Clerk's office defies order; no same-sex marriage licenses

a reply to: BomSquad

Marriage is not owned by Christianity, it never has been. They do not have the right to take something which existed before their religion even did, and which has been developed on several separate isolated occasions, and merely by making statements about it in their sacred texts, define marriage for everyone who is not a part of their religion.

You want everyone else to stop calling it marriage because Christians are bitching about it, when marriage is not their sole province to begin with. Why do Christians get to claim religion as the sole province of their religion?

a reply to: Annee

I agree with you on equal rights. She is a total hypocrite if she issues marriage licenses to anyone but fellow Christians.

What I am proposing is not directed at Kim Davis, but at everyone who believes as she does. She is not alone, unfortunately, she is just the most visible example.

If we eliminate marriage from the government lexicon we eliminate most of the arguments against it. We still need the contract that marriage represents to government, so we replace that across the board with civil unions. Eliminate the word marriage and half of the knee jerk reactions of these religious fanatics evaporate. The government should only be interesting the contract aspects of marriage, anyway, so nothing is lost as far as the government is concerned and the religious are appeased as it is no longer interfering with their sacrament.

a reply to: Puppylove

You misunderstand. I don't want everyone to stop calling marriage, marriage. I want the GOVERNMENT to stop calling it marriage. There are too many definitions of marriage the are religiously based. The government should be interested in none of it. The only thing government should be interested is the contract that is entered into by the act of marriage (civil union). Eliminate the word marriage and you eliminate the religious arguments against it for many of the people opposed.

And it is not just Christians that are opposed to same sex marriage. They just happen to be the most vocal getting the attention of the main stream media.

Marriage to these people is a sacrament (and there is nothing wrong with that), but the GOVERNMENT should not be involved in anything related to sacraments!

a reply to: BomSquad

It does not belong to them, period. I don't care if it interferes with some sacrament they hijacked the word to be included with.

Marriage is and has been in the past a legal contract with no religious connotations.

Marriage is and has been, a religious contract with no legal contract.

Marriage is and has been, a religious and legal contract.

You don't get to arbitrarily delete the 1st one simply because people in the other two categories don't like it.

originally posted by: BomSquad
If we eliminate marriage from the government lexicon we eliminate most of the arguments against it.

That's true in theory. But think of the hundreds or thousands of forms, government and otherwise, AND laws that use the term "marriage". And think of how much money it would cost the taxpayers to go into EVERY one of those forms and revise every one of those laws just so the religious bigots would be appeased by the heathens not using "their word".

Besides, for the religious people's "marriages" to be legal, they'd STILL have to get a civil union too! Just as they do now. Why don't the religious people just change the word they use to "holy matrimony". No forms or laws to change, and they can have it all to themselves.

a reply to: Puppylove

It does not belong to whom? Last time I looked, the dictionary wasn't a religious text, let alone a Christian one.

I am not even referring to Christians, really, just anyone who believes that their religious beliefs can trump the laws of the land.

Religious beliefs need to be COMPLETELY SEPARATE from government.

What I am talking about is a compromise of sorts, to eliminate the angst that religious people feel at what they consider the destruction of their sacrament.

If I participate in a religious rite (marriage), that should not give me contractual rights in the government realm. Government should only be interesting in law. Religion should only be interested in your "spirit/soul/whatever". When they use the same words to describe to different, but similar, things, you get arguments like this.

Clear definitions for terms could eliminate the argument without infringing on anyone's beliefs or rights.

originally posted by: BomSquad
If I participate in a religious rite (marriage), that should not give me contractual rights in the government realm. Government should only be interesting in law. Religion should only be interested in your "spirit/soul/whatever". When they use the same words to describe to different, but similar, things, you get arguments like this.

It doesn't. Church marriages aren't automatically recognized by law, you still have to fill out a marriage certificate for the government if you want them to recognize it, I think church's usually do this as a service for those getting married.

originally posted by: BomSquad

What I am proposing is not directed at Kim Davis, but at everyone who believes as she does. She is not alone, unfortunately, she is just the most visible example.

I know what you are proposing. Many others have come before you on ATS.

Changing the entire structure of Legal Marriage in government is a completely different discussion then denying or ruling in favor of equal rights to everyone .

a reply to: Puppylove

At this point, I'm beginning to think you are deliberately being obtuse. Religion predates government by a long shot, any government. How far back do we want to go? Marriage as a religious institution predates history, just look at the archaeological evidence of fertility rights.

NO ONE IS PROPOSING THE ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE, just changing the way GOVERNMENT refers to it.

It is not like this sort of thing is unprecedented. Government has changed the way it refers to things throughout our history. As the feelings of the populace change, the ways we refer to things change as well. Government should be sensitive and responsive to that. Personally, I have no issue with marriage as is, between any consenting adults. However there is a significant portion of our society that does take issue with this. Some more strongly than others. Perhaps we can make a small accommodation instead of browbeating our fellow Americans into a point of view they consider diametrically opposed to their salvation.

You are beginning to sound as uncompromising as the people your claim to be opposed to.

a reply to: Aazadan

I am aware of this fact. I was oversimplifying my point, my apologies.

a reply to: BomSquad

Religion does not own marriage.
It is fine now as it is equality to all.
Heck if ireland voted for it....
Just cry me a river build a bridge and get over it.

a reply to: Annee

Just to be clear, I am not proposing the the changing of the entire structure of legal marriage in government, only the word being used to describe it.

But I do see your point. Thank you.

a reply to: BomSquad

Government is only interested in law. Marriage is not and has not belonged solely to religion pretty much ever. Just because some religions try to claim it for themselves does not make it theirs or innately religious. Equality is not taking secular marriage away simply so the religious people feel better about their non secular version.

Marriage is a legal contract both secular and religious.

We don't just live in a little isolated bubble anymore.

If our government doesn't recognize our marriage, other countries around the world won't.

What if I am on vacation in France and my "wife" gets hurt and taken to the hospital. As her husband I would be able to make certain decisions for her -- but if my country doesn't legally recognize my marriage -- the French authorities probably won't either.

In a way, you're essentially tell everyone not to ever travel outside of America by not having the government recognize marriage.

If you can't stop gay people from getting married, you basically want the government to stop recognizing ALL marriage. It's sort of like not wanting to play football with another kid on the playground. Instead of putting up with the kid you don't like and continue to play ball, you just decide not to play at all and walk home with the ball. This is so immature. This entire argument has never been used in the past by "Christians" until LGBT people started getting married.

To claim that "government has no place in marriage" is a disingenuous argument, only pulled out and used because LGBT people can now marry -- if gay people were prohibited from being married, Christians would have NO PROBLEM with the government recognizing marriage. This is a desperate attempt by a loosing minority to cling to any kind of power and argument they have.

The anti-LGBT marriage people are loosing and they know it -- and they're feeling backed into a corner. They know that their beliefs are now among the minority and that people around them look upon them unfavorably. When a group of people shrinks, they band together more tightly ... this usually translates to people getting more fundamental/radical and nutty.

Hold on to your horses people, we're going to see some real nutty behavior come from the Christian right in the next decade or two as their numbers continue to dwindle and their spheres of influence continue to shrink.

originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: Annee

Just to be clear, I am not proposing the the changing of the entire structure of legal marriage in government, only the word being used to describe it.

But I do see your point. Thank you.

Yes, you are.

Marriage is a Legal contract, currently between 2 people, joining together as one household. That's it. What someone believes is not relevant. This is a secular government.

So, you want non-religious Legal "marriage" to be perceived as less valuable. That is not Equal.

a reply to: Annee

That is not what I mean at all and I apologize if that is the impression I have given.

I am done trying to explain myself as I am evidently not equal to the task.

originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: Annee

That is not what I mean at all and I apologize if that is the impression I have given.

I am done trying to explain myself as I am evidently not equal to the task.

What ever way you put it, you're proposing a division from every one being Equal.

Marriage can not have multiple terminology and still be equal.

Now how about places that have open carry laws just start banning Guns... and might as well start banning some religion from places since we don't have to follow the "Rules" by the constitution

but marriage Equality issues are not important because we have so many other important issues...

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Now how about places that have open carry laws just start banning Guns... and might as well start banning some religion from places since we don't have to follow the "Rules" by the constitution

but marriage Equality issues are not important because we have so many other important issues...

No! Don't ban open carry!

Today is sunny...

Sun's out, guns out! I have my tank top on and am hitting the gym!

Back on topic...

Well, the same people that pick and choose from the Bible also seem to apply that type of thinking to the law and Constitution. Is it really that surprising?

a reply to: BomSquad

Actually, you are proposing Segregation 2.0. "Separate but equal". While the idea is to legislate accordingly for both marriage and civil unions, in practice that doesn't happen. Bigoted legislatures have a tendency to create legislation that specifically target one version and not the other. In the end, what happens is that the civil union benefits end up VASTLY worse than the marriage benefits, and likely harder to obtain.

No, the best idea is to just suck it up and accept that gays can call it marriage just like heterosexuals do. You don't have to accept it spiritually, but you have to accept it legally.