quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
So. That wont work.  It would give federal law the act of bestowing state-to-state portability which would violate the 'among the several'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
So. That wont work.  It would give federal law the act of bestowing state-to-state portability which would violate the 'among the several'.

If I'm reading DesideriScuri right, I think he's talking about annulling all marriages and replacing them with civil unions and having marriage be a seperate, non binding, legally worthless religious ceremony.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Look at it this way, if same sex marriage is a right, then it's theoretically possible that two people can sue for discrimination, no? Maintaining a separation of the Church and the State can be done, and should be done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
That would be a huge mess. The word marriage occurs in a lot of federal, state and municpal codes. Changing that would never get done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
That would be a huge mess. The word marriage occurs in a lot of federal, state and municpal codes. Changing that would never get done.

I can't imagine the fear of gay marriage that it takes to advocate for the end of marriage rather than just letting gay people have the right.

quote:

What for fucks sake is the govt. forcing on religion via the aca?

Enjoy the Kool Aid and willful ignorance.

quote:

I can't imagine the fear of gay marriage that it takes to advocate for the end of marriage rather than just letting gay people have the right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I can't imagine the fear of gay marriage that it takes to advocate for the end of marriage rather than just letting gay people have the right.

Thank you, Steel. You've put into words what I've thought but had trouble deftly expressing.

ETA: I suspect that the real fear is not that gay marriage will destroy society--but that it won't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
So. That wont work.  It would give federal law the act of bestowing state-to-state portability which would violate the 'among the several'.

If I'm reading DesideriScuri right, I think he's talking about annulling all marriages and replacing them with civil unions and having marriage be a seperate, non binding, legally worthless religious ceremony.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Look at it this way, if same sex marriage is a right, then it's theoretically possible that two people can sue for discrimination, no? Maintaining a separation of the Church and the State can be done, and should be done.

Religious organizations have the right to be bigots for Jesus in determining who they marry. That's covered under the first amendment, there's absolutely no need to discriminate against an entire group of people to solve an imaginary problem.

quote:

A marriage is a civil union done as a religious rite. It carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union because it is one type of civil union. A civil union done outside of a religious rite (ie. going down to the JoP to get wed) is a civil union, and, thus, carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union. The only difference between the two is that a marriage is done as a religious rite, by a religious leader. In the eyes of the law, there would be no difference between a marriage and any other civil union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Nope. You are not reading me right.

A marriage is a civil union done as a religious rite. It carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union because it is one type of civil union. A civil union done outside of a religious rite (ie. going down to the JoP to get wed) is a civil union, and, thus, carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union. The only difference between the two is that a marriage is done as a religious rite, by a religious leader. In the eyes of the law, there would be no difference between a marriage and any other civil union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

A marriage is a civil union done as a religious rite. It carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union because it is one type of civil union. A civil union done outside of a religious rite (ie. going down to the JoP to get wed) is a civil union, and, thus, carries all the weight and benefits of a civil union. The only difference between the two is that a marriage is done as a religious rite, by a religious leader. In the eyes of the law, there would be no difference between a marriage and any other civil union.

Is this your vision of how things should work or an attempt at describing how they actually do?
Back in 1994, a friend was looking for a place to wed, and I introduced her to my lovely Episcopal church. Alas, she forgot to bring the marriage--not, ahem, civil union--license to the rehearsal. The priest was adamant that she could not legally perform the ceremony without having the license in hand. The best man (namely, me) had to deliver it to her home the next morning. This is just one example, I realize, but it seems to suggest governmental involvement in, yes, the making of marriages.
The good people at Merriam-Webster date the term "civil union" back to 1992. Given that governments regulated and licensed marriages long before that, it seems a bit bizarre to claim that only religious rites are marriages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
Nope. A marriage is the registration of a couple as a family with a government office. * Solemnification * of marriage is the ceremony performed by a government registered agent.
http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/legal-faqs/marriage/federal/what-does-it-take-to-solemnize-a-marriage.html
You are once again making up your own definitions that are totally out of touch with reality.
And your argument fails completely because there is not an establishment of religion anywhere in America which has the authority to issue a legal decree of divorce.
As you are well aware.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
Nope. A marriage is the registration of a couple as a family with a government office. * Solemnification * of marriage is the ceremony performed by a government registered agent.
http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/legal-faqs/marriage/federal/what-does-it-take-to-solemnize-a-marriage.html
You are once again making up your own definitions that are totally out of touch with reality.
And your argument fails completely because there is not an establishment of religion anywhere in America which has the authority to issue a legal decree of divorce.
As you are well aware.

Making up my "own definitions ... out of touch with reality?" Odd how that's shocking when someone offers a system that would solve an issue that is real. How is that not obvious? If this was the way it was in reality, we'd not even be having this topic discussed.

But, excellent grasp of... well, nothing, actually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Making up my "own definitions ... out of touch with reality?" Odd how that's shocking when someone offers a system that would solve an issue that is real. How is that not obvious? If this was the way it was in reality, we'd not even be having this topic discussed.

But, excellent grasp of... well, nothing, actually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

... I don't see what is so difficult about seperating the government from religion. The PPLs certainly seem to be okay with seperating religion from the government, any other time and, in this case, we even have an amendment that specifically states that the government can't tell religion what to do ...

quote:


we even have an amendment that specifically states that the government can't tell religion what to do

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


we even have an amendment that specifically states that the government can't tell religion what to do

Yeah, and they never do, never have, and never will.  And that aint quite what the amendment is.