If Marriage isnt an important word/right: Then why are we denied this right/word?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

This is a question to the straight people here (the ones that constantly make us defend our desire to have this right and use the word in our lives)...i am tired of being asked why we want the right...or the right to use the word..i want to know, what the hell is your hesitance in using it when you are referring to gay couples?

I dont understand why we have to defend our desire to have equal rights. I think defending your bigotry is much more appropriate.

[Avalux]

1. I'm a straight person; you're not talking about me.

I have no problem using the term "marriage" to describe couples of the same sex. You've asked this question here and I sincerely hope you won't find anyone who would want to deny gays the right to marry and the recognition that comes with it. Society as a whole - hypocrisy comes to mind when people want to preserve marriage for men and women only. Their reasons are convoluted with religious junk.

Personally, I think marriage isn't all it's cracked up to be; but that's from my own experience. I place more stock in commitment. However if two people love each other (regardless of sex) and marriage is a goal, they should have the right.


:hug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. no i am not talking about you: i am talking about those who keep asking why we need the rights of

marriage or need to use that specific word.

[sui generis]

25. I think we have seen some of it right here on DU

rarely in the GLBT forum, and certainly not you sparosnare.

It's a valid question - I think we're seeing people who believe themselves to be doing the right thing genuinely puzzled why we wouldn't be happy being told what we should call ourselves.

I have asked the following question probably 20 times in the past week or so: if it doesn't matter what term as long as all the rights apply, then why don't we also call interracial marriage interracial unions and leave marriage as god intended it: white anglo saxon heterosexual opposite gender marriage?

But somehow nobody would even conceive of questioning why we don't call interracial marriage "interracial unions", and yet these same people presume to tell us we should be happy that we have a fountain and seats, even if they happen to be for us only and in the back of the bus.

I think many people mean well but don't take that extra tiny step to recognize that we are adults responsible for making decisions out our lives and families, and we don't NEED a special term for what we are. Two consenting adults should be able to get married if they choose, regardless of what anybody else on the planet thinks is best for them.

Secondly, if our goal is to get civil unioned, that's all we'll ever be. We will have bought into separate but equal. Some of us want a seat on the bus, even if its only in the back. That's valid, because something is more than nothing.

But most of us want to be able to ride any bus and sit anywhere on it, and for us, that is the goal. I don't want a special seat because I'm gay. I want marriage because I'm an American, like everyone else.

[swimboy]

35. And when old people marry we'd call it an "infertile union"

This is all much neater for purposes of classification.

I used to think civil unions would be enough, but not any more.

[papau]

2. Seems some idiots assume if you are gay you can not be religious - so only rights are

what are needed and civil unions will grant that.

If the world was setup my way, every couple that wanted to commit would do so with the State granting "civil union", not marriage, and with any religious institution that wished to granting to those in a civil union, "marriage" then doing so - the religious institution having no right to grant civil union status to any one.

But that is not the current system - with Churches given authority to "marry" and laws that give civil union rights only to those that are married.

Not logical - but traditional - and hard to change - but getting easier to change.

I expect my grandkids - who are already born albeit young - will see the change in my lifetime.

[ThomCat]

8. Except, civil unions won't grant all the same rights.

There are thousands of laws that grant special rights to married people, and unless all of those laws are either re-written or duplicated civil unions won't be equal. Civil Unions would only grant the specific rights written into the specific law that authorizes Civil Unions, and those rights would only be recognized in those specific places that don't prohibit the recognition of Civil Unions.

[papau]

40. I agree - I'd like to have "civil union" replace "marriage" in all our laws since religion should

be in charge of "marriage" - not the state - and the state should be in charge of "civil union"

- and the combination we now have of those deemed pastors in a religion having to power to form legal unions is no longer needed, even if there is a Justice of the Peace way out that gets you married without being religious.

At the moment we can't even get the States to honor each others civil unions.

As long as enforcement of rights defers to any part of the religious spectrum that objects to same sex marriage, there will be no change.

If the courts try to do this on their own, the states will forbid the courts of any right of review of laws against same sex unions (Courts below the Suppreme Court are granted a right of review for only those items the legislature grants them a right of review) - and the USSC will refuse to review as to Constitutional violations - and the state legislature which fears even a minority of those that are religious - and with the power to remove or stop funds going to a given judge - will prevail.

It is going to be a lot like divorce is now for a while - where a quick divorce means you must travel to the right state. Hopefully we will get a lot more states on board civil unions in the next few years. And hopefully constant pressure will get the same sex marriage approved eventually (or get my preferred idea of replacing the word "marriage" with "civil union" in all our laws).

I have a some friends that are very proud of their rings, but even here in Mass they do not talk about their marriage amongst those straight folks they have not known -known well - for a dozen years.

Amazing what a hot button issue same sex marriage is among folks otherwise sane. I am as straight as they come and as religious as the come, but I see nothing in the Bible or Jesus's teaching (indeed he said nothings about gays) that should cause a reaction larger than that caused by the idea of eating pork.

[vincent_vega_lives]

3. Marriage isn't a right for anyone

Otherwise you would not require a marriage licience.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. what exactly is your point?

[vincent_vega_lives]

20. If it were a legal right

then it would not require the state's permission.

[ThomCat]

26. Wrong.

Owning a gun is a legal right (2nd ammendment) but it requires the state's permission.

A right may be regulated.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. That's my point

You don't have said 'right' unless it is granted under the law.

[LeftCoast]

29. Marriage is not 'permission' from the state

It is recognition of a particular relationship between two people - essentially a contract.

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. A contract that can be denied if certain criteria aren't met (n/t)

[ThomCat]

9. But any couple in which both are of legal age,

and aren't closely related by blood can get a marriage license, as long as they're straight.

So why exactly shouldn't GLBT people be eligable for a marriage license?

[vincent_vega_lives]

22. Why shouldn't anyone not be allowed to get married?

Personally I don't think the state should be able to prevent ANY kind of marriage, regardless of family relationship. The family restriction is only regarding issues having children together. Why couldn't an Uncle marry his niece and then adopt?

[Sapphocrat]

11. Actually, you're right.

You can murder, rape, and drink the blood of children and grandmothers, like Richard Ramirez did, and, like Richard Ramirez did, still get married on Death Row.

So marriage really is a privilege, not a right -- and one afforded to practicing Satanic serial rapist-killers, but not to gay and lesbian people.

Nice to know where we stand in this country.

Now, what exactly was your point about marriage licenses? They serve what purpose again?

[vincent_vega_lives]

18. They serve what purpose again?

Good question.

[kiahzero]

12. Not true.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival -- Chief Justice Warren, Loving v. Virginia.

[cboy4]

14. Oh, is that why!? That darn "licence."

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

15. Of course it's a right -- it's just qualified with certain criteria

You meet the criteria, you can be married. Just like voting. You have to be 18. And, voting certainly is a RIGHT.

Good try, though. It almost made sense. NEXT!

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. The Supreme Court of the United States says you are wrong

In the lead opinion for Loving v Virginia, which struck down antimiscegenation laws in the US, Chief Justice Warren Burger described marriage as one of the basic civil rights of man.

Why should anyone consider your opinion as more important than the learned ruling of the United States Supreme Court?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. good one.

:clap:

[vincent_vega_lives]

19. Hardly

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Context is everything. This referers specifically to interracial marriages. If that were true it would be my right to marry my niece. As it is there is quite a legal burden depending on the state to apply for your "right".

ID and Residency Requirements, Fees, Proof of divorce regarding Previous Marriages, Age Requirements, Health Tests and family relationships. Sounds a lot like getting a driver's license.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. just like voting: certain age/citizenship status/time spent in state etc

i still fail to see your actual point

[vincent_vega_lives]

23. The point is

there is a different between 'rights' and 'legal rights'.

Until Miranda you did NOT have the right to have your 'legal rights' read to you.

Rights are granted under law.

[ThomCat]

27. Wrong.

There are no absolute rights. All rights are conditional. So your distinction between "rights" and "legal rights" is a false one.

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. That is a nice straw man you have built up

The point of Miranda is to alert a person being arrested that he has civil rights. These civil rights exist regardless of whether Miranda is read; that was the entire point of . Unless you mean to draw parallels between criminal proceedings and marriage, there is absolutely no rational basis for invoking Miranda in a discussion on marriage.

I also assert that your distinction between "rights" and "legal rights" is a false distinction. The Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is a basic civil right, a civil right so basic that even laws must fall before it. That the ruling was with regards specifically to race does not change the ruling's central point that marriage is guaranteed -- not "granted", as you claim, but guaranteed -- through the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution¦Fourteenth Amendment>'s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

[vincent_vega_lives]

52. Define this "basic civil right" (n/t)

[swimboy]

34. Your niece has a say in this matter, right?

I'm not sure where you've been living for the last thirty years. Even Virginia seems a little ahead of you.

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. Of course. Are you saying thiis could never happen? (n/t)

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

56. Then I guess neither is voting, cause you have to register to do it

:eyes:

[xultar]

6. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. money?

:hi:

[xultar]

13. Deeply yes...it all boils down to $$$$.

[Tyo]

10. Very good question, lioness

We are always getting told that marriage is just a word and that "civil unions" would be the same thing. Well if marriage is really nothing more than a word as far as they are concerned why are they so frigging hung up on it and protective of it?

Straight people who think that their marriages will be somehow diminished by a gay couple getting married have relationship issues that they probably ought to be working on and which have nothing to do with us.

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. OK since I seem to have stirred the pot here.

Lets talk about marriage shall we?

What was the original purpose of marriage? It was about having and raising children...nothing else. No one gave a crap about anyone's LL&POF. Women actually LOST all their legal rights when they married. That remained true in many states until the 1920s. In many cultures polygamy was the NORM. It wasn't' about 'relationship validation' or anything.

Why did the State get involved in marriage? To promote a beneficial environment for the raising of children. The 'one-man, one-woman' was seen as something positive for society and was granted 'legal benefits'. If these legal benefits did not exist then there would be not issue. Without children there was NEVER any point to get married. Why was divorce created? Because some fat prick couldn't get an heir to the throne thru his current wife!

So now this brings us to same-sex marriage. By changing the definition of marriage to "between any two people" you erase the child bearing issue from the union. Under 'equal protection under the law' there would be no legal recourse to deny incestuous marriages. How could you? It would still be illegal to have children, but not to marry. They why couldn't a married brother and sister adopt a child?

Then what is the argument against polygamy again?

My point is with changing societal views on marriage, we change the whole concept of marriage. Does it matter on the individual level? No not at all. Will it have a long lasting effect on cultural values? Who knows? Perhaps time will tell.

[ThomCat]

28. Wrong again.

Marriage was about regulating property. People would have kids (and did have kids) regardless of marriage. Marriage was a way of regulating who owned what, and who inherited what.

Marriage was only about kids to the extent that some kids were considered "legitimate" and some weren't. And the whole point of legitimacy was inheritance (regulating property).

[vincent_vega_lives]

54. No that came latter

Marriage orgininated with religion. The 'property' regulation was the wife. Regulation of inheritance came FROM marriage, it did not ORIGINATE it. You are putting the chicken before the egg.

[LeftCoast]

30. Gay couples can't/don't have children? Don't tell Mary Cheney that!

Or any of the thousands of other gay couples with kids.

:eyes:

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. Those kids

Were obviously not the result of the marriage.

[LeftCoast]

68. So? You said marriage "was about having and raising children...nothing else"

Mary Cheney and her partner are having a child and planning on raising the baby together. Just like any straight couple. EXCEPT they are denied marriage equality. This is otherwise known as a double standard.

[vincent_vega_lives]

69. I agree

That is not the point I am arguing. I think homosexual couples SHOULD be able to adopt or have children through a third party.

I think they should have the same rights under law that hetero couples have.

My argument is that the the key reason for MARRIAGE as how it is defined originally was to bring together men and women to have babies. Anything ELSE would be secondary, INCLUDING property transfer.

[mondo joe]

78. Marriage's original meaning or intent is not material. NT

[vincent_vega_lives]

73. No not really

Unless you agree to change the definition of marriage first.

[sniffa]

31. wow, i feeL Like i've Learned so much

i aLso didn't know that poLygamists couLdn't reproduce.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

32. I'm also amazed to learn that my lesbian cousin & her wife don't have a child.

Hopefully, they can legally marry soon.

[sniffa]

36. but the question remains

is their non-existant chiLdren Learning?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

41. Their children probably is learning.

:rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. I will bet you there was a third party involved

Even if anonymous.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

70. There was a third party involved. Why does that matter? They're raising a beautiful son together.

That is all that matters.

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. Huh?

:wtf: are you talking about? Im sure you are trying to make some snide point, but I dont see it.

[Sapphocrat]

33. All of which is now moot.

As interesting as all that may be on a purely academic level, the history of marriage is rendered utterly moot in the argument for or against modern marriage equality. The "accepted" reasons for marriage today have nothing to do with spawning more offspring, else marriage between infertile couples and for postmenopausal women would be illegal.

But that really is beside the point. I'm afraid you're just plain wrong that the original purpose of marriage was solely procreation; its original goal was the transference of property rights, and in many prominent cases, the amalgamation of kingdoms. Certainly, offspring figured greatly into the success of these business transactions (which is all marriages were), but children were nothing more than an avenue by which to keep the money -- or the kingdom -- literally in the family.

Remnants of this outmoded idea exist today, where kings and queens still reign; witness the joy of the Japanese over the birth of a male heir to Prince Akishino (of course, the first child, a daughter, was not eligible for the throne). But we do not live in a society that honors the moribund, largely ceremonial, and decidedly un-democratic concept of monarchy, do we?

So let's not romanticize the "blessing" of children to any legally-recognized union. The argument (a favorite of marriage equality opponents) that marriage exists so that man may fulfill God's command to populate the earth was never true then, and it isn't true now.

You're correct that "with changing societal views on marriage, we change the whole concept of marriage"; societal views have indeed changed, even if society does not recognize that modern marriage has returned to its original roots as a nothing more than a legal contract. You are, I hope, aware of the 1,049 legal protections awarded only to married couples? You are, I hope, aware that the fight for marriage equality has everything to do with winning those same legal protections -- and not some hazy concept of "relationship validation"?

"Validation," if you feel the need for it, you get in a church.

As for whether or not individual rights matter, even Ayn Rand -- who hated gay people, calling our civil rights struggle "hideous" and a quest for "special privileges" -- would disagree with you:

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

Come to think of it, Thomas Jefferson would have disagreed with you as well:

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government."

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Marriage is renderd moot.

The "accepted" reasons for marriage today have nothing to do with spawning more offspring, else marriage between infertile couples and for postmenopausal women would be illegal.

Why illegal? That has never been a prerequisite for marriage as 'barren' couples could adopt. That was always the case.

But that really is beside the point. I'm afraid you're just plain wrong that the original purpose of marriage was solely procreation; its original goal was the transference of property rights, and in many prominent cases, the amalgamation of kingdoms. Certainly, offspring figured greatly into the success of these business transactions (which is all marriages were), but children were nothing more than an avenue by which to keep the money -- or the kingdom -- literally in the family.

You say it your self. Children were the avenue. and the only way to do this legitimately was to be married. There were methods of transference of property rights that did not involve copulation. There was NO requirement for marriage to transfer property. It was a key COMPONENT of marriage, not the purpose of CREATING marriage.

So let's not romanticize the "blessing" of children to any legally-recognized union. The argument (a favorite of marriage equality opponents) that marriage exists so that man may fulfill God's command to populate the earth was never true then, and it isn't true now.
True that marriage existed before the JudaoChristian religion. It was those churches that grasped that marriage could be an engine to spread the faith.

But even in ancient Greece the guardian of marriage was Hera, the goddess of fertility. NOT the god of property transition.

You're correct that "with changing societal views on marriage, we change the whole concept of marriage"; societal views have indeed changed, even if society does not recognize that modern marriage has returned to its original roots as a nothing more than a legal contract. You are, I hope, aware of the 1,049 legal protections awarded only to married couples? You are, I hope, aware that the fight for marriage equality has everything to do with winning those same legal protections -- and not some hazy concept of "relationship validation"? "Validation," if you feel the need for it, you get in a church.

I totally agree. I see no reason any two parties should not be able to enter into a social contract. But then you must ask yourself, why are there over a thousand legal benefits to marriage? why did society hold marriage to a status deserving of such benefits?

As for whether or not individual rights matter, even Ayn Rand -- who hated gay people, calling our civil rights struggle "hideous" and a quest for "special privileges" -- would disagree with you:

Here originates the problem. Marriage is a right bequeathed to a man and a woman. It cannot be given to homosexual couple with out altering the definition of the word. Once the state got involved with legal 'benis' it has become a coveted right. The problem is no one ever conceived marriage outside that of a man and a woman (or women). These benefits were bequeathed because marriage was seen as a benefit to society. It was viewed as the ideal mechanism to raise children with the 'correct' values as seen by the church.

Current society needs to determine if heterosexual marriage should hold any value in our society. If not it needs to be abolished in the STATE and replaced with social contracts that does include any kind of consummation at all, as it then makes NO sense.

[mondo joe]

47. Your errors, one by one:

Why the state got involved in marriage is not relevant.

Even if it did, same sex couples can and do have children.

Equal protection would not apply to incest provided ALL groups were denied access to incestuous marriage. Equal protection applies to CLASSES of people - not individual desires.

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. "Equal protection would not apply to incest "

Why? Why couldnt two related people get married?

[mondo joe]

72. Now you're asking a DIFFERENT question.

Equal Protection does not apply to incest because Equal Protection applies to classes of people. There is no Incest Class.

[vincent_vega_lives]

74. So where does the 14th Amendment refer to classes of people?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[mondo joe]

75. That is the precedent.

If incest is illegal for everyone, there is no conflict with the equal protection clause.

[vincent_vega_lives]

76. Incest is not illegal for everyone. It is legal in some states

Incestuous marriage is illegal however. Because of the child rearing reason. But if the that component is removed from marriage, which same-sex marriage does, why should incestuous marriage be illegal?

[mondo joe]

77. Regardless, if it applies equally to everyone it is not a violation of

the equal protection clause.

Let's square that away before moving on to another fallacious argument.

[vincent_vega_lives]

79. Huh

there's a well reasoned argument. You have still not explained why incestuous marriage should be illegal.

[mondo joe]

80. I'm not arguing that it SHOULD be illegal. Just that it is not a violation of the

equal protection clause for it to be illegal.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

57. Oh, the same sex marriage will lead to polygamy debate

wonderful. The bible is full of polygamists and you don't seem to be complaining about that? You condradict yourself too:

"What was the original purpose of marriage? It was about having and raising children...nothing else. No one gave a crap about anyone's LL&POF. Women actually LOST all their legal rights when they married. That remained true in many states until the 1920s. In many cultures polygamy was the NORM. It wasn't' about 'relationship validation' or anything."

"Then what is the argument against polygamy again?"

Also, Child bearing has nothing to do with marriage. If it did, people who don't have kids should have their marriage ended, those who have already raised their kids should have their marriages dissolved, and those who cant have kids shouldn't be allowed to married if that true. Consummating a marriage is based on sex, not birth

please, do your reading:

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. You can certainly carry this further

"marriage has alwas been a legal bond between TWO and only TWO hetero or homosexual people who are NOT related--and we're gona KEEP it that way!"


What's the difference? We either need to abolish STATE sanctioned marriage and replace it with social contracts or keep it as it is. Anything else is pointless.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

67. I have no problem with the all or nothing solution.

if marriage is so religious, why is the government using a religious institution to confer rights and benefits on its citizens?

[sui generis]

58. it's not the future that's keeping us from our rights today

it's the assholes today.

We have to confront their rationale, today. That's why it's important to not "settle" for civil unions as a "hand me down" from our paternal benevolent "tolerant" "inclusive" fellow citizens.

We don't need "tolerance". We don't need to be "included". We're already here, we're already de facto married.

We need acceptance and we don't need laws designed to make us second class citizens.

It's all about today.

[HockeyMom]

37. It is about Procreation and Religion

This administration and the Religious Right cannot separate the two. The purpose of sex and "marriage" is for procreation to them. Yes, it even goes back to the abortion, and birth control, issue for them. Sexual intercourse must have "consequences", i.e,, CHILDREN. Anything that defeats that consequence is an abomination (religion), whether that is gay sex or straight sex, even married straight sex, which prevents procreation (birth control and/or abortion). That really is what is at the root of all this. Maybe I have been trolling the Freepers too much, but it does give you clues where they are coming from. It is enough to make me, as a straight, married, woman, want to puke.

I would, personally, like to see government issue Civil Union CONTRACTS for all. Let government grant Civil Union Federal Benefits to all who receive a license. Let Church's "marry" those who they wish. They could refuse to marry somebody born on a Sunday, for all I care. It would mean absolutely NOTHING as far as federal rights are concerned. My husband and I have been together for 32 years. Do I care what George Bush or some other religious organization says how we should live our lives? Absolutely, NOT. They can take a hike as far as I am concerned. None of them is going to make our life together a "sacred, holy, institution of marriage" if we ourselves do not wish to define it that way.

Sorry, if I have ranted on. It just makes me so very, very mad. I have two daughters; one is straight and one is gay. They both deserve EQUAL rights to "marry" who they personally CHOOSE. Get YOUR RELIGION out of our lives.

[Sapphocrat]

38. I think the anti-gay/anti-choice brigades...

...are convinced it's all about procreation and religion, which is just what TPTB want. But don't you feel it's really all about (here comes the super-feminist talk, but there's no other way to put it in shorthand) maintaining the patriarchal status quo?

My apologies if I sound like I'm splitting hairs -- but I think it's important to differentiate between what the masses are led to believe, and what their leaders really believe. I'm sure * doesn't give a damn one way or the other about "moral" issues, as long as they don't affect his bottom line; and when they do affect his bottom line, he puts on his "moral" hat.

It's classic Straussian theory in perfect execution.

[HockeyMom]

39. Yes, religion is patriarchal

These are the same people lamenting that Mary Cheney's baby will not have a father. You can even go back to the fictional Murphy Brown with that one too. How many of them (men) talk about IVF children's fathers are being "turkey basters"? Why do so many of these said men detest Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc.? It is all because they hate strong, smart, independent women. So they try to relegate, with enforced religion, women to being uneducated, barefoot, and (married) pregnant.

Yes, I do see your point. Religoin is the tool for their agenda.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. We can debate whether it is benificial for a child

to be raised with or without a memeber of both genders as a parent. Personnaly I do think it is important for a child to develop correctly to have a positive roll model of both genders, even if it is just an uncle or aunt.

Positive being the key.

[NMMNG]

42. It's all about defending their bigotry

Take that away and they have nothing left to stand on.

[William769]

43. You hit the nail right on the head.

And anyone who says otherwise is a damn liar. Also anyone who tells us we need to wait for this because now is not the time is doing nothing but help support the bigots!

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tyo]

44. Marriage is a civil contract with an OPTIONAL religious overlay.

People think that marriage has some sort of inherent religious significance because so many people choose to have their marriages sanctified with a religious ceremony. But as far as the state is concerned the religious ceremony or lack thereof is irrelevant. The state that decides whether or not two people are married, not the church.

[TechBear_Seattle]

46. Exactly right

There are three states -- I think they are Florida, Maryland and North Carolina -- where any notary public has the power to officiate at a marriage. I have sent a letter to all three of my state legislators asking that a similar law be proposed in the upcoming session of the Washington State legislature.

The fact remains that NO religious ceremony can make a legal marriage anywhere in the United States, and NO religious ceremony will ever be a requirement for legal marriage. The one and only way to get a legal marriage in the United States is to file the appropriate civil papers with the appropriate civil authority. Any effort to give religious ceremony such power, and any effort to make religious ceremony a requirement, would be immediately struck down as a gross violation of the First Amendment separation of Church and State.

It is mind-boggling how many people are too abysmally stupid to realize this.

[Tyo]

48. Seems like a lot of straight folks are almost hardwired to see marriage as being tied to religion.

Marriage did not start out as strictly a religious thing that the state ended up getting involved in. Marriage was first about property, rights, and inheritance. The church only got involved because they decided that God's (i.e. the Church's) sanction was a requirement for Christians. As you say, no religious ceremony can make a legal marriage anywhere in the United States. I guess all we can do is try to keep pounding this point home.

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. Trivia on religious marriage

Until the 11th century or so, marriage was considered merely a blessing, little different than the blessing placed on the fields or a new home. Marriage was a big deal only within the aristocracy, and only then as a result of the real estate and financial implications. Marriage was not considered "sacramental" unil the Reformation, with Protestants reacting to the treatment of marriage as a commercial transaction, and the Catholic Church trying to show that they were more pro-family than the Protestants. Thomas Aquinas, author of the premier anti-Protestant work, Summa Theologica, was one of the first Catholic theologians to class marriage as anything more than a simple blessing performed after the fact of legal (ie civil) marriage.

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. Regligion was tied to everything

Property Rights: The woman WAS the property

Inheritance: Children was/is the ONLY means.

Even in Ancient Greece and Rome marriage was "tied to religion".

[Tyo]

71. Take religion out of the equation

and you still have marriage.

Take the state out of the equation and you have nothing but a bunch of religions with conflicting views of what marriage is and what it isn't and no legal means of enforcing anything.

The courthouse trumps the church because the law needs to be applied to all equally while religions can disagree and discriminate and fight among themselves to their little hearts' content.