6 ms·

And I think the separate but equal problem is a very compelling reason to remove rights from marriage entirely. Codifying religious beliefs into law shouldn't

And I think the separate but equal problem is a very compelling reason to remove rights from marriage entirely. Codifying religious beliefs into law shouldn't be accepted. Trying to redefine religious beliefs in law stirs up more controversy than it should. Amending the law to force all couples to get the equivalent of a civil unions satisfies both camps. Further, once marriage holds no rights, the government cannot stop a gay couple from getting married if a nice tolerant church wants to marry them (of which there are plenty). The issue is solely religious at that point. And "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Just like the government can't force a church to marry someone, or force a very intolerant religious community to accepting that marriage.

jerryr 12y ago
I completely agree with that idea. I'd be all in favor of separating a legal partnership from a religious marriage.
bane 12y ago
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a secular and a religious "marriage". Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Quite a few religions and religious factions have provide same-sex marriages long before it was ever explicitly allowed in law. When most people get a regular 'ol marriage, it's actually two events. Their religious marriage, as recognized by their faith, and the civil "marriage" as defined and recognized by law. You can get one without the other if you wish. Just get a religious marriage, and don't bother with the legal licensing and registration, or conversely, just get a legal marriage and don't bother with the religious aspects of it. I can't say it's always been this way, but it's basically always been this way. The problem comes from the simply face that there's a very large body of law that required people to enter into an agreement specifically called "marriage" for those laws to apply to them. More importantly SCOTUS has recognized "marriage" as a fundamental right. In theory, same-sex couple always had the right to get married, legally and religiously (if their religion allowed), and should have had those laws apply to them. But it was only recently when same-sex couples tried to enforce the application of those laws on themselves that the legal hypocrisy became apparent and government attempted to separate those people from their legal right. If law had used the word "quijibo" instead of "marriage" it wouldn't have mattered any. People could have gotten religiously married, then filed for their quijibo. The word choice is irrelevant, other than the legal inertia that's already behind the word.
- baddox 12y ago
  > Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Correct me if I'm reading this wrong [0], but it seem that a New Jersey court ruled in 2012 that a religious facility could not deny usage to homosexual couple for civil union ceremonies. From my quick Googling, it seems this is a big concern for Christian groups in the US, but I don't know how credible their concern is. [0] http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf Edit: with a bit more Googling, it seems fairly common for state governments to prohibit discriminating based on sexual orientation for the sale of goods and services, which would (I assume) apply to churches being used for ceremonies. There have also been court cases involving wedding cakes, flowers, and photography. http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/t/story?id=21136505 http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers-case_n_3516294.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers... Proposed city law in Kansas: http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-ch...
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    It's become a big issue in Britain - but that's mostly because they have a state church. It's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility, but I've heard of mixed race marriage ceremonies being explicitly denied by churches in the US, and don't ever remember any recourse that the couples had other than the court of public opinion.
    - bane 12y ago
      Well they always had a recourse. Get married someplace else. Go to a different church, or if your sect forbids it, get to a different sect, and if your religion forbids it, make your own sect, and if that's too much work, just get a civil marriage. I know it's not quite that simple, people get very hung up on where they spend their Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays, but people usually have options of some sort.
pessimizer 12y ago
I'm entirely against state marriage, religious or otherwise. If you want to pool your finances, form a joint partnership - and feel free to do it with anybody willing to sign the documents. If you want to figure out who gets to visit someone in the hospital, use something else. Let Jeremy Irons marry his son.

jerryr 12y ago

I completely agree with that idea. I'd be all in favor of separating a legal partnership from a religious marriage.

bane 12y ago

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a secular and a religious "marriage". Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Quite a few religions and religious factions have provide same-sex marriages long before it was ever explicitly allowed in law. When most people get a regular 'ol marriage, it's actually two events. Their religious marriage, as recognized by their faith, and the civil "marriage" as defined and recognized by law. You can get one without the other if you wish. Just get a religious marriage, and don't bother with the legal licensing and registration, or conversely, just get a legal marriage and don't bother with the religious aspects of it. I can't say it's always been this way, but it's basically always been this way. The problem comes from the simply face that there's a very large body of law that required people to enter into an agreement specifically called "marriage" for those laws to apply to them. More importantly SCOTUS has recognized "marriage" as a fundamental right. In theory, same-sex couple always had the right to get married, legally and religiously (if their religion allowed), and should have had those laws apply to them. But it was only recently when same-sex couples tried to enforce the application of those laws on themselves that the legal hypocrisy became apparent and government attempted to separate those people from their legal right. If law had used the word "quijibo" instead of "marriage" it wouldn't have mattered any. People could have gotten religiously married, then filed for their quijibo. The word choice is irrelevant, other than the legal inertia that's already behind the word.

baddox 12y ago
> Religious institutions have always been allowed to marry or not marry as they see fit. Correct me if I'm reading this wrong [0], but it seem that a New Jersey court ruled in 2012 that a religious facility could not deny usage to homosexual couple for civil union ceremonies. From my quick Googling, it seems this is a big concern for Christian groups in the US, but I don't know how credible their concern is. [0] http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf Edit: with a bit more Googling, it seems fairly common for state governments to prohibit discriminating based on sexual orientation for the sale of goods and services, which would (I assume) apply to churches being used for ceremonies. There have also been court cases involving wedding cakes, flowers, and photography. http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/t/story?id=21136505 http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers-case_n_3516294.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers... Proposed city law in Kansas: http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf http://www.hutchgov.com/egov/docs/1332537777_170654.pdf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-ch...
- pessimizer 12y ago
  It's become a big issue in Britain - but that's mostly because they have a state church. It's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility, but I've heard of mixed race marriage ceremonies being explicitly denied by churches in the US, and don't ever remember any recourse that the couples had other than the court of public opinion.
  - bane 12y ago
    Well they always had a recourse. Get married someplace else. Go to a different church, or if your sect forbids it, get to a different sect, and if your religion forbids it, make your own sect, and if that's too much work, just get a civil marriage. I know it's not quite that simple, people get very hung up on where they spend their Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays, but people usually have options of some sort.

pessimizer 12y ago

I'm entirely against state marriage, religious or otherwise. If you want to pool your finances, form a joint partnership - and feel free to do it with anybody willing to sign the documents. If you want to figure out who gets to visit someone in the hospital, use something else. Let Jeremy Irons marry his son.