be taken off life support in their insurance information in specific situations if they decide.

All such situations cannot possibly be listed. There are some we don't even know about. This is the reason that people wish to entrust their care to someone they trust.

Meanwhile, many people are uninsured. What do we do with them?

Of course I have...in which case, parental rights are changed through means other than marriage anyway. Adoptive parents can be those other than married couples as well...legal parental rights should and must stay intact in some form, but being married needs not be a requirement for this.

If someone has custody of a child, the only way to add another parent is for the two to be married. For instance, if I had a child, and my boyfriend wanted to also be that child's parent, we would have to be married in order for him to adopt.

Under current tax codes, this is the case. However, this is not written in stone that it has to be this way. Who says that a couple can't share a tax credit? Other than the current tax codes, but those are changed 500 times a year anyway, so what's one more?

You really do want to set things up for blatant abuses of the system and horrible inconvenience, don't you?

A lot of people are in "unique situations." Marriage is hardly unique; most people get married at least once in their lifetime. Right now, there are laws for marriage and laws for everything that goes with it. Why not just clarify the laws on everything that goes with it and throw the marriage laws out? We don't need this many laws anyway.

(a) Marriage is unique in that it is different from other situations, not in how many people actually get married.

(b) Are you a big fan of inefficiency? Why should we have hundreds of laws, making people spend hundreds of dollars on hundreds of legal documents, when we can just wrap it all up into one?

What about the instances where people have left a will but it is contested by "blood family" and the person they leave things do (ie their spouse) doesn't get them?

Somehow I think this would happen, marriage or no marriage, just because courts are dumb and "blood relatives" are greedy bastards who can't accept what was written in a will.

Actually they do. Say my spouse has a child and then dies twelve years later. I've been there for that child, but because I didn't legally marry my spouse, I cannot adopt that child and s/he gets sent on to the closest blood relative, further deepening his/her emotional crisis at losing one parent by ripping him/her from their remaining parent.

A lot of step-parents or adoptive parents will just adopt the kids in such a situation anyway...even in a situation where there are no legal marriages, these issues can be taken care of. Honestly, if legal marriage disappeared, these issues would pop up...to argue that no one woul think of this stuff is insane. After all, you just did.

The best arguement I've heard for legal marriage is that it allows you to get all those rights you are saying could be handled other ways instantly. You don't have to have 100 affidavits and wills and power of attorneys. It's automatic.

These things can be taken care of as people think of them...after all, something needs to force them to do so. Convenience be damned; the benefits with regard to this aspect may not outweigh the drawbacks, but overall, they seem to.

I think it should be a legal thing with religous aspects if you are religious.

I'm not religious but I don't see why I shouldn't be able to express love for someone.

If it is a religious one then I think that of course it wouldn't be allowed on religious grounds, but on the same hand if it is religious then there shouldn't be any special treatment for married couples by the government unless you live in a theocracy.

Here's the thing: on this issue, it doesn't matter. At least not in the United States, with our wonderful Constitution.
If marriage is religious, then to forbid something on religious grounds would mean identifying a specific doctrine, and thus a specific religion, on which to base that restriction. That in and of itself is unconstitutional. If a person, as a free-thinking individual, has no religious compunction against same-sex marriage, then they cannot be restricted from practicing that as a part of their relgion. It is as the issue were legal; still a question of discrimination, whether religiously or sexually based.

Marriage cannot be regulated by religious beliefs unless those beliefs are identified. Once identified, they become exclusory, and for all intents and purposes they institute a state religion. This is obviously unconstitutional.

I hold the position that marriage is a legal contract, and any religious significance is personal and not the business of anyone other than your partner. But as stated, that is irrelevant to this particular question.
Either way, to refuse gay marriage is a discriminatory and unconstitutional practice.

You are incorrect if you are trying to describe the current system. Under the current system, having both names on the deed does not get you out of paying inheritance tax, at least not on large items such as a house. I am well aware of this, as I currently jointly own a house.

Read my later post on the tax codes. If people agree to buy a house jointly, they should be able to share the tax credit.

Wrong. According to you, it should all go to the government.

Wrong. According to you, it's OK to put words in my mouth. Sending everything to the government only works if people can't agree among themselves who gets what. The idea is that people can decide for themselves who gets what, and if there are any disagreements, and no legal basis, then yes, the government gets it. This means that if someone really wants a person to have something, they need to write it down.

That said, I don't come from a family known to fight over inheritances. I am well aware that some families will, and they need to take the necessary precautions. Having legal marriage won't stop this. I think the fact that such families exist is proof of this.

All such situations cannot possibly be listed. There are some we don't even know about. This is the reason that people wish to entrust their care to someone they trust.

Meanwhile, many people are uninsured. What do we do with them?

If people want to entrust their care to someone, they can set that aside to a specific person; the insurance information is in case they elect not to. However, that does not automatically need to be a spouse; it can be a friend, a brother or sister, etc. Again, problem averted without legal marriage.

If someone has custody of a child, the only way to add another parent is for the two to be married. For instance, if I had a child, and my boyfriend wanted to also be that child's parent, we would have to be married in order for him to adopt.

So that's true under today's rules. If there is no legal marriage, then obviously there is no law about having to be married to adopt children, which is a bit of a rigid and discriminatory law anyway. Under a system with no legal marriage, such issues would have to be brought into question anyway. Any change in laws or custom raises such questions. If we legalize gay marriage, it raises such questions. It doesn't mean we can't do it.

You really do want to set things up for blatant abuses of the system and horrible inconvenience, don't you?

No need to get personal here...let's say a tax credit for a house is $1,000. I have no idea what it actually is, but using this made-up figure, if two people jointly own a house, they each get $500 for the tax credit for half-owning the house. They don't each get $1,000. This is hardly an abuse of the system; this is just a way to divide up ownership into however-many pieces.

(a) Marriage is unique in that it is different from other situations, not in how many people actually get married.

(b) Are you a big fan of inefficiency? Why should we have hundreds of laws, making people spend hundreds of dollars on hundreds of legal documents, when we can just wrap it all up into one?

I have had enough of your personal attacks. We already have hundreds of laws about this. Besides, how hard is it to change the wording of a law to read "Married couples have these rights" to "A person can designate these rights to whomever they decide"? Call it inefficient or whatever; I call it flexible. Under the current system, people designate a block of rights to one other person. This is the only person who gets these rights, and these rights are absolute. They cannot be taken away or altered even if their spouse wants them to. I know it can seem horrible to want to take these rights away from your spouse, but people should have that option.

For those who prefer efficiency, they can just check the box on the form giving another person these rights that says "Screw it; they can have all those rights." Therefore, they check one box and give all the rights to that person.

Somehow I think this would happen, marriage or no marriage, just because courts are dumb and "blood relatives" are greedy bastards who can't accept what was written in a will.

Actually no. You cannot contest a will that leaves everything to a spouse unless you can prove the personally was mentally ill-even then I'm pretty sure it'd be damned hard. If you aren't legally married, its a lot easier for "blood relatives" to cause problems.


A lot of step-parents or adoptive parents will just adopt the kids in such a situation anyway...even in a situation where there are no legal marriages, these issues can be taken care of. Honestly, if legal marriage disappeared, these issues would pop up...to argue that no one woul think of this stuff is insane. After all, you just did.

The point is that you cannot adopt the child unless you are married to the parent. If that child's parent were to die, the child would go to the nearest blood relative that wanted them--even if they hadn't seen them in years. Marriage continues to be a great simplification here.


These things can be taken care of as people think of them...after all, something needs to force them to do so. Convenience be damned; the benefits with regard to this aspect may not outweigh the drawbacks, but overall, they seem to.

Convenience be damned? You'd really rather have to have nearly a thousand documents to give the rights to your "Spouse" than a marriage license which takes care of everything? I'm going to guess that you are still in school or near to graduation and that you haven't had to deal with paying bills and deeds and wills and loans and the million other items of paperwork that have to be dealt with on a daily basis. We need simplification and convenience far more than we need some ideal that you have yet to really define (or I've missed).

Tell me again why I should have a thousand forms instead of a marriage license?

Read my later post on the tax codes. If people agree to buy a house jointly, they should be able to share the tax credit.

Explain what tax credit has to do with inheritance tax?

No need to get personal here...let's say a tax credit for a house is $1,000. I have no idea what it actually is, but using this made-up figure, if two people jointly own a house, they each get $500 for the tax credit for half-owning the house. They don't each get $1,000. This is hardly an abuse of the system; this is just a way to divide up ownership into however-many pieces.

...adding much more beurocracy. Do you really think that the IRS is going to check every single return against every other return in order to determine ownership?

I have had enough of your personal attacks.

You have quite a think skin if you think any of this has been an "attack."

We already have hundreds of laws about this. Besides, how hard is it to change the wording of a law to read "Married couples have these rights" to "A person can designate these rights to whomever they decide"? Call it inefficient or whatever; I call it flexible. Under the current system, people designate a block of rights to one other person. This is the only person who gets these rights, and these rights are absolute. They cannot be taken away or altered even if their spouse wants them to. I know it can seem horrible to want to take these rights away from your spouse, but people should have that option.

Actually, the only right I know of that cannot be delineated to someone other than a spouse is spousal immunity. This is already something that someone can do with *nearly* all marriage priviledges. I don't dispute that most of them should be available to the person of your choice.

For those who prefer efficiency, they can just check the box on the form giving another person these rights that says "Screw it; they can have all those rights." Therefore, they check one box and give all the rights to that person.

Guess what! ^ That would be legal marriage!

In my opinion, nobody should need a liscence from the government to get married. If someone wants to marry a man/woman/llama(s) and can find a willing minister, just let them, someone else's personal religious decision shouldn't have an impact on other people. The government just needs to stay out of marriage completely.

I have had enough of your personal attacks. We already have hundreds of laws about this. Besides, how hard is it to change the wording of a law to read "Married couples have these rights" to "A person can designate these rights to whomever they decide"? Call it inefficient or whatever; I call it flexible. Under the current system, people designate a block of rights to one other person. This is the only person who gets these rights, and these rights are absolute. They cannot be taken away or altered even if their spouse wants them to. I know it can seem horrible to want to take these rights away from your spouse, but people should have that option.

For those who prefer efficiency, they can just check the box on the form giving another person these rights that says "Screw it; they can have all those rights." Therefore, they check one box and give all the rights to that person.

A. Where did Dempub attack you personally?

B. You could grant those rights to different people now--by the thousand docuements you basically seem to think everyone should have. And then checking that one box to give a person all those rights would be the same thing as modern marriage. . . .so what's the issue here?

In my opinion, nobody should need a liscence from the government to get married. If someone wants to marry a man/woman/llama(s) and can find a willing minister, just let them, someone else's personal religious decision shouldn't have an impact on other people. The government just needs to stay out of marriage completely.


Guess what?!? You can already do that. You can go to a minister and get married and never get a marriage license. You just won't have any of the rights of marriage that come from the government. And that's fine if that's what you want to do.

A. Where did Dempub attack you personally?

B. You could grant those rights to different people now--by the thousand docuements you basically seem to think everyone should have. And then checking that one box to give a person all those rights would be the same thing as modern marriage. . . .so what's the issue here?

What's the issue? Restrictiveness, that's what. With marriage, it's everything or nothing, and it goes to a specific person. These particular rights (hospital visits, power of attorney, etc.) can be summed up into a page or pamphlet or book the thickness of War and Peace and be given to any person deemed worthy by another. Call it a marriage, a business partnership, a chocolate milkshake...call it whatever you will; business partnership sounds fine by me, since such a thing sounds to me like it might help business partners. Or any other group of people.

And Dempub telling me that I favor abuse of tax codes, inefficiency, and whatever else...sounds like a personal attack to me. Seems to me that other people are allowed to say far worse or unpopular things around here than "legal marriage should be abolished" and, although people might think they are dumb, it's not OK to slam them personally.

Marriage was originally a secular institution. Weddings were, however, often performed in front of the church building, this being a commonly used place for public activities, for people to see. That's why the pillories were there, too... As far as I remember weddings were moved inside the churches about 500 years ago. I think it's ok that churches perform some kind of blessing of married couples, but having them decide who can and who cannot be married just seems a bit weird to me...

THANK you for raiseing this little point of history, even in Christianity, marriage was a secular, contractual matter before the Church got involved. This was so WELL after Christianity was the dominant religion in Europe. Then it became a Sacrament, as did Confession. Confession was not a Sacrament until the 11th or 12th century, nor was it required that Confession be done with a priest until that era. One had a close friend and you and your friend discussed these matters. Confession gave priests plenty of good 'blackmail matierial' on the villagers. It was an instrument of control.
Marriage was in all eras a means of keeping property issues clear, and one hoped a means of keeping paternity issues clear, and a means of assuring support for children. All these are good things, and in society's interest.
It works fine so long as an entire society is the same religion. In Europe, this changed with the Reformation. This meant that there were two distinct sets of ideas about marriage and it's permanence, so in countries where two or more religious doctrines were common, a civil marriage process became necessary.
As far as civil unions for gay people go, I'm for it, marriage is another matter, since marriage per se is now and has for a long time been a religious matter, it's not fair to shove it down the throats of religious people. I don't think haveing a provision for civil uniions is bad, wrong or evil. I think the best thing would be to just separate the whole deal, civil unions for all, marriage for those who wish it for religious reasons. From the point of view of a religious person, not being married within their religious community is 'shacking up' and civil marriage represents only the permission to be married legally, it's not the spiritual bond. for a non-religious person, marriage on a civil level only is sufficient, since it represents the contractual aspect of marriage, the part of most concern to the State.
This is the best compromise for a country which claims separation of Church and State. It accomadates the most and that is a good thing.
Some of what is going on about this issue is really hype anyway. I'm as tired of this debate as I am of the stupid discussions about abortion and prayer in the schools.

What about a poll? :)