Gay Marriage Is Legal in U.S. Capital

reply to post by Snarf

marriage is not contingent on religious ceremonies. Thats why we have court officials who can conduct the vows and make it official.

IMHO, one of the worst mistakes ever made by our government. Of course, it grew out of tradition handed down from the days when government and church were one and the same.

Marriage - in legal speak - is a union between a man and a woman that the federal government recognizes.

Marriage - in religious speak - is something completely different.

That is where the argument comes from. You see, when my wife and I were married, even though it was performed at the local courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, we considered it an act and a vow before God. We did not marry for the legalities that came with marriage,

So when I hear about someone protesting the fact that their marriage is not government recognized, I do not see it as something that requires all the hype that it is getting. Should all people have equal rights and equal treatment? Yes! Does that mean that all marriages should be recognized? Probably not. After all, there are legal ages, there are obviously restrictions that both spouses must be human, and those are sensible.

All the proof in the world that you need for the difference can be found in polygamy.

The real reason polygamy is not recognized is because the tax codes do not allow for it. That is the only reason. And polygamy is not illegal, any more than gay marriage is illegal. It is simply not recognized, and attempts to have it recognized are seen as attempts at abusing the tax system. I can live with 100 women if they agree, and as long as I do not file tax papers claiming to be married or try to obtain multiple marriage licenses, I am legal.

Though i think i see your point - that simply being gay & married won't land you in jail (hence illegal) its still a matter of "legalizing" gay marriage so that the federal government recognizes it as an equal union via the constitution.

And I believe that if more people took that approach, the approach that says "we already are married according to our legitimate religion; we therefore demand equality under tax codes and legal status", it would be a small feat to gain the equality sought. But as long as one side is bashing the other side because the other side bashed them first, this fight will continue and can only escalate.

And escalation will only harm the cause. Like it or not, there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, and in this country, the minority does not rule. You need the good will of the majority.

TheRedneck

Not to jump into a conversation, but I wanted to respond to your post.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

That is where the argument comes from. You see, when my wife and I were married, even though it was performed at the local courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, we considered it an act and a vow before God. We did not marry for the legalities that came with marriage,

This does not apply to all marriages though, and we are talking about something that can potentially apply to everyone.

I have many friends who are currently married who are ardent athiest, even more married friends who are wiccan or other forms of pagan...heck I even know one Satanic(Luciferian)couple.

Like it or not many religions do not ascribe to the same views as those of Christianity, and many couples in this country are athiest or agnostic.
Marriage is not a vow before God outside of your relationship or your church/religion... legally its and agreement between you, your partner, and the state.

You need the good will of the majority.

The United States is a Republic, you do not need the good will of the majority to share the same rights as everyone.

[edit on 3/5/2010 by Hadrian]

Originally posted by SilentShadow


[humour]
Yay finally... gays can become as miserable as the rest of us.

j/k I love my wife glances quickly over shoulder

[/humour]

Seriously now.

I know there will be some ATSers against this, however, i have always believed that the over whelming majority of gay people did NOT choose their sexual preference. If two people of the same gender love each other enough, let them be able to marry and say the words 'till death do us part'.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

no offense, and thank you, sincerely for the article, but it's easy to be so casual about a matter when you possess the societal credits that equal ownership. for those who don't, it's really, actually, not so much a humorous matter as it is a desperate and sometimes, literally, heart-wrenching issue ... a futile attempt to matter. not so much because one needs approval of their inherent lifestyle, but because serious issues ensue (child custody, property rights, possession, inheritance).

i do have a sense of humor and i understand and highly value the support of heterosexuals who welcome the homosexual community into the barbed, twisted world of legal, sanctioned marriage. but as the bulk of us know, homos are just like heteros and there will be myriad divorces (perhaps more because of the ease of wonderment of experiencing something that has been denied previously ... without proper consideration of the sanctity of the institution ... and i don't mean with regard to religion).

just note that, in my opinion, when gay marriage is a national and sanctioned, legal phenomenon (which is right around the corner), the high rate of failure, if it indeed occurs, is not indicative of the lack of seriousness of homosexuals, nor of the propensity for homosexual marriages to fail ... it is actually a mirror of the straight marriage statistics. and that is because, by and large, people are people.

also, imho, and i care about what homosexual people think about me, i don't think gays appreciate the concept that, while they may not be at fault, nevertheless, it is still a "negative" that they are gay (i.e., they didn't dare to choose their homosexuality because who would choose that when it's so ... nasty or wrong or weird ... ). i believe, and i believe that gay people (and any rational, intelligent people) believe, that gay people are just another of our myriad flavors that the human race comes in. they should be celebrated as all strains, colors, sexes, types, genders, proclivities, etc. should be.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder

This does not apply to all marriages though

Of course not, but in actuality it does apply in large portions to those who now condemn gay marriage. The problem is that one side is not seeing the position of the other, and your response is direct proof of that. How can you expect others to see your point of view when you dismiss theirs immediately?

Like it or not many religions do not ascribe to the same views as those of Christianity

I never said they did. What I said is that there is nothing making gay marriage illegal; there is only a lack of recognition of it by the government. The government (in the USA) is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution against making any laws which would prohibit access to a religious ceremony, or which would force access to such. The latter would be establishment of a national religion, and the former would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Again, please try to understand: introduction of religious overtones simply makes it impossible to resolve this issue to either side's satisfaction. Gay marriage is not illegal, and neither is polygamy. Both are simply unrecognized by the government.

Marriage is not a vow before God outside of your relationship or your church/religion... legally its and agreement between you, your partner, and the state.

Wrong. Marriage is a religious ceremony, practiced by many different religions in many different cultures according to many different convictions and customs.

Legal contracts are the sole domain of the government and the laws. These laws recognize marriage between a man and a woman as a legal contract; they do not define the customs of marriage itself. There is nothing.... I repeat, nothing... preventing you or anyone else form finding a church or temple or mosque or whatever that ascribes to your beliefs and performing whatever religious ceremony you desire. If you can find a religion that allows you to marry a oyster, you can have a marriage performed between you and an oyster, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

The marriage contract, on the other hand, is regulated by the government. As I previously stated, my wife and I married in a vow before God. By purchasing a marriage license, we also entered into a binding contract between us that is regulated by the laws of the USA. Both are loosely referred to as 'marriage', although the ceremony is religious in nature and the contract is not. The two are separate.

With the single exception of taxation, any form of marriage contract can be executed. Two people can sign a legally binding contract between themselves that covers all other aspects of the standard marriage contract. You can draw up a contract which would name you as heir, establish community property, specify desires to have your significant other to make decisions for you in a health emergency, or to cover any aspect of the standard marriage contract (save taxes).

So what are you arguing for? You are not arguing for religious marriage ceremony rights, because you already have those and always have. You are not arguing for contract marriage rights, because those are available to you as well. The only thing that a gay 'marriage' lacks is the tax benefits, so that must be what you are arguing for.

And if this is so, I support you.

The United States is a Republic, you do not need the good will of the majority to share the same rights as everyone.

The United States is a Democratic Republic, meaning that in order to make change, you must have the goodwill of the majority. The minority does not rule in a Republic; that is called a Dictatorship.

And you are arguing for a change.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck

With the single exception of taxation, any form of marriage contract can be executed.

With all do respect I believe that marriage has the ability to grant "your" non-American partner citizenship. That alone is a major difference in my book, although I do agree that tax benefits are another big issue.

The United States is a Democratic Republic, meaning that in order to make change, you must have the goodwill of the majority. The minority does not rule in a Republic; that is called a Dictatorship.

And you are arguing for a change.

TheRedneck

The recognition of equal rights is not change in my opinion, its already in the spirit and intentions of this nations foundations. Its more like sweeping the trash out of the nation's laws, much like slavery and civil rights.

With that said I do agree that as a general rule in human sociology that the will of the majority is needed to accomplish anything outside of personal control...unfortunately. Historically this has really held humanity back.

reply to post by SilentShadow


Finally somemore progress, although I'm a straight male this is great news because I feel we've been oppressing these people for far to long and the time has come for things to change.

Originally posted by trueperspective
Marriage is a religious institution.

No, it isn't. It's a legal contract. My husband and I are, in no way, religious, but we are married. I have the license to prove it. There was no church, no clergy, no religious words spoken, yet we are as married as anyone else.

There CAN be a religious component to marriage. Or one can get "married" in a church without the legal contract, but they aren't "legally married".

Yeah for DC! About 44 states to go.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Couldn't agree more I'll be married in june to my fiance and it won't be a very religious ceremony anyway. I'd just love for some roman catholic from 1000 years ago to show up today... They'd say, "Hmmm nothings changed. The grass is still green, the sky is still blue, and people are still following the same rules?!? Geez I'm gonna go back to sleep." LOL not the best representation of someone from a 1000 years ago but lets be honest even people from back then would be AMAZED that nothing has changed in all that time. That people are still to stubborn to accept something thats been going on forever. Also government CERTIFIED religions changed all the time back then, I wonder if the 1000 year old guy thought super-jesus would be here by now to take away all the sinning homo-sexuals. Okay I'm getting carried away but I mean come on thinking this way is so old-fashioned, THE WORD OLD-FASHIONED IS TO NEW TO DESCRIBE IT.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

Once again another thread relating to gay people takes the slippery slope toward mud slinging.


Most people on this thread have spoken with a great deal of sense though I must admit.

The simple fact of the matter is this. If two people share a love and want that publicly and legally recognised I say it's a great moment for our species.


Any religion or law that denies people to share love under the same rights as others is a religion and law against love. Law has nothing to do with love, except for the love of respecting fellow humans. But religion is supposed to be ALL about love.

So how does that tally with being anti-love if you choose to place some people into a box of your making and say they are not allowed to have the same as you with regards to love?




I bet Jesus would be spinning in his sepulchre.



[edit on 5-3-2010 by The Teller]

reply to post by Hadrian


I'll take that bet, the United State's percentage of divorce is already around 60% of new hetero marriages. I'm willing to bet that gay-marriage does FAR better because they've been waiting so much longer and they aren't recieving the hand out marriage every hetero-sexual idiot out of high school does.

reply to post by Hadrian


Also could you describe to me the negative of divorce??? To me that just equals economy stimulation.

Originally posted by trueperspective
I just want to say to everyone that as a Christian, I think people should have equal access to the benefits of the law. So as much as I disagree with the concept, let the same sex couples get the benefits of tax cuts and so forth that come with being in "married" status. HOWEVER, let's not call it marriage. Let's just call it civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution. Why do people that oppose the morals of religion want to participate in religious institutions. ALSO, let's never force a church to preform a same sex union. It is against the moral code of the religion. Let them have there beautiful civil union service somewhere neutral, like a beach, or in a ball room. Those places are great and they are perfect for large events. Why cram what Christians deem immoral down our throats. Have you freedom, but don't impose on ours. Thanks

Marriage is NOT a religious institution. People were getting married long before a group of guys intepreted the word of god and worte it into a book that became one of the biggest faiths in the world. Point being? Marriage has existed longer than christianity, judaism and islam. So call it marriage, call it a civil union, but let people call it what they want, it doesn't effect your life.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder

With all do respect I believe that marriage has the ability to grant "your" non-American partner citizenship.

I must admit you may have a point. I had not considered the citizenship issue.

The recognition of equal rights is not change in my opinion, its already in the spirit and intentions of this nations foundations.

The key words here are "in my opinion". Laws are not opinions; they are written, immutable words recorded to establish a baseline for social conduct. The laws that exist today in the majority of the United States specify that legally-recognized 'marriage' is a contractual union between one man and one woman, both of legal age. To allow recognition of legal 'marriage' between two consenting adults of any gender, those laws must be changed. Opinions do not matter on this point; the written law is the written law.

The same type of change was needed in the equal rights movement and the suffrage movement. In both cases, the changes did not happen until the majority of citizens agreed that the laws were wrong and allowed the change.

Historically this has really held humanity back.

Perhaps. But I would argue that the alternative, dictatorial government, has held humanity back more.

There are simply ways to go about making societal changes, and the tactics I see being used in this case are doing nothing to further that change, and everything to garner resentment among the general population. At this rate, these small 'victories' will be the only 'victories', and could easily be thwarted by a backlash among the population.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Finn1916
Marriage is NOT a religious institution.

You know, I think the problem comes in because we use the same word to describe 2 different things which are sometimes used together: Religious marriage and legal marriage. I wouldn't mind letting the word "marriage" belong to religious folks. It seems to mean a lot to them, so let them have it. But for the rest of us, heterosexual and homosexual, who wish to have a "legal marriage", without the religious aspect, let us ALL use another word or phrase. And until THAT happens, we should all use the same word. It shouldn't be split such that gays use one word and straights use another. That's ridiculous. If it's about religion, then let the religious use one word and the non-religious use another.

I have to admit, I don't understand the attachment to the word. Each couple defines their own marriage anyway. Whether or not there will be kids, how they will be raised, whether or not it's for love, companionship, convenience, citizenship or finances, whether it's monogamous or not. We all (straight people) use the same word to describe our unions and the religious folks don't have a problem with that. They don't have a problem with people with open marriages using "their" word. But a couple of people who adore each other and want to make a lifelong commitment, who just happen to have the same plumbing, want to use the word, and it's Oh, NO! Can't do it! LOL Doesn't make sense. Not that religion makes sense to me anyway.

It's not that I'm all hung up on the word. I just want EQUAL rights for ALL, gay or straight, religious or not.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Hadrian

 

Also could you describe to me the negative of divorce??? To me that just equals economy stimulation.

possible negatives of divorce: anger, bitterness, resentment, stress, anxiety, loss of income, loss of family, loss of housing, loss of emotional support network(s), loss of full-time children

and this is two the two divorcing people. as for children, yikes. i don't know, but i can't imagine you were a child of divorce, because i can assure you that for most children, it is a negative experience.

of course, not all divorces are negative situations.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I agree completely. There is a huge difference between religious marriage (which should be determined solely by the religions involved) and legal marriage (which should be secular and completely religion-free). These things go hand in hand often, but are not the same.

I actually suggested the same thing some time back in another thread. I said that all legal marriage references should be changed to 'civil union', all present marriages should be grandfathered as a civil union, and future religious marriages could be automatically included as a civil union as long as a marriage license was purchased. That way everyone would be equal under the law, and marriage would still remain as a religious ceremony.

Unfortunately, one would have thought that I had just ordered genocide of all homosexuals.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I actually suggested the same thing some time back in another thread. I said that all legal marriage references should be changed to 'civil union', all present marriages should be grandfathered as a civil union, and future religious marriages could be automatically included as a civil union as long as a marriage license was purchased. That way everyone would be equal under the law, and marriage would still remain as a religious ceremony.

TheRedneck

This is my stance as well. All contracts under the law should be considered civil unions, just so long as the same rights and privileges apply as marriage. Let those who perform the ceremony decide whether or not to label it marriage.

I think that most level headed folks could live with that solution(could be wrong though).

Civil Unions for all!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Marriage between gays is also legal in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. and Wyoming. It is only illegal in certain third-world countries such as in the Middle East.

You may want to check those sources again. Gay marriage isn't legal here in Texas and I know that for a fact. Two of my wife's friends had to go out of state last month to get married.

reply to post by sos37


He was talking about religious marriage. If a church wants to marry (as in sacred union) 2 gay people, they can. It just won't be a legal marriage in the eyes of the state.