quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Not exactly.

Well, then I guess we are stuck at just offering an affirmation that conservatives aren't in monolithic lockstep on the issue, and leave it there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I'm against "same sex marriage" but I strongly favor "same sex civil unions".

Sorry, there's a part of me that says that marriage is between a man and a woman and a part of me that says that everyone has a right to be treated equally. Therefore, I strongly support the government recognizing same sex couples that enter into some kind of legal union.

However, I do not favor couples being given advantages over single people. If we're going to argue 14th amendment and shit, let's do it right.

Why do married couples get tax breaks? That doesn't sound like equal treatment to me.

Why can only married couples enjoy survivor benefits?

Why can only "spouses" visit certain people in the hospital?

What gives?

I don't believe in "gay rights", "womens' rights", or "minority rights" of any kind. I believe in EQUAL rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
England? Zero.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I very much agree with you that everyone has a right to be treated equally and as such I'm against your marriage and strongly in favor of you having to refer to it as a civil union.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Not exactly. I see "marriage" as the pervue of religion and "civil unions" as the pervue of the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If I'm reading Michael correctly, all civil benefits will be attached to the "civil union" part. The "marriage" part will be but a subset of civil unions and will confer no benefits outside of any a religious institution confers. That is, in the eyes of government, a marriage is but a civil union like a JoP civil union, or a same sex civil union. All civil unions get the same civil benefits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

Agreed-- However, I think the state should ditch the term marriage for all, use the term civil union for all, and if a damn church wants to use it so be it. Even if it is the "First Gay Dominion Chuch of Christ.' You know you are doing the right thing when everyone thinks they are being screwed

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

However the Ecclesiastical attachment to marriage is wrong. Marriage has always been a function of the state. The religious obsession with marriage should be stripped, hence my declaration that we should rename it civil union period. Even thought the state permits ministers to 'preside' over a 'wedding' the couple is not married until it is recorded with the state. The primary reason christians are so butt-hurt over this is the catholic church became the institution of marriage during the fall of Rome. As Rome collapsed so did it administrative function. When the church took over, they applied all the religious mumbo-jumbo dogmatic BS to it.

This is why christianity is just wrong. It is not a sacrament, it like a driver's lisence. The state needs to reclaim the absolute authority to define it as they will.

What I love about my home state is anyone can 'marry' anyone. You do not need to be ordained or a judge. When we got married we had our parents do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

However the Ecclesiastical attachment to marriage is wrong. Marriage has always been a function of the state. The religious obsession with marriage should be stripped, hence my declaration that we should rename it civil union period. Even thought the state permits ministers to 'preside' over a 'wedding' the couple is not married until it is recorded with the state. The primary reason christians are so butt-hurt over this is the catholic church became the institution of marriage during the fall of Rome. As Rome collapsed so did it administrative function. When the church took over, they applied all the religious mumbo-jumbo dogmatic BS to it.

This is why christianity is just wrong. It is not a sacrament, it like a driver's lisence. The state needs to reclaim the absolute authority to define it as they will.

What I love about my home state is anyone can 'marry' anyone. You do not need to be ordained or a judge. When we got married we had our parents do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280
However the Ecclesiastical attachment to marriage is wrong. Marriage has always been a function of the state. The religious obsession with marriage should be stripped, hence my declaration that we should rename it civil union period. Even thought the state permits ministers to 'preside' over a 'wedding' the couple is not married until it is recorded with the state. The primary reason christians are so butt-hurt over this is the catholic church became the institution of marriage during the fall of Rome. As Rome collapsed so did it administrative function. When the church took over, they applied all the religious mumbo-jumbo dogmatic BS to it.
This is why christianity is just wrong. It is not a sacrament, it like a driver's lisence. The state needs to reclaim the absolute authority to define it as they will.
What I love about my home state is anyone can 'marry' anyone. You do not need to be ordained or a judge. When we got married we had our parents do it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I don't know what the basis was for your home state to allow anyone to preside over a marriage. I think that could be an easily abused practice.

Actually, once you proclaim your wedding vows and the minister "weds" you, you are absolutely married, in the eyes of the church. For civil benefits to transfer, you need to register with the State. And, here is where things get a bit messy. Why can't a Church unite two people in Holy Matrimony without any interference by the State, with the caveat that this type of union - just for shits and giggles, let's call it a marriage - carries zero civil benefits? A Church can certainly honor the rite of marriage without a State honoring it, right? Why does a State care if there are no civil benefits attached to a marriage?

On the other hand, a union registered and accepted by the State - another shits and giggles naming; a civil union - that carries civil benefits shouldn't be within the Church's purview, as it shouldn't matter to the State if the Church cares about civil benefits. So, a civil union would be a purely legal construct controlled by the State, that carries civil benefits (and also carries legal ramifications that deal with the dissolution of that union). The Church can't be forced to unite two people if it goes against it's Articles of Faith (keeps a separation between the Church and the State) and the Church can't do anything about civil unions that go against it's Articles of Faith (separation, pure and simple).

quote:

I don't know what the basis was for your home state to allow anyone to preside over a marriage. I think that could be an easily abused practice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280
That is kinda my point.... Let the state call it a 'union' and that's all you get. Beyond that you can call it marriage or twixting or intergroining or whatever. This butt-hurt whining over a word is akin to all the PC cry baby crap about what is acceptable to call someone of a certain ethnicity or condition.

quote:

I don't know what the basis was for your home state to allow anyone to preside over a marriage. I think that could be an easily abused practice.

I wonder how it would be abused? To me it prevents abuse. You don't have to find anyone, pay them anything or work on their schedule. The state only requires that both parties sign the marriage license and there is someone to witness it. If we had been so inclined, we could have done it at the DMV as that is where we picked up the license. We could have signed it at that moment, asked the clerk to be the witness and turned it right back in. Could have saved a lot of time and money. Granted not very special, but possible. I think the only thing that was required was that both people needed to be there to pick up the license and show some ID, you know to prevent you from artificially marrying someone.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280
um divorce... whatelse is there?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)