Your stance on gay marriage

[Sarzonia]

We had our last war in 1945. And you?

Problem is American territory hasn't been invaded since the Independence War.

Wrong.

War of 1812: Britian invaded the U.S.
The Civil War was fought on both Union and Confederate soil.
World War II: Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, which was American soil.

[Distruzio]

Problem is American territory hasn't been invaded since the Independence War.

Wrong.

War of 1812: Britian invaded the U.S.
The Civil War was fought on both Union and Confederate soil.
World War II: Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, which was American soil.

Don't forget Alaska.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Now there are a great many americans who consider marriage to be a religious institution.

Irrelevant. It's not a religious institution, and just because some people wish it was, doesn't mean they can invoke some kind of religious protection from the Constitution for their imaginings.

Well, now, but see, for some people it is a religious thing, and they're also not all Christians, nor even all of the Abrahamic Tradition.

It is also, undeniably, a civil and legal thing.

But for some, any activity, institution, status, or situation can be lived sacramentally or mystically.

Should we then restrict dance to those who dance in such a way? Mowing the lawn? Physical exercise? Music? Parenthood?

The point is that not everyone does view marriage as a religious thing, not that it is not a religious thing. For some it is. It is, however, also, even to them, a civil thing.

In a multicultural nation-state like the USA, with a Constitution and political tradition like that of the USA, people should accept that marriage can be a religious thing to some, while also accepting that it is always a civil thing, and that, therefore, it should not be limited on the basis of religion, nor does it need be viewed only in religious terms. Neither the institution nor the word derive from Christianity or Judaism, and the institution is itself multicultural. It should therefore not be limited on the basis of culture. Some religious sects accept homosexuality without any condemnation. In the 21st century, in a nation-state which proclaims that religion cannot be prohibited and cannot become established as a state cult, the views of any given religion are irrelevant to the political, civil, legal definition of marriage. Rather, it should consider whether by denying certain people the legal status and admission to the legal institution and civil contract on the basis of superficialities which only matter to some, if it be applying the law of the land equally and fairly to all in connection with the status and the institution and the contract. It certainly should not deny that the institution can be a religious thing, while it cannot deny that it is a civil and legal thing that need not be religious at all.

As such, and since religious opinion is the chief objection to the status, institution, and contract of marriage being available to people regardless of external sexual characteristics, chromosomal sex, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity, the status, institution, and contract of marriage as a civil and legal thing is wholly required by the Constitution to be available to these people without regard to religious or other prejudice or opinion. This refers only to the First Amendment for justification, in the matter of the non-establishment clause. Religious views cannot be allowed to become the standard for what is and is not Justice under the Constitution.

[Distruzio]

Irrelevant. It's not a religious institution, and just because some people wish it was, doesn't mean they can invoke some kind of religious protection from the Constitution for their imaginings.

Well, now, but see, for some people it is a religious thing, and they're also not all Christians, nor even all of the Abrahamic Tradition.

It is also, undeniably, a civil and legal thing.

But for some, any activity, institution, status, or situation can be lived sacramentally or mystically.

Should we then restrict dance to those who dance in such a way? Mowing the lawn? Physical exercise? Music? Parenthood?

The point is that not everyone does view marriage as a religious thing, not that it is not a religious thing. For some it is. It is, however, also, even to them, a civil thing.

In a multicultural nation-state like the USA, with a Constitution and political tradition like that of the USA, people should accept that marriage can be a religious thing to some, while also accepting that it is always a civil thing, and that, therefore, it should not be limited on the basis of religion, nor does it need be viewed only in religious terms. Neither the institution nor the word derive from Christianity or Judaism, and the institution is itself multicultural. It should therefore not be limited on the basis of culture. Some religious sects accept homosexuality without any condemnation. In the 21st century, in a nation-state which proclaims that religion cannot be prohibited and cannot become established as a state cult, the views of any given religion are irrelevant to the political, civil, legal definition of marriage. Rather, it should consider whether by denying certain people the legal status and admission to the legal institution and civil contract on the basis of superficialities which only matter to some, if it be applying the law of the land equally and fairly to all in connection with the status and the institution and the contract. It certainly should not deny that the institution can be a religious thing, while it cannot deny that it is a civil and legal thing that need not be religious at all.

As such, and since religious opinion is the chief objection to the status, institution, and contract of marriage being available to people regardless of external sexual characteristics, chromosomal sex, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity, the status, institution, and contract of marriage as a civil and legal thing is wholly required by the Constitution to be available to these people without regard to religious or other prejudice or opinion. This refers only to the First Amendment for justification, in the matter of the non-establishment clause. Religious views cannot be allowed to become the standard for what is and is not Justice under the Constitution.

As usual DK, you and I seem to be of like mind! Thanks for the much better approach to the topic. I should have merely deferred to you.

[Telsiai]

Also, in the bible it says that gays are worthy of death.

Your name is painfully ironic.

With your picture, Meowfoundland. That was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on NS.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, now, but see, for some people it is a religious thing...

Irrelevant.

What you're talking about isn't what marriage is - you're talking about how some people perceive it.

I'm talking objective fact, you're talking subjective opinion.


Only one of these is a valid paradigm for law.

[Make up your own mind]

Well, now, but see, for some people it is a religious thing...

Irrelevant.

What you're talking about isn't what marriage is - you're talking about how some people perceive it.

I'm talking objective fact, you're talking subjective opinion.


Only one of these is a valid paradigm for law.

In the 21st century, in a nation-state which proclaims that religion cannot be prohibited and cannot become established as a state cult, the views of any given religion are irrelevant to the political, civil, legal definition of marriage. [...] Religious views cannot be allowed to become the standard for what is and is not Justice under the Constitution.

What are you arguing about?

[Dusk_Kittens]

Well, now, but see, for some people it is a religious thing...

Irrelevant.

What you're talking about isn't what marriage is - you're talking about how some people perceive it.

I'm talking objective fact, you're talking subjective opinion.


Only one of these is a valid paradigm for law.

No, not irrelevant, because you're denying that it is religious. It does not have to be; it is not for everyone; it is for some. Now, tolerance is all well and good, but acceptance is so much more just.

Law is also about diplomacy. That is, if a proposed law is written in a manner that is undiplomatic, it may fail to pass, or may be perceived as discriminatory.

We cannot deny that marriage as marriage is a religious thing for some people. For them it is. It is their viewpoint, their worldview perhaps, but that does not make it untrue. Objective fact is that some people do view it as such, and defining it for purposes of law as "not religious" is just as inappropriate as defining it for purposes of law as "religious." It is both and neither. Marriage itself is a subjective concept, in that each individual brings to the institution his/her own baggage, preconceived ideas, expectations, hopes, fears, etc, etc, etc.

When we remove the subjectivity for purposes of legislation, we are left with the view that marriage is a civil contract between two (or more?) people and confers upon those people a legal status; it has also been declared a basic human right by the Supreme Court. There is nothing in that about it being "religious" or "not religious." Religion should not even enter the question. It's not the business of the government to dictate whether X is "religious" or "not religious." That's for religious apologists to determine for their religions, and other people to determine for themselves.

But insofar as X is something done by various religions, and by people who have no religion at all, the question of religiosity for law is, yes, irrelevant -- and yet relevant at the same time, because of the diplomatic considerations. Law must be well-crafted to insure that nobody's rights are violated, not simply to extend recognition of a right to a given group which has heretofore not enjoyed that right. The law should not dictate that marriage is "not religious." It should dictate that it is civil and legal. That is, the wording of the law must omit any reference to the question of it being "religious" or "not religious," because that is not within the authority of Federal, State, or Local governments.

Insofar as it is civil and legal, and recognized by the Supreme Court as a basic human right, however, the Federal Government must ensure that it is extended to all citizens of lawful age and generally sound mind, without consideration of religious opinions or biases, and therefore, it must be extended to same-sex couples.

Am I making myself clear? I am referring to the language used. To say that "marriage is not religious" is incorrect, for it is to some people. To say "my marriage is not religious" is fine, if it's true. Neither the religious nor the non-religious get to have their view enshrined in law on this matter. If the law were to say "marriage is not religious," it would be violating the need for impartial examination of the evidence. Some marriages are religious. Some are not. No law says that they are or have to be religious. No law should say that they are or have to be "not religious," either.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Irrelevant.

What you're talking about isn't what marriage is - you're talking about how some people perceive it.

I'm talking objective fact, you're talking subjective opinion.


Only one of these is a valid paradigm for law.

In the 21st century, in a nation-state which proclaims that religion cannot be prohibited and cannot become established as a state cult, the views of any given religion are irrelevant to the political, civil, legal definition of marriage. [...] Religious views cannot be allowed to become the standard for what is and is not Justice under the Constitution.

What are you arguing about?

Words and their implications.

I'm simply saying that, in our acceptance of the constitutional imperative to recognize the right of marriage as "not subject to religious opinion or bias" the government (whether it be legislative or judiciary) must not however say "marriage is not a religious institution." Recognize that it need not be, sure, but don't deny that it can be, because for some people, marriage is very much a part of their religion, and those people are not all Christian or even Abrahamic. It can be celebrated as a religious ceremony, but it does not have to be. The ceremony may be elaborate and loaded with religious symbolism and so on, or it can be far more subdued. It need have no more ceremony, religious or otherwise, than a group of consenting adults signing a contract and having it notarized and filed stating that these consenting adults are, for political, legal, and civil matters, to be considered "married."

It can be about love, but it need not be. It can be about sex, but it need not be. It can be about security, but it need not be. It can be religious, but it need not be. It can be about money, but it need not be. Ultimately, even the motivation(s) of the persons entering the contract are irrelevant as long as each party to the contract enter the contract of his/her own free will and accord. It establishes a status of contract between two (or more) people for certain purposes, including government purposes.

What kind of plumbing the people who contract with each other have is irrelevant. Whether they can produce a child by their union is irrelevant. Whether they even have sex or not is irrelevant (and frankly, nobody's damned business but those involved).

They are people who are legally adults and have agreed to enter into a civil/legal union of some sort that they want recognized as marriage for civil/legal reasons. It's nobody's business who they are, what they look like, what they do in their union, whether they both have XY or XX, or one has XX and one has XY, or one has XXY and the other is either XX or XY, or one was subjected to gender selection at birth and the other is entirely "cisgender," or one was intersexed, or one was born with Harry Benjamin syndrome, or one has black hair and the other has auburn. That's between them and them alone. If they want their religion(s) involved, they may involve their religions, and if any religious functionary feels uncomfortable about performing the rites for the individuals, they are free to find someone who will, be that person a religious or civil functionary.

All that is necessary is a contract, parties to the contract, a witness, and a notary public and/or a county clerk's office, so far as I am aware (although these requirements may currently vary by state). So maybe they get a lawyer to draw up their contract (like a prenup agreement and/or any specifics they both agree to in terms of what their union entails and what it restricts, and what it permits but not not require, etc. Then they find either a religious functionary willing to perform a rite satisfactory to them or a civil functionary to simply witness/record the signing of the contract. They they have it notarized and/or filed in the county clerk's office. It is a legal marriage. Who cares whether they all pee standing up or sitting down? Juvenile mentalities, I suppose.

But "religious" or "not religious," let's just leave that alone, because it's not the business of government to decide whether it is religious or not, only to decide whether it is exclusively religious or not. The evidence suggests it is not exclusively religious, indeed that it can be entirely non-religious, but that it can also be entirely religious, or partially religious. I do not believe government should state an opinion on whether it is religious or not religious, but simply note that it is an institution valued by both religious and non-religious, and cannot be restricted to one or the other group on the basis of religion. Since the only vaguely coherent objection to same-sex marriage and so on has to do with religious opinion, the law should merely then point out that religious opinion should not be allowed as an excuse for not recognizing equal rights to the institution.

[Make up your own mind]

Oh, well I seriously doubt the government is going to ban religious marriages, intentionally or otherwise. Also some words have different legal meanings than their common definition. It's just a quirk of the law, same thing happens with medical definitions sometimes.

[Ryadn]

I do not plan to get one in the near future.

I read "do not" as "do" and "gay marriage" as "lesbian orgy".

Well, I am visiting Toronto next month in the company of 8 lovely women... once the wine starts flowing, you never know.

[Ryadn]

*snip*

Wait, really? Seriously?

Because you feel that your religious beliefs are personally beneficial to you, and makes you feel like you're part of something bigger than yourself, you feel perfectly entitled to support denying rights to other people?

Since when did your feelings trump other people's rights?

Does anyone else feel like he made one argument for 95% of the post and then somehow came out with a totally bizarre opposing conclusion?

[Ryadn]

Because what is or isn't natural is totally relevant to who should legally be allowed to get married.

Yes

I already answered that earlier by mentioning culture, religion and the requirement for reproduction. If there is any respect in you for social norms, religion or even nature you would be try and find a more acceptable approach than altering someone elses religious beliefs.

1. What is morally or ethically 'good' about supporting social norms?
2. How does gay marriage 'disrespect' religion, when many religions perform marriages between members of the same gender?
3. What on earth is 'natural' about marriage?
4. Why do haters gotta hate?

[Bergrisiheim]

"Too confusing! Too many trolls!" proclaims King Drg'Rac, "I'll just leave the matter to the clerics. Why should a king decide this? Why not let the person performing this 'marriage ceremony' have the say in who can be in the ceremony?"

[Bergrisiheim]

Yes

I already answered that earlier by mentioning culture, religion and the requirement for reproduction. If there is any respect in you for social norms, religion or even nature you would be try and find a more acceptable approach than altering someone elses religious beliefs.

1. What is morally or ethically 'good' about supporting social norms?
2. How does gay marriage 'disrespect' religion, when many religions perform marriages between members of the same gender?
3. What on earth is 'natural' about marriage?
4. Why do haters gotta hate?

Agreement

[PapaJacky]

I think marriage is a silly commitment anyways, and if two or more people wanted to live and spend their lives together their ought to be no bureaucracy surrounding it.

[Scientific socks]

Yes

I already answered that earlier by mentioning culture, religion and the requirement for reproduction. If there is any respect in you for social norms, religion or even nature you would be try and find a more acceptable approach than altering someone elses religious beliefs.

1. What is morally or ethically 'good' about supporting social norms?
2. How does gay marriage 'disrespect' religion, when many religions perform marriages between members of the same gender?
3. What on earth is 'natural' about marriage?
4. Why do haters gotta hate?

1. Well it has got you to where you are today, typing on your computer. If you would rather live in the wild I can agree that social norms have no benifit for you.

2. Such as?
I can on the other hand name several major relgions that define it as between a Man and a Woman including Christianity which more than likely is your countries base of law, Judaism, Islam and Buddism

3. I never said marriage was natural. It was a socially and religously created to procreate the human race.

4. Why do you need to define people whom disagree with your political opinions as haters? Are you really lacking a counter argument to my points and is simple labelling the best you can come up with?

[Dyakovo]

I think marriage is a silly commitment anyways, and if two or more people wanted to live and spend their lives together their ought to be no bureaucracy surrounding it.

There doesn't have to be. There is no requirement that if you're going to live together, you have to get married.

[Scientific socks]

I think marriage is a silly commitment anyways, and if two or more people wanted to live and spend their lives together their ought to be no bureaucracy surrounding it.

There doesn't have to be. There is no requirement that if you're going to live together, you have to get married.

Not quite. The government may class it as a defacto relationship and therefor reduce your entitlements effectively treating you the same as a married couple. Which only makes me even more willing to support civil unions which can be taxed as highly as marriage. Why should one sexual orrientation group be taxed less?

[Dyakovo]

There doesn't have to be. There is no requirement that if you're going to live together, you have to get married.

Not quite.

Yes, quite.

[Samuraikoku]

Not quite. The government may class it as a defacto relationship and therefor reduce your entitlements effectively treating you the same as a married couple.

That shouldn't happen. At least it doesn't in Argentina. Commonlaw marriage is unregulated.

[Norstal]

Not quite.

Yes, quite.

Finding a roommate would be quite hard.

[Enadail]

I can on the other hand name several major relgions that define it as between a Man and a Woman including ... Buddism

Ignoring the part about how Christianity is the basis for law, which has been shown many times is not the case, since when does Buddhism define marriage at all? Given Buddhism is all about shedding worldly desires, it has no care about marriage. If anything, it is anti-marriage. There are various cultures that disapprove of homosexuality, but there's no real justification for it from Buddhism.

[PapaJacky]

I think marriage is a silly commitment anyways, and if two or more people wanted to live and spend their lives together their ought to be no bureaucracy surrounding it.

There doesn't have to be. There is no requirement that if you're going to live together, you have to get married.

Precisely. Therefore, there ought to be no marriage at all. It's an old habit, waste of money, and quite useless in our modern lives.

[Dyakovo]

Not quite. The government may class it as a defacto relationship and therefor reduce your entitlements effectively treating you the same as a married couple.

That shouldn't happen. At least it doesn't in Argentina. Commonlaw marriage is unregulated.

It is either umregulated or non-existent in (most of) the US as well...
Ss is talking out his ass.


Here's the rules of common law marriage in those states that permit them:

The requirements for a common-law marriage to be validly contracted differ in the eleven states which still permit them.
Alabama
A valid common law marriage exists when there is capacity to enter into a marriage, the man and woman must be at least 16 with legal parental consent and present agreement or consent to be husband and wife, public recognition of the existence of the marriage, and consummation.
Colorado
The elements of a common-law marriage are, with respect to both spouses: (1) holding themselves out as husband and wife; (2) consenting to the marriage; (3) cohabitation; and (4) having the reputation in the community as being married. Different sources disagree regarding the requirement of cohabitation and some indicate that consummation (i.e. post-marital sexual intercourse) is also an element of common law marriage. Colorado, by statute, no longer recognizes common law marriages entered by minors in Colorado, and also does not recognize foreign common law marriages entered into by minors, even if that marriage would have been valid where entered into under local law. See Section 14-10-109.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. The constitutionality of this limitation as applied to foreign marriages has not been tested in litigation.
Colorado is the only U.S. state, other than Montana, to recognize both putative marriage and common law marriage.
The District of Columbia
"A marriage that is legally recognized even though there has been no ceremony and there is no certification of marriage. A common-law marriage exists if the two persons are legally free to marry, if it is the intent of the two persons to establish a marriage, and if the two are known to the community as husband and wife."
Iowa
The three elements of a common-law marriage are: (1) the present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declaration that the parties are husband and wife. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 617. The public declaration or holding out to the public is considered to be the acid test of a common-law marriage.
Kansas
Under Kansas Statute 23-101 (2002), both parties to a common-law marriage must be 18 years old. The three requirements that must coexist to establish a common-law marriage in Kansas are: (1) capacity to marry; (2) a present marriage agreement; and (3) a holding out of each other as husband and wife to the public.
Montana
A common-law marriage is established when a couple: "(1) is competent to enter into a marriage, (2) mutually consents and agrees to a common law marriage, and (3) cohabits and is reputed in the community to be husband and wife."
New Hampshire
In New Hampshire "[P]ersons cohabiting and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for the period of 3 years, and until the decease of one of them, shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married." Thus, the state posthumously recognizes common-law marriages to ensure that a surviving spouse inherits without any difficulty.
Oklahoma
The criteria for a common-law marriage are: (1) "an actual and mutual agreement... between the spouses to be husband and wife;" (2) "a permanent relationship;" (3) "an exclusive relationship, proved by cohabitation as man and wife;" (4) "and the parties to the marriage must hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife." Common law arrangements that took place in Oklahoma before November 1,1998 are recognized. The ones that occurred after that date have a nebulous character See Estate of Stinchcomb v. Stinchcomb, 674 P.2d 26, 28-29 (Okla. 1983). A bill to ban common-law marriage in Oklahoma failed to receive committee hearing and thus died in 2005.
Rhode Island
The criteria for a common-law marriage are: (1) the parties seriously intended to enter into the husband-wife relationship; (2) the parties’ conduct is of such a character as to lead to a belief in the community that they were married.
South Carolina
The criteria for a common law marriage are: (1) when two parties have a present intent (usually, but not necessarily, evidenced by a public and unequivocal declaration) to enter into a marriage contract; and (2) "a mutual agreement between the parties to assume toward each other the relation of husband and wife."
Texas
Common-law marriage is known as an "informal marriage", which can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony),[12] or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. In the actual wording of the law there is no specification on the length of time that a couple must cohabitate to meet the second requirement of the 3-prong test. Under Texas law there is no required period of time of cohabitation and an informal marriage can occur if the couple lives together one day if the other elements, (an agreement to be married and holding out as married to the public) have also occurred. Likewise a couple can live together for 50 years and if they never have an agreement to be married, or hold themselves out to the public as married, their 50 year cohabitation will not make them informally married. If a couple does not commence a proceeding to prove their relationship was a marriage within two years of the end of their cohabitation and relationship there is a legal presumption that they were never informally married, but this presumption is rebuttable. In other words, even after two years a party to the relationship, or another interested party such as their estate, can seek to establish the marriage if they can overcome the presumption. Because this rule is only a presumption, and not a statute of limitations, a person in Texas that could be informally married should always go through a divorce proceeding when the relationship ceases or face possible serious legal repercussions.
Utah
For a common-law marriage to be legal and valid, "a court or administrative order must establish that" the parties: (1) "are of legal age and capable of giving consent"; (2) "are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage under the provisions of Title 30, Chap. 1 of the Utah Code; (3) "have cohabited"; (4) "mutually assume marital rights, duties, and obligations"; and (5) "hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife" [14] In Utah, the fact that two parties are legally incapable of entering into a common law marriage, because they are already married, does not preclude criminal liability for bigamy or polygamy.