RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship

RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 3:57:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx I think that all states should recognize marriages that are legal in other states. More and more, I have come to believe that the time for state recognition of ANY marriage has long past. "Marriage" is one of the few aspects of social life that exists as both a religious sacrament AND a legal compact. When people argue against homosexual marriage, the arguments generally are of a moral/religious nature. One thing is cannot be denied--there are explicit prohibitions in both the Old and New Testaments in the Christian Bible against homosexual conduct. The Koran has similar prohibitions. Consequently, the argument of homosexual marriage representing a decline in morality has substance from these religious perspectives However, if one does not adhere to Christian or Islamic Scripture--a choice guaranteed by the First Amendment--that argument naturally fails to persuade. If the state recognized civil unions, without regard to gender, for the legitimate purposes of clarifying a variety of property and parental rights and obligations, and removed the institution of marriage to a strictly religious sphere, this issue disappears by definition. If society wishes to marriage to be a religious sacrament, the state should not be involved. If society wishes marriage to be a legal compact, religion should not be involved. One or the other must bow out of the equation if a socially just resolution is to be had.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 4:58:41 PM)
You make an excellent point. Where is the "separation of church and state" in marriage?

cloudboy -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/30/2008 7:38:39 PM)
Standards regarding "offensiveness" often relate to "community standards." Also, on the sliding scale of fundamental rights -- the right to public nudity is lower on the scale than the right to get married or have privacy in one's home. quote: The court did not 'strike the law' it established law. You say this like some horrible thing happened. Common law has been in existence in Western Legal systems for some 500 years now.

Mercnbeth -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 7:03:58 AM)
Continuing the hijacking of my own thread... quote: More and more, I have come to believe that the time for state recognition of ANY marriage has long past. CL, Now that idea presents the best solution possible. Why is this an issue in the first place? I haven't heard one good reason except in regard to what amount to 'contract' issues. Eliminate the ceremonial requirement and provide access to contractually establish the relationship between people. Joint property ownership, medical decisions, survivor rights, child care; can all be handled through written agreement. All these things are possible now between people who aren't ceremonially attached. Missing is some other 'rights' but legislation can take care of that without ceremony. In CA I had beth as a dependent and added to my insurance long before we were married. Laws in CA allow for that to take place as long as she was living in my house. I don't know it that is universal. Once again the Federal issue would be more complicated. One of the anticipated ways to extend the allusion of solvency in the SS system is the elimination of benefits to anyone who is not a ceremonial spouse. There is also the issue of the tax benefits of a ceremonial relationship. Maybe we can address the rest of the tax system while we're at it. Eliminate the existing tax system and replace it with a 2-3% tax on every purchase by everyone; individual and corporate. It is the only way to 'tax the corporations'. Eliminate the Church exception; the barrier of separation is already gone considering how political agenda is now considered 'sermon'. Take away the other side of the equation 'tax exemption'. Allow self determination of the current SS system, requiring the same financial commitment but instead of having a theoretical bank account put away for you, you have a real account with real money set aside for you and/or your contractual partner. In fact why can't the contractual consideration be between partnerS? quote: Also, on the sliding scale of fundamental rights -- the right to public nudity is lower on the scale than the right to get married or have privacy in one's home. In the option of someone with a vested interest in nudity it has the same scale of importance as one with a vested interest in same sex union. quote: quote: The court did not 'strike the law' it established law. You say this like some horrible thing happened. No - I stated it as a point of fact; apparently you agree.

Zensee -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 10:32:00 AM)
Actually, M&B, could you clarify what you mean by "establish law"? Do you mean they created a law where none existed, changed an existing law or something else? Z.

popeye1250 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 10:44:34 AM)
New York is opening up Pandora's Box on that one. Couldn't it then be argued that a lisense to carry a concealed weapon from another state also be honored in New York or any other state? (Which they should be by the way!) All states honor all other states' driver's lisenses which are considered a "priviledge" to have not a "Right." Keeping and carrying firearms is a "Right" not a "priviledge." So, it would seem to follow that if a state doesn't honor another state's firearm "permits" that they are therefor denying American Citizens their second amendment rights! They don't have any laws in N.Y. saying that you may not excercise your first amendment rights do they?

kdsub -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:00:47 AM)
How in the heck you equate gay marriage rights… or lack of… with a desire for dictatorship is beyond reason I think. Our fore founders were wise men...they understood that unchecked democracy would turn into popularity contests. That is why they set up the Supreme Court. They set out basic rights in the constitution and set up checks and balances to guarantee these rights were not easy to change by legislation and knee jerk voting. It works Butch

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:16:14 AM)
quote: There is also the issue of the tax benefits of a ceremonial relationship. That's just it....a ceremonial relationship should have zero tax benefit. Tax benefits, along with other economic benefits, are the domain of the legal compact, not the ceremonial relationship.

kdsub -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:21:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx I think that all states should recognize marriages that are legal in other states. More and more, I have come to believe that the time for state recognition of ANY marriage has long past. "Marriage" is one of the few aspects of social life that exists as both a religious sacrament AND a legal compact. When people argue against homosexual marriage, the arguments generally are of a moral/religious nature. One thing is cannot be denied--there are explicit prohibitions in both the Old and New Testaments in the Christian Bible against homosexual conduct. The Koran has similar prohibitions. Consequently, the argument of homosexual marriage representing a decline in morality has substance from these religious perspectives However, if one does not adhere to Christian or Islamic Scripture--a choice guaranteed by the First Amendment--that argument naturally fails to persuade. If the state recognized civil unions, without regard to gender, for the legitimate purposes of clarifying a variety of property and parental rights and obligations, and removed the institution of marriage to a strictly religious sphere, this issue disappears by definition. If society wishes to marriage to be a religious sacrament, the state should not be involved. If society wishes marriage to be a legal compact, religion should not be involved. One or the other must bow out of the equation if a socially just resolution is to be had. I believe you are making much of nothing. You don't need a religious ceremony to be married in America but you do need the license.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:35:51 AM)
quote: I believe you are making much of nothing. You don't need a religious ceremony to be married in America but you do need the license. Actually, you don't even need that (common law marriage). However, when people use the term "marriage", it has for most a religious/moral construct as well as a civil construct. The vast majority of people, when they marry, choose to have a religious ceremony, after which the officiating pastor signs the marriage license. But you are referring to the legal compact side of the institution of marriage only. Marriage is also defined by the Catholics as one of the seven sacraments, and is held in similar regard by Protestant denominations as well as Islam and Judaism. For nearly all people, marriage has a moral dimension distinct from the legal dimension. That moral dimension is what inspires people to oppose homosexual marriage, or polyamorous marriage. If the state has no compelling interest in restricting homosexual or polyamorous unions, then clearly separating the legal and moral dimensions into civil union and ceremonial marriage resolves a whole host of marital and family issues, including gay marriage.

kdsub -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:49:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: I believe you are making much of nothing. You don't need a religious ceremony to be married in America but you do need the license. Actually, you don't even need that (common law marriage). However, when people use the term "marriage", it has for most a religious/moral construct as well as a civil construct. The vast majority of people, when they marry, choose to have a religious ceremony, after which the officiating pastor signs the marriage license. But you are referring to the legal compact side of the institution of marriage only. Marriage is also defined by the Catholics as one of the seven sacraments, and is held in similar regard by Protestant denominations as well as Islam and Judaism. For nearly all people, marriage has a moral dimension distinct from the legal dimension. That moral dimension is what inspires people to oppose homosexual marriage, or polyamorous marriage. If the state has no compelling interest in restricting homosexual or polyamorous unions, then clearly separating the legal and moral dimensions into civil union and ceremonial marriage resolves a whole host of marital and family issues, including gay marriage. But as far as the federal and state governments are concerned it is the license that counts not the religious ceremony... so there is no mixing of church and state. I believe some states do not recognize common law marriage. Butch

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:51:45 AM)
quote: But as far as the federal and state governments are concerned it is the license that counts not the religious ceremony... so there is not mixing of church and state. Then perhaps you can explain the Defense of Marriage Act.

kdsub -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:54:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: But as far as the federal and state governments are concerned it is the license that counts not the religious ceremony... so there is not mixing of church and state. Then perhaps you can explain the Defense of Marriage Act. I may be mistaken but that law has nothing to do with religion.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:56:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: But as far as the federal and state governments are concerned it is the license that counts not the religious ceremony... so there is not mixing of church and state. Then perhaps you can explain the Defense of Marriage Act. I may be mistaken but that law has nothing to do with religion. Then what is the state's compelling interest in defining marriage *exclusively* as between man and woman?

kdsub -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 11:58:54 AM)
simply the definition of the word marriage...again religion does not enter directly.

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 12:05:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub simply the definition of the word marriage...again religion does not enter directly. That's not an answer. Why does the government, state or federal, feel the need to define the term at all? And why must state sanctioned marriage be between just one man and one woman? That is the question I am asking--actually, questions: Why must the state define the term, and why must the term be defined thus?

kdsub -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 12:10:29 PM)
It is an answer celticlord...religion can and should be out of this discussion. Believe me there are many atheists against same sex marriage. Eventually it will come down to a Supreme court ruling bases on the constitution and human rights. Butch

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 1:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It is an answer celticlord...religion can and should be out of this discussion. Believe me there are many atheists against same sex marriage. Eventually it will come down to a Supreme court ruling bases on the constitution and human rights. Butch But you have not given an answer. You just keep tapdancing around the question. Yes, religion SHOULD be out of the equation where the state is concerned. I submit that DOMA is a piece of state-legislated morality, that it is the imposition of essentially a religious interpretation of what should be merely a legal compact. Atheism, just so you know, is every bit a religious perspective as Catholicism. Now, will you provide a simple direct answer to my questions? For clarity, here they are: Why must the state define the term marriage, and why must the term be defined thus?

kdsub -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 1:17:07 PM)
Our discussion was about religion and marriage not about the right or wrong or reason about the state or federal wording on the subject... Start another thread before you get too far away from the OP's original question and I'll be glad to give you my views. But don't try to change the subject when you have no comeback to my answers. Butch

celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (5/31/2008 1:31:41 PM)
Nice try, but it won't wash. I am saying very explicitly that the wording of the DOMA is an intrusion of religious perspectives of marriage on the legal constructs of marriage/civil union. I am saying that such laws, and similar legislation at the state level, is an unwarranted intrusion by the public domain on private morality. I am saying that the state has no vested interest in promulgating such a definition, and that relegating marriage out of the legal arena into a purely religious/private morality arena, supplanting it in the legal arena with civil unions, is the socially just mechanism for addressing the myriad of family constructs present in modern society. You are saying that religion does not play a role in the legal definitions of marriage. I am saying you are mistaken, that it most assuredly does. Apparently, what you are not saying is anything that resembles even a pretense of an answer to my questions: Why must the state define the term marriage, and why must the term be defined thus?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875