Gay Marriage - poll added

[NoHall]

Could you expound this bit? I don't understand what all it entails.

What she said:

That is impossible in today's society -- between the tax laws, family rights in a hospital room, real estate purchases, 401k beneficiaries, etc, etc. Marriage is in actuality a government institution, at least in our society, way more than it appears to be a religious institution.

 

[Bdarg]

JDarg!

I never, ever, ever said that 1) gay marriage infringes on my rights or life, or that 2) it annoys me. It does neither.

What I actually said:

• I think that we should be free to marry whomever we want according to our beliefs, and that government should stay out of it.

• I'm annoyed by frivolous marriages, which I see more of in the straight community than the gay community.

• I think that spousal benefits defined by the government are a nasty mess and should be eliminated.

Spousal benefits aren't going anywhere in our lifetime (or for many lifetimes to come), so they should be extended to ALL spouses. Period.

Religion is not a legal requirement of marriage, which is a commitment between 2 people, however THEY choose to view it. Last time I checked, judges, notaries, and marriage licensing bureaus were not employed by the churches.


Oops- sorry this is Jdarg posing as Bdarg. But he totally agrees.

 

[TooFarTampa]

[*] I think that spousal benefits defined by the government are a nasty mess and should be eliminated.

By eliminating legal rights for spouses, you also would be eliminating a person's legal right to make medical decisions for his or her spouse, decisions that would then fall to either the parent or child of the stricken one, whether or not that person is religiously and/or happily married.

Sorry, but it's not even worth debating.

May I ask in what ways you are discriminated against, by law, as a single person? That is something worth discussion. I understand that single people can get dumped on at work etc but how does the law affect you in a negative way?

 

[NoHall]

Spousal benefits aren't going anywhere in our lifetime (or for many lifetimes to come), so they should be extended to ALL spouses. Period.

Religion is not a legal requirement of marriage, which is a commitment between 2 people, however THEY choose to view it. Last time I checked, judges, notaries, and marriage licensing bureaus were not employed by the churches.


Oops- sorry this is Jdarg posing as Bdarg. But he totally agrees.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It bothers me that you would even put "religion" and "legal requirement" in the same sentence.

 

[elgordoboy]

A marriage/civil union (and they are the same thing) is a contract (I don't mean before the eyes of God in this instance). The issue is secular marriage. I wasn't under the impression that church or religion has anything to do with the issue at present. Am i incorrect?

 

[Jdarg]

A marriage/civil union (and they are the same thing) is a contract (I don't mean before the eyes of God in this instance). The issue is secular marriage. I wasn't under the impression that church or religion has anything to do with the issue at present. Am i incorrect?

No. NoHall had stated in a previous post that marriage is a religious institution and I disagree. Carry on- I am off on my daily adventures.

 

[NoHall]

A marriage/civil union (and they are the same thing) is a contract (I don't mean before the eyes of God in this instance). The issue is secular marriage. I wasn't under the impression that church or religion has anything to do with the issue at present. Am i incorrect?

I'm saying that marriage should be regarded as a religious institution.

Point one: I don't have the stats (nor do I have time to look them up right now) as to what percentage of couples are married in a church/temple/synagogue/chapel and/or by a priest/pastor/witch doctor/whatever. But I'm willing to bet that it's a vast majority, even if the couple rarely or never darkens the door of a Sunday School class.

Point two: It seems that the resistance to gay marriage in this country centers on beliefs--namely, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Religious and moral beliefs seem to be darned near inarguable (except where they obviously threaten the health and safety of others.) If we can get church and state divorced, then how the hail can the government interfere with gay marriage?

(And if you read point two carefully, then you may correctly infer that I think that same-sex couples have every right to wed.)

 

[Mermaid]

Spousal benefits aren't going anywhere in our lifetime (or for many lifetimes to come), so they should be extended to ALL spouses. Period.

Religion is not a legal requirement of marriage, which is a commitment between 2 people, however THEY choose to view it. Last time I checked, judges, notaries, and marriage licensing bureaus were not employed by the churches.


Oops- sorry this is Jdarg posing as Bdarg. But he totally agrees.

Well, there's the rub. Anyone can have their own personal view of what "marriage" is, but is their view upheld by the law of the land? And yes, that does matter tremendously. Love only goes so far and then taxes and other assorted legalities rear their ugly heads.

It's very interesting to google "definition of marriage." Lots of opinions out there over what the term entails. It's a prickley issue over terminology.

 

[hnooe]

You'all I just have to say this is a great thread, and frankly, as a partnered gay man (14 years), I find I am learning more and more about this issue than I thought I knew. All of the posts have been so accepting and positive that it has really made my day! Thanks swgb for the thread!

 

[TooFarTampa]

I'm saying that marriage should be regarded as a religious institution.

Point one: I don't have the stats (nor do I have time to look them up right now) as to what percentage of couples are married in a church/temple/synagogue/chapel and/or by a priest/pastor/witch doctor/whatever. But I'm willing to bet that it's a vast majority, even if the couple rarely or never darkens the door of a Sunday School class.

Point two: It seems that the resistance to gay marriage in this country centers on beliefs--namely, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Religious and moral beliefs seem to be darned near inarguable (except where they obviously threaten the health and safety of others.) If we can get church and state divorced, then how the hail can the government interfere with gay marriage?

(And if you read point two carefully, then you may correctly infer that I think that same-sex couples have every right to wed.)

But are you saying that people who get married should NOT be then viewed by
the government as each others' next of kin? Because that's the whole point of the governmental involvement. Married people legally become family. And that is useful in countless ways. Marriage is or should be more than just a piece of paper, but that paper is very important.