Let's just stop recognizing marriage as a whole

jd930 wrote:

Doctor wrote:
the problem with gay marriage is the problem with marriage as a whole… that it is essentially an archaic, religion based institution.   If people want to get married in a church, they can abide by whatever rules their church imposes, but the state has no business getting involved in any of this.

What should be available to all people, regardless of orientation, are civil unions – those would convey all the legal rights and benefits that marriage confers. 

Of course, if this idea ever goes anywhere, the wingnuts will go back to accusing gays of "destroying marriage."   It should be destroyed – at least as a government-sponsored institution.

Absolutely. Does the separation of church and state ring a bell? 

a few things here-

1) the california civil union law conferred upon same-sex unions the same legal rights and responsibilities as "married" couples, the only difference being straight couples got to use the word marriage; it doesn't matter in what form the couple made their vows or where the officiant proclaimed "by the power of the state of ____".  i still fail to see how that distinction takes away someone's rights.  i know what the california supreme court said, i simply disagree with it's reasoning.  

2) there is nothing in the constitution about "separation of church and state."  it's an annoying topic, but as long as people keep saying it, i'll keep responding.

3) about the ballot initiatives, i bet vansmack knows which one i would support. . .

4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .while i fundamentally agree that the state shouldn't care who makes up the union (to an extent), there are other reasons why the state must have some take on a civil union/marriage.  i am willing to accept the notion that if you can find a recognized church/religious organization to oversee such a ceremony, then the state should simply accept it (i'm going to ignore the slippery slope arguments), which is just the inverse of doom's anti-religion-based screed.  for all your hate, there are a lot of people out there who want familiar terms.  Note- this was fixed in a pretty common sense way.

5) while there is a similar fiduciary reason as #4, the federal government should care even less about the make-up of the civil union/marriage than the state, to which matters it is appropriately before.  in whatever form a civil union/marriage is accepted by the state, the same tax benefit should flow through to the federal side.  yes, there's a sticky legal wicket to get through, and, as vansmack has once, ironically, accused me of is that this will likely benefit lawyers.  

Venerable wrote:
4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .

i don't think anyone is arguing with you on that one, marriage/civil union is a contract between two people with financial and legal implications.  so the STATE should make the rules, not the churches (what doom said).  it's the churches who are keeping same-sex marriages illegal.

Venerable wrote:
3) about the ballot initiatives, i bet vansmack knows which one i would support. . .

Venerable supports all reach arounds.  That's all I know.

My post was neither anti-religion nor a "screed."  Anti religion would be to say "religion is Santa Claus for adults," which I also believe, but I didn't put in my post.

sweetcell wrote:

Venerable wrote:
4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .

i don't think anyone is arguing with you on that one, marriage/civil union is a contract between two people with financial and legal implications.  so the STATE should make the rules, not the churches (what doom said).  it's the churches who are keeping same-sex marriages illegal.

what do you mean, the churches.  i can be sure that the unitarian church up the street from my work is more than happy to perform any and all ceremonies.  if anything, doom's argument is that the state has relinquished the definition of a marriage to the churches. . and for any and all religions to have any impact on modern-day society is anathema.  i am not so willing to completely forsake religion and it's positive benefits upon society and the billions of people worldwide. 

i will say that the debate on this issue is incredibly polarized and that polarization is hindering the ability of people to compromise and come to an equitable solution- which is how the california civil union law got passed in the first place.  i might add that a large majority of the california population supports civil unions, even in the face of prop 8 passing.  simply concluding that religion is the reason why prop 8 passed or failed is short-sighted and does a dis-service to the whole debate.

Venerable wrote:
simply concluding that religion is the reason why prop 8 passed or failed is short-sighted and does a dis-service to the whole debate.

this is true.  I think that properly done and campaigned, a resolution to overturn Prop 8 could just as easily pass.

doctor doom.  as in doom.  as in the doom our world will face in the shadows of planet x.  as in the return of the ones that fell from the skies and gave us our knowledge leading up to this moment of conceived enlightenment on the computer.  as in holy shit batman.  well at least they will have finished all seven seasons of Lost by then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0bj76389U

Please Watch.

I think my favorite was the little girl with the "Don't be Gaycist" sign.  Wish I had thought of that.  that, and the one hot couple.