Implications of California Marriage Decision

[Bloodcinder]

Since California started granting same-sex marriage licenses on June 17 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355836,00.html), everybody in the United States has access to a same-sex marriage legal somewhere within the country.

California doesn't have a residency requirement for a license, unlike Massachusetts, enabling out-of-state American citizens to acquire a license during a visit. Because DOMA prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage at the federal level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA), this means they are only fully recognized in California and Massachusetts. At least New York and Rhode Island recognize foreign same-sex marriages such as those granted in Canada, and New York explicitly honors out-of-state same-sex marriages.

While anybody in the entire country can now acquire a same-sex marriage license, it won't be recognized everywhere. Even those same-sex marriages that are recognized in the country do not qualify for over one thousand opposite-sex marriage benefits.

California's granting of same-sex marriage licenses could be ended in November, when a constitutional amendment banning it will appear on the ballot (http://biggaynews.com/same-sex-marriage-ban-gains-calif-ballot/1916). It is worth noting that the majority of state residents support same-sex marriage (http://biggaynews.com/poll-most-californians-back-gay-marriage/1901) and that Americans in general think that the government should quit regulating same-sex marriage (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-03-gay-marriage-poll_N.htm?csp=34). Although a statutory ban passed eight years ago in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_%282000%29), it passed only 12% in excess of the smallest majority required and was recently ruled unconstitutional. Amendments are historically harder to pass than statutes.

Thoughts?

[RonDo]

I dunno.

If ss marriages need to have some means of deciding whether it is to be allowed or not, then I prefer the the "let the people vote and decide" approach more than anything else. If that was the case, then you will have some states that would approve it and some that don't.

Honestly, I haven't cared too much about the issue.

[Arainach]

Personally, I prefer the 'stop having the government recognize ANY marriage' solution, but if the government must keep messing with this stuff, allowing same-sex marriage is the way to go.

Also, Rondo, one of the foundations of democracy is that the civil and human rights of minorities are more important than the will of the majority.

[Bloodcinder]

If ss marriages need to have some means of deciding whether it is to be allowed or not, then I prefer the the "let the people vote and decide" approach more than anything else. If that was the case, then you will have some states that would approve it and some that don't.
Civil rights left to the majority leads to civil rights only for the majority. But...

Also, Rondo, one of the foundations of democracy is that the civil and human rights of minorities are more important than the will of the majority.
Looks like Ary already said that. Nevermind.

Personally, I prefer the 'stop having the government recognize ANY marriage' solution, but if the government must keep messing with this stuff, allowing same-sex marriage is the way to go.
I agree. It's kind of ridiculous that the institution of marriage is being licensed (read: regulated) by the government. My ideal solution is for the elimination of government-issued marriage licenses and the adoption of private marriage contracts.

[RonDo]

Personally, I prefer the 'stop having the government recognize ANY marriage' solution, but if the government must keep messing with this stuff, allowing same-sex marriage is the way to go.

Also, Rondo, one of the foundations of democracy is that the civil and human rights of minorities are more important than the will of the majority.

A very good point indeed.

However, I am still a bit conflicted. Equal rights are great, but what do we classify as "rights"? (I have such a hard time putting my thoughts down in text as opposed to verbal exchanges...)

People can say they have a right to be married..or they can say I have a right to smoke where I feel like it, or I have a right to abort my own baby..or the like. But perhaps the keyword is "civil" when also speaking of rights, per say. I hope that makes some sense...

[Bloodcinder]

You are correct: what a "right" is is confusing. I don't think anybody has a "right" to marry. It's more like marriage is something for which nobody should have a prohibition. Straights aren't prohibited from getting government benefits with their familial relationships, so why should gays be prohibited? That's kind of the issue.

[Killer_Man_]

LH, I thought only the state can dictate marriage not the Senate and etc.

Hmmm, how odd. *scratches the back of his head* The problem being with people like my parents who are racist and against gays.(Hell my dad hates TV shows that even if the actor is acting a gay character cause he feels that it's promoting sin.) blah blah blah...

The only real way it's going to get solve is once the baby boomers die off.

[Bloodcinder]

DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act, which I linked to) is what you're referring to. It says that states aren't required to recognize same-sex marriages in other states and that the federal government can't recognize them at all. But there's nothing to say that it's officially a states' or federal decision. The problem is entirely that the federal government is dictating marriage.

[Killer_Man_]

I could have swore in the consitution or something that marriage was up to the states but things I guess changed.

[Seegtease]

I agree. It's kind of ridiculous that the institution of marriage is being licensed (read: regulated) by the government. My ideal solution is for the elimination of government-issued marriage licenses and the adoption of private marriage contracts.

I agree with this. It shouldn't have anything to do with the government. Even from a Christian perspective, God never instituted it like that. Sure, I may disagree with homosexual marriage, and private contracts would allow it, but honestly there's no reason for it to be government regulated.

Not to mention, Gov't regulation goes both ways. I heard on the radio (I couldn't find a source, sadly) that a pastor in Canada was fined for not performing a homosexual ceremony. Now that's just plain wrong. I may have heard wrong, and I hope I did, but I'm pretty sure that's the case. I did, however, find cases of being fined for not allowing the rental of a church for same-sex weddings.

That's actually my biggest fear in America relating to this issue. That Pastors and priests will begin to get fined for refusing to do those weddings. I hope that doesn't turn out to be the case.

But long story short, the government should never have anything to do with a wedding. Any two people should be able to file their taxes together or whatever the Gov't benefits are, but the actually certificates for marriage should be decided by the church, or ship captain, or Judge (actually that's a little more tricky, since it is Gov't related).

That makes me wonder, how do you get rid of the Gov't regulations but still allow Judges to wed a couple?

[Bloodcinder]

Have a judge notarize a marriage contract?

[Seegtease]

Not sure I know what you mean, you may have to elaborate.

[Bloodcinder]

All a judge does is authorize a marriage license. Under the "ideal" system, the same judge would merely notarize the marriage contract.

[Gio Takahashi]

I also disgree with the idea of government regulated marriage. Zeet pretty much touched the point I would say.

Priests and pastors should NEVER be fined for NOT performing wedding for gay couple. it goes against the religion, and it is possibly unconstitutional, as it would go against the basic Bills of Rights, one of then being freedom to worship.

A priest/pastor of the church would be going against the church's teaching, thus interfering with whom they worship, by performing wedding for the homosexual couples.

[Charlie]

Hearing about people getting fined for not performing the ceremonies, and this whole resolution even being passed at all (my christian beliefs, and morality as a whole turn me against it), makes me pretty fucking mad, to be honest. I do believe marriage as a whole shouldn't be government-controlled, though. It's one of the many things that, as long as you're not going out getting married to 5 different women, or whatever, should be up to the people. And whatever fucking path you choose to go down, just go the fuck down it. Leave the consequences of everyone's choices up to them, and their conscience.

Also, though, like it's also been said, the freedom to worship thing. What the fuck's up with that? Unrelated, I know, but a teacher in Mount Vernon might be up for losing his job just because he had a BIBLE ON HIS DESK! My parents heard it on the news today. Fucking stupid as hell. But this is another nail in the coffin for us. Unconstitutional, idiotical, and just plain stupid. I can't express that enough. If the preachers don't want to do the weddings, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO! I know I sure as hell wouldn't do it, reguardless..

[Arainach]

You're all overreacting to something that, as far as we can tell, didn't happen, and couldn't in America BECAUSE we have the Bill of Rights. No one's claimed Homosexuals have a right to be married in a church. They have a right to marriage in the eyes of the state - no more, no less.

[Bloodcinder]

Yeah, it seems like people are opposing gay marriage in America because of something that may or may not have happened in Canada.

Christian ministers in the US regularly deny their marriage services to straight couples whom they do not deem ready for marriage. That's well within their American rights as clergy. And if a gay person wants to get married in a church and is denied, I'm sure he'd rather find another church than insist on getting married in one that wants him gone.

[Seegtease]

All a judge does is authorize a marriage license. Under the "ideal" system, the same judge would merely notarize the marriage contract.

Well, say a couple couldn't find anybody who would marry them? How would they get a contract? Not that I think that would be a real problem, but there would have to be an option. Can't judges make the contract currently?

[Bloodcinder]

You can't make a contract without getting it notarized. So your question is kind of irrelevant. If you want to get married and can't find a person to notarize your contract, you also can't find a person to notarize any other contract.

Currently, a marriage contract could be notarized, but nobody would accept it as a "marriage" because our society only accepts licensed marriages.

[Seegtease]

No, I'm still speaking hypothetically, if we could separate marriage from Gov't. What about those people who couldn't find a willing pastor or priest to do the marriage, or at least not one nearby? They still need somebody to perform it.

[Bloodcinder]

Moot question. It would be the exact same circumstances as there are currently, except they would be requiring the services of said person for a contract instead of a license. There is no difference. Either way you have to find somebody. It's easier to find a notary public than it is to find somebody with the ability to grant a marriage license, anyway.

[chefTENGU]

I think the point Zeit is trying to make is what would be done for folks who wanted to be married specifically in a Church, even if that Church does not recognize same-sex marriage.

Since, going with the hypothetical, marriage contracts are fine and dandy and the government has no jurisdiction over marriage anymore, there's still the religious side that would still be important to a lot of people.

Frankly, I think folk like that are going to just be SOL and will just have to settle for legal recognition, while holding out hope that they can get the religious recognition they want someday in the future when the Church in question removes whatever prohibition it has.

What I wanna know, now that we live in an age when two Anglican priests can marry each other, what would that mean for them in this country? We have a situation where two people get the religious side, but can't have the legal side, it seems, and I doubt that sort of thing will sit well with many folks (it certainly doesn't with me).

[Bloodcinder]

Yes, I agree with said gay couple being SOL, and I don't think that their being SOL is something that needs to be forcefully remedied.

I think you'll find that gay people really just want the legal recognition in general. We know that people aren't going to accept our relationships, so we value our own belief in our relationships and ignore those who would deny us. But we'd also like to have a say in financial, legal, and medical decisions like any other American rather than being treated like second-class citizens.

[deathofcheese]

Whatever happened to marriages being defined and governed by the individual religions and civil unions being defined and governed by federal bodies? From what I understand (i.e. parents taught me), marriage was an institution whose origins come from religion. Since most of America is Christian (my family being Catholic), marriage is largely defined as a union between a man and a woman where they share assets, possessions and families until one of them dies or they ask the ruling body to dissolve the union.

Since I put the above forth as the definition of marriage I grew up with (not necessarily what it is/should be in federal law(s)), why can't people who don't want/are barred from marriages just get civil unions and have federal law treat both as the same? Wouldn't everyone be happy then?

[Arainach]

Simple answer: No.

Mid-length answer: Separate but equal didn't work out so hot the first time.

Longer answer: Maybe I'll write that later.

[Killer_Man_]

Simple answer: Ary is right, people want it to be equals.

Mid-Length: We had a separate but equal for marriage before?

Longer: No matter what, I think people are going to be fighting this till all the baby boomers die. Trust me, it's going to take hundreds of years for gays to be 'equals' in a sense. I mean it took blacks and women what?

I am not saying that I am against it, I am just saying history is going to repeat itself. Myself I don't really care of who or what gets married as long as the couple is happy(refering to human beings.).

[Seegtease]

Since I put the above forth as the definition of marriage I grew up with (not necessarily what it is/should be in federal law(s)), why can't people who don't want/are barred from marriages just get civil unions and have federal law treat both as the same? Wouldn't everyone be happy then?


Civil unions and marriage should indeed be two separate entities. However, I don't think the government should be in charge of the latter. That should be up to the clergy doing the wedding. It doesn't have to be forced, there are plenty of clergy who would do a homosexual marriage. I'm pretty sure other faiths besides Christianity have their own definitions of marriage. I believe marriage should be entirely up to the individuals and the one performing it. Just because it's called marriage doesn't mean it's the Biblical marriage. Marriage is the same term used in other faiths, too. As I've said in another thread, just because a name is shared doesn't mean it's the same thing.

It may seem pretty tricky, but the real solution is just to remove Gov't from the marriage. Then the couple (married or no) can go get their Civil Union.

The Gov't should not force somebody to marry anybody, nor should they deny anybody.

Marriage IS a religious institution (and I believe the God of the Bible was the first to institute it) but if another faith wants to get married, I don't really care. I'm well aware it's not being performed by somebody who shares my faith, and thus that marriage is a different marriage altogether.

Hard to explain, and I don't know if I make sense. It would be more clear if Marriage-A meant Jewish, Marriage-B meant Christian, Marriage-C meant Islam, Marriage-D meant Hindu, etc.

They're all called marriage as we know it, but I consider them quite distinct, and the government has no place saying that only Marriage-B can take place, the rest can only take place if they follow the rules of Marriage-B. That makes no sense.

Somebody tell me if I make sense.

[Bloodcinder]

Somebody tell me if I make sense.
I understand what you're saying perfectly, but this is what it sounds like:

"Marriage" can mean many different things. One of those things is "the union of a man and woman by God." The government shouldn't be involved in whatever "marriage" is, regardless. But since the government is involved in this "marriage" concept, it should regulate the definition to be the Christian one. That is, gay people can't have "marriage" because then that "marriage" would conflict with Christian "marriage."

Do you see how that makes no sense? If you can't get the government to stay out of it entirely, you want the government to regulate a word to uphold your own beliefs instead.

Since I put the above forth as the definition of marriage I grew up with (not necessarily what it is/should be in federal law(s)), why can't people who don't want/are barred from marriages just get civil unions and have federal law treat both as the same? Wouldn't everyone be happy then?

Should I drink from the gays-only water fountain too? I'm sure it would taste the same.

[deathofcheese]

I think what I said might be misunderstood. If marriage - which I largely believe to have started in religion, probably Christianity, I could be wrong - is administered by men of the cloth who object to the union of homosexuals based on ethics established in their own respective religions, then instead of the government stepping in and saying "who cares about your faith? we want you to do gay marriages and that's all there is to it. nyah.", just establish a completely equal (in the eyes of the law, at least) institution that doesn't necessarily have to go through a church in order to happen? But, since this is a free (as in free speech), open to the public thing, also allow people who can't, or won't, go through the church to be able to go through this other institution. I know it sounds like the "separate but equal" of the civil rights era (as some of you have said already), but isn't that already being demonstrated, without marriage vs. civil union being in place? The story in another thread about the photographers refusing service to the lesbian couple is just one occurrence. So, rather than put a service in place that would serve to further drive the wedge between gays and straights, establish an institution that would help people to not have to travel so far for a marriage license or fight with the government for a marriage license. Rather than have the government say "marriage is for normal people, civil unions are for gay people", just have the government drop the issue entirely and offer civil unions for all people who can't or won't get the church-version marriage. Am I missing something about marriage vs. civil rights or am I not making my point clear enough? There would be no distinction - as far as law is concerned - between marriage and a civil union. The only difference, aside from who gets them, is that churches grant marriages and the other body (government or not) grants civil unions.

[Arainach]

You're perfectly clear, and you're not getting our point at all:

If they're called different things, people won't be happy, period. Either have the government recognize it all as 'marriage' or have the government recognize nothing. Those are the only two options.

[Bloodcinder]

"Civil-unions for all people" is exactly the same as "marriages for all people." All you do is change a couple words.

It's all an argument over a word. I guarantee you the church doesn't have a claim to the word "marriage." The church was founded by people who spoke Hebrew and Greek. So why is an English coinage from centuries later so important that it must be the sole property of one religious institution?

[Arainach]

(no idea if you were responding to me)

I agree in full. 'Civil Unions' for all would also be just fine. But saying 'Oh, these people got married in a church, so they have marriage, these people got married in a SecState office so they have a civil union, but we'll treat them the same' will never be accepted, which is what cheese seems to be proposing.

[Bloodcinder]

I was responding to SE, but yours appeared just before mine.

[deathofcheese]

So why is an English coinage from centuries later so important that it must be the sole property of one religious institution?
To keep the Christians and other objectors to gay marriages happy?

If they're called different things, people won't be happy, period.
People aren't happy now. Homosexual couples don't have widespread access to marriage (except in a few states, which is slowly growing in number) and (some) heterosexuals are fighting to keep marriage between a man and a woman. (Some) heterosexuals are going to be unhappy about gay marriage whether it's called a union or a marriage.

Either have the government recognize it all as 'marriage' or have the government recognize nothing.
That's my point about marriage vs. civil union: the government IS supposed to recognize that it's all the same. Obviously we're not there yet, as a public or as a government, but we could work at it. The only difference, which makes no difference except maybe to the people that got it, is where the people got it from. If a gay couple want to get a marriage and can, great! If they can't and it isn't feasible to travel to a state where they can get a marriage, then just get a civil union. It would be more or less the same thing, except they didn't get it through a church. Maybe later in the future they could get their union blessed in a church, but as far as the government's concerned, they got married the moment the license was signed and the ceremony performed.

[In page refreshes, I've seen your next post, Ary, and include a response to that.] Ok, saying it that way makes it a little clearer. But I think that "it'll never be accepted" mindset is just some other form of prejudice that has to be overcome. It sucks and it might have origins on both sides of the argument, but it'll have to be overcome in time.

"It'll never be accepted" reminds me of something I read in a book once. Harry Warner first objected to including speaking in movies, saying (which I can reproduce exactly when I get home later this week), "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Warner#Warner_Bros._Inc.)" Well, turns out people liked it.

[Bloodcinder]

All I can say is I don't know why it would be the government's job to implement well-meaning intermediary steps to make Christians happy. That's the mindset that got us Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And it didn't make anybody happy.

[deathofcheese]

It's not designed to make Christians happy. It's designed to help gay couples get what they want/deserve while not exactly stepping on the Christians' feet.

[Bloodcinder]

But it would not achieve its design. I point back to the water fountain quip. I can assure you, if the government is going to keep its hand in marriage, I don't want to be relegated to a second-class verbiage.

[Seegtease]

I understand what you're saying perfectly, but this is what it sounds like:

"Marriage" can mean many different things. One of those things is "the union of a man and woman by God." The government shouldn't be involved in whatever "marriage" is, regardless. But since the government is involved in this "marriage" concept, it should regulate the definition to be the Christian one. That is, gay people can't have "marriage" because then that "marriage" would conflict with Christian "marriage."

No, I didn't mean to say that since they are regulating, that they should adopt the Christian one. I'm saying that is the case currently, and it's starting to change. But I don't want anybody to be forced to marry or allow use of their church if they are unwilling.

The solution is really simple. The government should not care if a couple is married. In fact, it shouldn't even be an option on any forms. It's between the couple and God. A civil union should be an entirely separate thing, and being married shouldn't necessarily make you get the benefits of a civil union. So if you want to get married, do so in a church. If you want to be recognized as a couple by the Gov't and pay taxes together, get a civil union.

Marriage should have nothing to do with ANYTHING as far as legalities go. It should only have to do with the church. That's what marriage is. Husband, wife, God. Nothing else. Then nobody would want it unless they wanted it to be married before God, because there'd be no other reason to get married.

Civil unions should have nothing at all to do with marriage, and be for legality and title/name reasons. That should satisfy everybody.

[Killer_Man_]

Why couldn't they just make it a church marries people, the gov't(Aka a judge) creates civil union contracts. That way, if a church allows gays to get married they can, but if need be a judge could give people civil unions(or marriages).

But then again you are all right, it's just a 'word' people are fighting over.

[Seegtease]

Well I find it kind of odd that somebody who doesn't believe in God (not talking about gays, but atheists) would want to partake in a religious institution. That's one reason there needs to be a distinction between what churches offer and what the government offers and recognizes.

[Bloodcinder]

No, I didn't mean to say that since they are regulating, that they should adopt the Christian one. I'm saying that is the case currently, and it's starting to change. But I don't want anybody to be forced to marry or allow use of their church if they are unwilling.

The solution is really simple. The government should not care if a couple is married. In fact, it shouldn't even be an option on any forms. It's between the couple and God. A civil union should be an entirely separate thing, and being married shouldn't necessarily make you get the benefits of a civil union. So if you want to get married, do so in a church. If you want to be recognized as a couple by the Gov't and pay taxes together, get a civil union.

Marriage should have nothing to do with ANYTHING as far as legalities go. It should only have to do with the church. That's what marriage is. Husband, wife, God. Nothing else. Then nobody would want it unless they wanted it to be married before God, because there'd be no other reason to get married.

Civil unions should have nothing at all to do with marriage, and be for legality and title/name reasons. That should satisfy everybody.
I can buy this. Except I'd like to see the government not offer either. But your solution is valid, since that would take the regulation away from "marriage," meaning that gay people could still get married in certain churches just like straight people and that gay people could get the legal benefits and same title of straight people with the civil unions.

[Arainach]

Well I find it kind of odd that somebody who doesn't believe in God (not talking about gays, but atheists) would want to partake in a religious institution. That's one reason there needs to be a distinction between what churches offer and what the government offers and recognizes.First, the tax benefits are huge. Second, you've clearly never had relatives bugging you 'when are you going to get married?' for years.

[Bloodcinder]

I'm not sure if you were responding to me, Ary. If you were, provide me a little more context so I know to what you're responding.

[Arainach]

Actually, I was responding to Zeitgeist; I must not have noticed there was a second page or something. Edited to reflect context.

[Bloodcinder]

Ah, yeah, it is kind of awkward to refer to civil unions in the context of your family. For example, if I am wedded someday and have a male partner, I'm going to consider him my husband. I would find it much more sensible to say "I'm married" than "I'm civilly unioned." But, as it turns out, once your parents know you're gay they no longer ask if you're going to get married.

[chefTENGU]

What's in a name? Apparently, a whole lot...

I'm not sure of specifics, but I thought a number of studies on state-sanctioned civil unions found hands-down that even though they're supposed to be equal to marriage in all respects, people just don't practice it that way. Unless it gets the label of "marriage," people just don't seem to respect it as much...

If anyone else reading has a better idea of what I'm talking about, please help, because I know this is REALLY vague.

Also, I'd just like to point out that marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years. The origin of a legally-sanctioned marriage was that of basically a contract between two families, and also a way men could keep a legal hold on their women (in the hope the little bastards they ended up raising were actually fathered by them). The Romans had marriage, the Greeks had it, the Babylonians had it, the Sumerians had it... long before Christ's birth.

[Bloodcinder]

You're right, Kev. If I were to have a civil union, and I were to refer to being married, people would either be confused or deny it, unless they were in support of my relationship, and then they'd probably complain that it's stupid that I can't just be married.

[Seegtease]

First, the tax benefits are huge. Second, you've clearly never had relatives bugging you 'when are you going to get married?' for years.

I know, but it seems silly for Atheists to use a religious ceremony for those things. I thought that was why Civil Unions exist.

Nevertheless, my solution would still solve the problem by making marriage not mean anything outside of a faith-based context, thus meaning the only people who would want it are those of a faith that has marriage.

And Civil Unions for the tax stuff and to satisfy families. Maybe to make the families happier about it, they could call it something prettier like "Lovebound." "When are you going to get Lovebound?"

Okay, so I'm not the best with new words. But my point should be clear.
Also:

Also, I'd just like to point out that marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years.

I'm sure any Christian would realize this since the first institution in the Bible is at creation of man and woman. Even before Israel.

[Arainach]

I know, but it seems silly for Atheists to use a religious ceremony for those things. I thought that was why Civil Unions exist.

Nevertheless, my solution would still solve the problem by making marriage not mean anything outside of a faith-based context, thus meaning the only people who would want it are those of a faith that has marriage.

And Civil Unions for the tax stuff and to satisfy families. Maybe to make the families happier about it, they could call it something prettier like "Lovebound." "When are you going to get Lovebound?"

Okay, so I'm not the best with new words. But my point should be clear.Your point is clear, but you still haven't noticed our point: If the government recognizes such a union and calls it anything BUT marriage, people will get pissed. Period. Doesn't matter if it's pretty. Doesn't matter if you call it "Ubermarriage". Call it Marriage or don't recognize anything.

[Bloodcinder]

Zeit, your solution ignores that many gay people get married as a religious institution as well. Don't conflate gays with non-Christians.

The entire argument comes down to the fact that each side is only concerned with words. Those who don't want gays to "marry" care about the wording. Those who want gays to "marry" care about the wording. It's really silly.

[Seegtease]

No, I never said gays couldn't get married. With separation of marriage and government, marriage would be up to the individual church and nobody else. And of course nobody would be there to tell them they can't. After all, nobody complains when 2 Muslims have an Islam wedding (or whatever) which is clearly heathen by Biblical standards, so why should they care about gays?

But being that it's tied to government and whatnot, everything is kind of tied together, and I can see why that bothers some.

I don't see why it would piss people off if we made the current benefits of marriage a completely separate thing from marriage. It's a religious ceremony. If you're not religious or have any kind of faith in a god, you should not have to get married to get those legal benefits. And the only way people would stop is if marriage actually did NOT give those legal benefits.

[Bloodcinder]

After all, nobody complains when 2 Muslims have an Islam wedding (or whatever) which is clearly heathen by Biblical standards, so why should they care about gays?
OMG! Because they will care! [Face of just died.]

[chefTENGU]

You know, there's really no other way to say it...

It continues to be an issue simply because some people have an over-developed sense of proprietary rights to a word they didn't invent in the first place.

[Bloodcinder]

It continues to be an issue simply because some people have an over-developed sense of proprietary rights to a word they didn't invent in the first place.
Best ever.

[deathofcheese]

So then call it [civil unions] marriage. If the only reason the marriage vs. civil union idea wouldn't work is because a civil union is known as civil union, and not a marriage, then don't make a distinction between what type of marriage it is. A rose by any other name, and all that?

[chefTENGU]

Believe me, I used to feel the same way. I mean, there's absolutely no sensible reason for people to make a distinction between the two. But in practice, it just doesn't work, since folks seldom act in a sensible manner.

This is why the issue of segregation was brought up; white southerners couldn't STAND sharing public facilities with blacks, and the institution of "separate but equal" was invented as an attempt to compromise: blacks get all the things whites do, and the whites get to keep what they imagined was all theirs all to themselves. On paper, it's win-win.

Unfortunately, it's clear that the practice didn't live up to the theory. People in power could just ignore any issues with the black community and maintain the status quo they were comfortable with. The attitude of "separate but equal" merely reinforced racist beliefs, since after all, if you are to truly believe in the equality of all people, you will realize there is no need to provide separate facilities in such a manner.

The same thing has been happening with civil unions in the states that have been allowing them. Same-sex couples joined in civil unions lack many of the same legal rights as married couples, and are generally not regarded by anyone with the same level of respect as married couples are given (such as the power to make important healthcare decisions on the behalf of an incapacitated better half, for example).

If we don't need black restrooms and white restrooms, why make a distinction between gay unions and straight unions? Everybody poops, and everybody needs to be loved.

So, what would happen if tomorrow, it was ruled that gays have as much of a civil right to marry as straights do? I imagine it would be a lot like what happened when the government forced an end to segregation. There would be tremendous resistance on the part of those not wishing to change (although probably less rioting because Americans in general are more lazy and apathetic now and gays are just too colorful for it anyway).

However, the end result will be a greater mainstream acceptance of homosexuals in general. When people stop spluttering "OMG u cant haev what I do because your different!" and just learn to SHARE, they start to realize that humans have a lot more in common than they think.

And isn't that a good thing? Wouldn't that promote peace?

Frankly, as a catholic myself, I don't see how the Church can continue to rail against homosexuality. But I guess that's just me.

[Bloodcinder]

Chef, you understand the issue and can express it better than I do.

[Seegtease]

Same-sex couples joined in civil unions lack many of the same legal rights as married couples, and are generally not regarded by anyone with the same level of respect as married couples are given (such as the power to make important healthcare decisions on the behalf of an incapacitated better half, for example).

I was unaware of this. My plan involved civil unions giving all couple-related rights that a marriage would give, and just leave marriage for people who want a religious ceremony (with no government attached to it). Civil Unions would be available to everybody, and marriage would be available to anybody who could get a pastor to do it. It puts everybody on a level playing field and makes no distinction between gender. The only difficult part might be for finding a person to wed a gay couple, but I honestly don't see that as much of a problem these days. Besides, who would want somebody to wed them who was against the wedding, anyway?

If we don't need black restrooms and white restrooms, why make a distinction between gay unions and straight unions? Everybody poops, and everybody needs to be loved.

Pretty sure gays and straights could both get a civil union, though.

Frankly, as a catholic myself, I don't see how the Church can continue to rail against homosexuality. But I guess that's just me.

The church can rail against whatever they want. If you disagree, perhaps you should find another church. I've changed churches on disagreement before. But this topic isn't about whether or not homosexuality is Biblically acceptable though.

[chefTENGU]

The church can rail against whatever they want. If you disagree, perhaps you should find another church. I've changed churches on disagreement before. But this topic isn't about whether or not homosexuality is Biblically acceptable though.
I might disagree with things my country has done, but that doesn't mean I'm going to move. I might disagree with my girlfriend sometimes, but that doesn't mean I'm going to dump her.

I love my country, my girlfriend, and my faith.

[Bloodcinder]

I love my country, my girlfriend, and my faith.
You just won a free apple pie. Mmmm... tastes like freedom!

[Seegtease]

I might disagree with things my country has done, but that doesn't mean I'm going to move. I might disagree with my girlfriend sometimes, but that doesn't mean I'm going to dump her.

I love my country, my girlfriend, and my faith.

Well you shouldn't expect the church to change for you, either.

[Bloodcinder]

He certainly can. "The church" (whichever one anybody may be talking about) has changed before.

[Seegtease]

No reason to change when there are pretty much churches for everything, though. Just as well merge.

[chefTENGU]

I don't expect the Church to change for me. But I have faith that it eventually will.

As far as I can see, the only real argument the Church has against homosexual marriage is that it would be closed to children (and the tradition of frowning upon people doing gay things together gaily).

However, since infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry (with the idea that they can adopt), the argument doesn't really hold water. It's just a convenient double standard.

And when gays are allowed to marry, there wouldn't really be any prohibition against the gay things they like to do to each other, since it would all be within the blessed sacrament of marriage. Finally, everyone would be held to the same rules.

[deathofcheese]

If I'm not mistaken, the church's "purpose" is to help guide people into following the particular tenets of that faith and to provide a forum for its followers to talk to their god, as well as gather with other people of their faith. So, if the people that the church serves no longer feel that the church is truly serving their purpose, shouldn't the church change?

On the other hand, if the church isn't for the people afterall, then why do people even need a church?

I still favor a system like Zeit's (he described it better than me, although there's small differences between what he sees and what I see), but I do see how the conclusions drawn about a "separate but equal" system would be not liked. It's sad that that would happen, but I do think that regardless of the system we pick for the immediate future, everything will iron out and approach hunky-doryness as time progresses.

[Bloodcinder]

Oh, yeah, it's all gonna be solved within thirty years. I stake one of my nipples on this prediction.

[chefTENGU]

Yeah, I share that same optimism about the future.

In the meantime, I believe that even if a couple can't get legal recognition of their union, the most important aspect is the family they bring together and the ties they make with each other and those around them.

I can't imagine why God wouldn't bless any union like that, regardless of what any of his clergymen say.

[Bloodcinder]

Because apparently where people put their genitals within the confines of adult consent makes a different to God, even though there is no record of Jesus ever checking anybody for a penis or vagina. [Face of shrug. Or... well, basically just a shrug, but perhaps with an accompanying face.]

[Seegtease]

As far as I can see, the only real argument the Church has against homosexual marriage is that it would be closed to children (and the tradition of frowning upon people doing gay things together gaily).

The only argument the church is supposed to have are those contained in the Bible. I didn't know they had to justify their actions outside of what God already said.

And SE, my system is not a "separate but equal" system. It would be up to a couple to find a church to wed them, and anybody could technically do this. And obviously the unions would be offered to all. Everybody would have the same opportunities, but the system would be more reasonable.

[deathofcheese]

I didn't say it was. I said I saw how your system (which sounds almost exactly like mine) could be considered "separate but equal" in the eyes of people who love complaining about little details and won't be satisfied with the same exact thing that just has a different name.

[Bloodcinder]

I love complaining about little details like not being marginalized due to my natural state.

[Arainach]

I didn't say it was. I said I saw how your system (which sounds almost exactly like mine) could be considered "separate but equal" in the eyes of people who love complaining about little details and won't be satisfied with the same exact thing that just has a different name. Because if it has that one tiny detail different (its name), it'll never BE exactly the same. Businesses won't treat them the same. Neighbors will look at you funny. Etc. Etc. Humans are petty, detail-focusing creatures.

[Seegtease]

It's more than just a name. It's the fact that legal rights should in no way be tied to a religious ceremony, period.

[Arainach]

Just because Christianity tried to take over the concept of marriage doesn't make it a religious ceremony. Such bonds have predated organized religion.

[Seegtease]

It's always has ties to some religion, even if you take a small tribe and they do it before their gods. It's an essential part of it. It serves no real purpose otherwise.

[Arainach]

Why is it that religious people have such a hard time understanding how something could have an implicit value even if not done for a deity? Marriage, life, everything. How is it so tough to comprehend that it could be to signify the union of two people who love each other and that's it? Heck, as recently as the middle ages it was a lot more about land, power, and uniting families than either love OR religion.

[Seegtease]

I understand the civil unions have an implicit value without a deity.

[Arainach]

Well then how can you say that it has no purpose if not done before deities?

[Bloodcinder]

It's always has ties to some religion, even if you take a small tribe and they do it before their gods. It's an essential part of it. It serves no real purpose otherwise.
Fallacious argument. Every small tribe does have some kind of religion.* It's like you're saying that marriage is intrinsically tied to breathing air. It's irrelevant.

*(The development of religion is inherent in any human population. Theism of some kind is the natural state.)

[chefTENGU]

And as Ary pointed out, marriage for love is a relatively new concept (it really only goes back a hundred years or so).

I think the driving question here is why should Christians feel like their marriages are being threatened by allowing same-sex marriages? I don't think I've ever really understood the logic behind that argument.

[Seegtease]

Threatened? No, but it doesn't make any sense to me. The primary reason (there are others, I know) that homosexuals would want to get married is for the benefits of being recognized as such, especially by government. If no such recognition was given, there would be a lot less people wanting to get married.

What I'm saying isn't that outrageous, especially to those who love "separation of church and state" type deals. I'm actually with you here. There should be 2 marriages, one religious, one not religious. One without Gov't recognition, one with. They could use the same name for all I care, but that would be confusing. That's the only reason I suggest different names.

But there really needs to be a distinction. The Gov't doesn't need to honor or recognize any religious ceremonies.

[Arainach]

I thought we'd just established that marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony.

[Bloodcinder]

We did, but "we" does not include Zeit.

[chefTENGU]

Unfortunately, it's the reason why there is no compromise on this issue.

Neither side is happy with what the other side wants, so there's no concessions to make. Gotta be all or nothing, which is going to be the cause of much butting of heads until a victor emerges.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE

[Bloodcinder]

ONE UNION TO RULE THEM ALL, as it were?

[Seegtease]

I still don't see how anybody is getting shafted by having one religious and one legal. Everybody would be eligible for both, provided they could find somebody to perform the former.

[Bloodcinder]

Continuing controversy.

Wis. Gays Warned of Big Marriage Penalty (http://biggaynews.com/wis-gays-warned-of-big-marriage-penalty/2007)

MADISON, Wis., July 3 (UPI)

Gay couples in Wisconsin have been warned that they could face jail time and fines if they marry outside the state.

Under a little-known state law, Wisconsin residents can be prosecuted if they enter a marriage outside the state that would be illegal in Wisconsin, with penalties that include a $1,000 fine and up to nine months in prison. In 2006, voters approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

After the California Supreme Court ruled a state ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, Fair Wisconsin, a gay rights group, e-mailed 10,000 of its supporters, the Milwaukee Journal reported. The group warned two couples who said they were considering California weddings of the potential consequences.

“I’d rather be prosecuted than persecuted,” one person responded.

Julaine Appling, executive director of the Wisconsin Family Council, said the state should enforce the law.

? 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.That certainly sounds like a bad law in Wisconsin. I wonder if any judge would actually uphold it, though? Seems doubtful. If they do, though, look out for Stonewall Riots Part II.

[Killer_Man_]

Odd, I didn't see that in the newspaper and usually it shows up major decisions such as those...

Hmm, and I thought that they couldn't make laws like that.

I thought they have to 'legally accept it' because if I get married here in WI and say move to California. California must accept and uphold my marriage.

[Bloodcinder]

Because of DOMA, Wisconsin is not required to accept same-sex marriages from California. However, the law in Wisconsin shouldn't even be on the books. What if you get married in a state with a lower age limit and come back to Wisconsin? The latter has every right to reject the license, but it's ludicrous to prosecute people when there's no crime.

[Killer_Man_]

Ah I see, so say if Alabama lets you marry at the age of 15ish. The consent law(For sex, marriage and etc.) is 18 for Wi. That means a pair of teens that get married and then are forced to move cause of parents or something. They could be imprisoned and fined for 1,000 for breaking such law?

[Bloodcinder]

In that hypothetical, yes, my understanding is that under Wisconsin law they could be prosecuted for having a marriage that is illegal in Wisconsin, but only if those kids are officially residents of Wisconsin.

Since Cali is the gay wedding Mecca now, Wisconsin residents who make a wedding trip could come back to fines or worse... if the justice system actually cares to enforce that law.

[deathofcheese]

Is there a statute of limitations on this law? Couldn't they just wait a month or two and then register with Wisconsin that they're married?

What if someone moves to Wisconsin after getting a legal gay marriage?

[Bloodcinder]

On the first question, I'm assuming there is a statute of limitations. However, the same-sex marriage from California could never be registered in Wisconsin.

On the second question, I'm assuming the law only applies to those who are married out-of-state while residents of Wisconsin.

[chefTENGU]

It seems to me that enforcing such a law would be more trouble than it's worth. Not only will it complicate the lives of everyone involved, it's also gonna bring down a shitstorm of gay rage on WI.

[Arainach]

a shitstorm of gay rageMust....resist...urge to make...offensive...puns.....

[chefTENGU]

Fun Fact: "gay rage" was the original term police officers used to describe a domestic violence type situation between gay partners. The term has since faded into disuse due to an increase in political correctness.

[Bloodcinder]

Federal Laws Hamper Same-Sex Divorces (http://biggaynews.com/federal-laws-hamper-same-sex-divorces/2056)
July 25th, 2008

LOS ANGELES, July 25 (UPI)

Inconsistencies between state and federal laws are making it difficult for same-sex couples to get divorced, law experts say.

Some same-sex couples run into trouble when filing for divorce because laws in the state they were married differ from laws in the state where they reside, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The Times said disagreements between federal and state legislators have made the divorce process more difficult for same-sex couples than two-sex couples.

Some law experts argue inconsistencies between state and federal laws discriminate against same-sex couples.

?Imagine if this involved race, if black couples or Jewish couples or Asian couples were subject to different rules. Would anyone think that?s fair?? Fred Hertz, an Oakland, Calif., attorney who wrote ?A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples,? told the Times.

? 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Seegtease]

What's more surprising is that people are already trying to divorce. Seems like some people just got married because they could.

[Bloodcinder]

Which is kind of the state of marriage in this country.

[Gio Takahashi]

What's more surprising is that people are already trying to divorce. Seems like some people just got married because they could.

As stupid and sad as how the meaning of marriage is defiled, it should be of no surprise, sadly.

[Z]

If they're going to legalize marriage, I don't see why they wouldn't make it just as easy to divorce. I wish some of the gay marriage lobbyists would keep a big picture in mind unless they truly just thought that all gay couples would marry once and live happily ever after. If you're going to pave the way for marriage, you have to pave the way for divorce. The two terms seem to go hand in hand now, sadly.

[Bloodcinder]

Zac, this situation is not the fault of people who support gay marriage. It's the fault of Clinton's DOMA. Because of it, a legal gay marriage in one state will not be recognized in another and will not be divorceable in that state.

In-state divorces are not the problem. (MA and CA gay marriages can easily be divorced.) It's a matter of divorcing outside those jurisdictions.

The only way to fix it is for every single state to decide to participate in gay divorces (which would imply that they recognize the gay marriages) or... to repeal DOMA.

[Z]

Here's the problem as I see it and feel free to correct me if I've overlooked something.

• Gays want to get married.
• Some states allow it, some states refuse to.
• Gays finally get a chance to get married and now, naturally, the question of divorce comes into play.
• Some states refuse to recognize the marriage that took place in other states and therefore the unhappy couple cannot get a divorce in the state that are currently in.

So, really, you're not talking about a DOMA situation. You're talking about a constitution situation.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Even if the lobbyists defeat DOMA, they'd then have to get a constitutional amendment made approving same-sex marriage and then you would also have to amend Article X.

I don't mean to convey that I think same-sex marriage shouldn't happen; I think it's fine and only fair. I'm just saying many of the lobbyists thought the fight was over but there is still a long, long way to go before the same-sex marriage fight is won.

[Bloodcinder]

Your bullet points were correct.

However, it's not the kind of Constitutional issue you are suggesting. The full faith and credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_faith_and_credit) clause of the Constitution specifies that each state shall respect the legal records of another. DOMA specifically says that, in this particular case of marriage, full faith and credit is to be ignored.

Yes, it's a Constitutional issue, but it's one created by the people who illegally passed DOMA and the judges who have been ignoring the Constitution ever since upholding anti-miscegenation laws.

Let me elaborate.

If two people are legally married in a A-State, B-State Constitutionally has to recognize that that marriage is valid in A-State if not necessarily in B-State. However, DOMA specifies that B-State doesn't even have to recognize it as being valid in A-State. In other words, it compels B-State to obfuscate full faith and credit by denying the legal recordings of A-State.

As it is, B-State will divorce a straight marriage licensed in A-State without raising an eyebrow. DOMA is the only thing allowing B-State currently to stick its head in the sand with regards to licenses granted in A-State. It is the decision of A-State and B-State independently whether either will license gay marriages, but it's neither's legal right to ignore that the licenses of the other are valid therein.

Therefore, it is Constitutionally illegal.

All that said, though, I've never been to law school, and the judiciary has a habit of ignoring common sense and the legacy of the founders.

One final note. When gay marriage is only legal in 2 of 50 states, only recognized in roughly 5 of 50 states, and not recognized at the federal level at all, I don't think anybody significant presumes the fight to be over.

[Z]

Ah, I see.

Good points.

[Killer_Man_]

Is that DOMA or whatever you mention state side or federal side?

[deathofcheese]

It's the fault of Clinton's DOMA.If I'm not mistaken, Clinton was at the federal level...

[Bloodcinder]

It's a federal law. (About (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA).)

[Arainach]

If I'm not mistaken, Clinton was at the federal level...He was a governor before that, so technically he was at the state level too.

That being said, yes, DOMA is a federal law.