Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

_grrlhavoc_

_grrlhavoc_

New York, NY
November 2008

NOV 09, 2008 02:43 PM

Accuser said:

Gay marriage isn't like abortion. There is no argument to be made for banning it except on a religious basis. There can be no discussion that does not appeal to religion or tradition. Every one of these examples is a violation of your rights. Whether you are gay or straight, religious or not, you have an interest in maintaining a clear line of separation between church and state. We all do.



Much agreed, but until the government no longer allows the legislation of morality us gays will have to keep fighting for the right to be equal in that sense. As for the tax breaks...most of us could care less...I just do not want something to ever happen to my partner (ie. car accident--coma--vegetable) where my voice is legally mute because we are not "married."

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

NOV 09, 2008 03:12 PM

Varuka_Salt said:
Civil unions for everyone. Marriage becomes a purely religious term akin to "baptized" with no legal status whatsoever. I have yet to hear any convincing arguments for any other comprehensive, permanent solution. Religion and law must be completely, utterly and permanently disentangled.



This is the worst of all worlds. Gay marriage is very close to acceptance (another couple of years in California and another decade everywhere else), and marriage is already a secular institution. You actually would be destroying the institution of marriage for the sake of equality for gays, thus confirming the worst fears of social conservatives. The cure would be worse than the sickness, by creating a backlash so deep that it would result in the end of any kind of recognized same sex union.

Marriage is deeply rooted in our culture. People don't write stories and make movies about the joy of getting "civil unioned". It's just not happening. It's a solution that satisfies no one, is largely gratuitous considering how close we are in the fight, and it would create an enormous pain in the ass for local governments all over the country.

Let's see, what's easier. Rewrite laws in every county in America, change the word that everyone uses and is deeply attached to, give the middle finger to married secular couples, and piss off religious couples by removing marriage as a state institution, OR push the margin in a totally winnable 52/48% election?

You may personally not want to get married, and that's totally fine, but most people want it. People want marriage, not civil unions.

Accuser

Accuser

Scottsdale, AZ
October 2006

NOV 09, 2008 03:14 PM

^^^
That.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

NOV 09, 2008 03:28 PM

Let me add another point. Marriage, right now, is a purely civil institution. A church is just one of many possible venues to perform a marriage ceremony. Other venues could be City Hall, your backyard, a park, a boat, a casino in Las Vegas, Second Life, or a reality show.

When you get married, you're not married until you inform the government you're married, and the government records your marriage certificate. That's what defines marriage now. Not the church, but a county recorder.

Really, this can't be repeated enough. Marriage, right now, is secular, not religious.

The proposed solution is to hand over a civil institution to churches, and I find this solution deeply offensive. Why would you willingly hand over any other concept or any other function of government to churches, just because they want they want to discriminate against gays and lesbians? It makes zero sense.

Here you go, churches, here's your reward for your persistent discrimination against gays and lesbians. You get to own a civil institution that's already well-defined by culture and government.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

NOV 09, 2008 03:53 PM

Um I really don't see how that in any way would be handing over a civil institution to the churches. Seems like they have that already, even though you need a license from the government to do it. Why do priests always say "by the power vested in me by such and such a state" at the end of the ceremony? It's that directly giving the churches civil power?

As I said before, you can call yourself married if you like, I do, even though my wedding was %100 free from any religious involvement, done in a VFW hall, and performed by a friend of ours. The churches already seem to claim the right to marry people. That is one of their main, if false, arguments against gay marriage, that they would be forced by the state to perform them.



The proposed solution is to hand over a civil institution to churches, and I find this solution deeply offensive.



I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion, when that is the exact opposite of what I am proposing. I want to completely disentangle the bizarre "marriage" of church and state we have now. The last thing I want to do is give the churches any legal authority of any kind.

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

NOV 09, 2008 04:09 PM

Varuka_Salt said:
I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion, when that is the exact opposite of what I am proposing. I want to completely disentangle the bizarre "marriage" of church and state we have now.



Marriage is already disentangled from the church. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with churches, except in the sense that churches offer themselves as a venue. But that makes them no different than a casino or a VFW hall or a ship at sea.

In other words, your solution offers no improvement on the current situation for marriage. Marriage is already a 100% civil institution. There is nothing to be gained by handing over the concept to churches.

The last thing I want to do is give the churches any legal authority of any kind.



I'm not talking about the legal authority. I'm talking about marriage as a concept and as a social institution. Churches don't get to own that, just so we can make some misguided (and doomed to fail) attempt to peel off the final 2% in a future election. The legal structure is already exactly right as is, minus the need to make it more inclusive. We don't need to allow churches to own the concept of marriage, just like they don't get to own love or happiness or joy or reverence.

It would create a big mess that provides no practical solution, all because some people think the work of campaigning to the final 2% is too hard or too scary. I say fuck it, let's be courageous and tell the churches that they don't get to appropriate marriage, and in effect decide who gets to call themselves married and who doesn't.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

NOV 09, 2008 04:24 PM



Marriage is already disentangled from the church. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with churches, except in the sense that churches offer themselves as a venue. But that makes them no different than a casino or a VFW hall or a ship at sea.



While you may be technically and legally correct, I don't think the churches see it that way. Of course, that doesn't mean their perception is correct. Their whole "defense of marriage" argument, to me at least, makes me think that they seem to believe that they own marriage, and "allow" the state to issue licenses. Maybe part of the gay marriage campaign should focus on making it clear to everyone that the churches do not currently own marriage.

kthxbi

kthxbi

Gulf Breeze, FL
November 2006

NOV 09, 2008 05:14 PM

So this is purely an argument in semantics?!? biggrin

Sarcasm aside, I do agree. Can we not let gays have the same rights as everyone else?

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

NOV 09, 2008 05:26 PM

Varuka_Salt said:
Um, what tax breaks for being married? Me and my wife had to put off getting married for years because of the tax disadvantage of being married. We still would pay less taxes if we were not married, filing individual returns, than we do now filing jointly. The only tax breaks we receive are because of our children, which we received even before we were married. So, the tax situation you hope for already exists, while the one you describe as existing doesn't.

As far as marriage being too far into into property and inheritance laws, that's pretty simple to fix. Replace the word "marriage" with "civil union", TA DA!!! Anyone who is already married automatically gets a civil union. I don't see how that is in any way difficult.

As far as the backlash from the religious nutters, that's going to happen no matter what you do. They always bitch and moan when the rest of the world refuses to follow their insane mythology. If they really can't stand the fact that they live in a secular nation, maybe they should try life in a non-secular society. Saudi Arabia should be perfect for them. Of course, they'd have to convert and all, but that shouldn't be a problem. They don't seem to have a problem trying to force us to live by their rules, so they shouldn't have any problem submitting to the whims of others fantasies, right?



petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

NOV 09, 2008 05:41 PM

Varuka_Salt said:
Um, what tax breaks for being married? Me and my wife had to put off getting married for years because of the tax disadvantage of being married. We still would pay less taxes if we were not married, filing individual returns, than we do now filing jointly. The only tax breaks we receive are because of our children, which we received even before we were married. So, the tax situation you hope for already exists, while the one you describe as existing doesn't.



If you both make close to the same amount of money then the advantages go away. In a marriage where one spouse makes more than the other, such advantages do exist.

Varuka_Salt said:
As far as marriage being too far into into property and inheritance laws, that's pretty simple to fix. Replace the word "marriage" with "civil union", TA DA!!! Anyone who is already married automatically gets a civil union. I don't see how that is in any way difficult.



50 different state legislature and the federal congress control at least 51 different sets of inheritance laws, and no one can wave a magic wand and make all those change at once. It would be a mess.

One could try to do it as a US constitutional amendment, but that requires ratification by 3/4 of all state legislatures and again that is a mess.

Bottom line it is not a cheap or easy solution.




Varuka_Salt said:
As far as the backlash from the religious nutters, that's going to happen no matter what you do.



Yup, and said "religious nutters" have effective control a lot of state legislatures, probably more than 1/4 of the 50 states, and are powerful in many others. You cannot in a representative democracy ignore a large well organized minority, or run roughshod over them. It just don't work.



Varuka_Salt said:
They always bitch and moan when the rest of the world refuses to follow their insane mythology. If they really can't stand the fact that they live in a secular nation, maybe they should try life in a non-secular society.



Real world 101, this (the USA) is a representative democracy. You cannot force laws you think are correct on others when they have more votes than you on a given subject. witness what happened with prop 8, the side that had more votes won.

The sane way to deal with this situation is to organize your side and build bridges to others who can be persuaded to agree with your side, and try an put wedges into the opposing political coalition, not to call names and alienate potential allies.




FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

NOV 09, 2008 11:31 PM

bean said:

Varuka_Salt said:
Civil unions for everyone. Marriage becomes a purely religious term akin to "baptized" with no legal status whatsoever. I have yet to hear any convincing arguments for any other comprehensive, permanent solution. Religion and law must be completely, utterly and permanently disentangled.



I could not possibly agree more.


Hear, hear. "Marriage" in itself is strictly a cultural ritual or ceremony where the union of two persons is formalized in the eyes of one's peers. It matters not where such a ceremony is performed but it matters naught to the state, unless that little piece of official paper is certified and signed by an authorized witness. Without that certificate, you could have marriages all day long, to as many people you want, and with whomever you wanted. It's all about the civil recognition and rights that go along with a union that matter.

Separation of church and state ought to go both ways, it's about time we get that straight. Er, well... blush

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next