quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Why is it important that it be called a marriage, if benefits are conferred by it being a civil union?

Because it is a marriage: a loving, faithful commitment to building a life together. And, imho, gay folks' marriages deserve the same respect and dignity as others'. Part of that respect stems from nomenclature.
Why is it so important to you that the word "marriage" not be applied to same-sex couples? You're going through remarkable contortions, including an ahistorical redefinition of the term, just to keep from sharing the word with queers.

I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you?

I'm working on changing two things:

1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter.
2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples.

You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you?

[]So you can be painted as a "homophobe", DS. It's what fits the agenda of the left.



Peace and comfort,



Michael[color]

quote:

I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you?

quote:

I'm working on changing two things:

1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter.
2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples.

You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Dudette,
from your cite:


According to the United States Census Bureau, the fifteen largest trading partners of the United States represent 73.9% of U.S. imports, and 71.7% of U.S. exports as of December 2011.[1] These figures do not include services or foreign direct investment, but only trade in goods...
This list does not include the European Union (EU), which includes four (Germany, UK, France, Netherlands) of the above states in a single economic entity. As a single economy, the EU is the largest trading partner of the US with $367.8 billion worth of EU goods going to the US and $268.6 billion of US goods going to the EU as of 2011, totaling approximately $636.4 billion in total trade.[2]

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html#2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
You are wrong, I already have touched on this. The 60 percent of conservatives who support same sex unions are not uniform, last numbers i saw said about 30 percent of conservatives support same sex marriage, it is about 50-50 marriage and unions. Secondly, the problem with unions, that many of these conservatives know, is that they don't work, they are second class. The only way to get unions to work would be to get marriage the hell out of the law, because that word has magic, and even where the law, as in NJ, creates civic unions, same sex couples have to fight for the rights the law grants, where if you say the magic work, marriage, things fall into place. The NJ supreme court, over the objection of King King our dear governor who can't figure out that the Catholic Church is not the state religion, will probably rule that civic unions have failed to provide same sex couples with equal rights.
It is also interesting that conservatives who go on about the term marriage being sacred, kind of overlook the fact that lots of people get married by JP's, ship's captains, mayors, etc, in secular weddings..how come they don't object to a JP wedding being legal?
Do I think for some on the left this is a casus belli? Sure, the Clintons are prime examples, Hillary is about the worst friend any GLBT person could have, and Bill is not all that better, his behavior in office shows that. On the other hand, there are a lot of conservatives, including Ted Olsen and Bob Barr, who have come to see it for what it is, a rights issue, that the whole 'marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a woman' is inherently discriminatory and in violation of the rights under the constitution. Religious belief in law is a disaster area, and libertarians (unlike the Pauls, who are both phonies) recognize that, that the government should never have granted rights to marriage under that term.
If conservatives are so hyped up on marriage, then they should come up with laws that get marriage out of the law, and leave it to the churches, and make civic unions the law. Civic unions and the like supported by conservatives are supported as a smoke screen against their own stupidity; these same people claim their religious rights are voided all the time, yet they claim that gays legally marrying voids their faith, when they can't see that denying gays the right to marry is them forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

This is exactly what I'm proposing. "Marriage" ends up being a strictly religious term. Civil Unions take the place of "marriage" as it's used in law now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I'm having some trouble, following this. I think you're misinterpretting me and that might be my fault so, I am going to go little-by-little, here (I may even repeat parts of other posts of mine on this thread)

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

For your idea to work, then government would have to stop recognizing marriages, which is what they do in many countries. Marriage could be left to the churches as a religious right, but to get governmental rights, people would need a civic union, gay, straight, poly.......

I get your point about rights, but the reality is the whole 'marriage is the problem' is a smokescreen for many people (not saying you), where they say "I am against the term marriage being used, but okay with civic unions", because they know that the term marriage is legally loaded. Go into a hospital as a married spouse, and your spouse has the right to make medical decisions for you; go in with a civic union, and some dumb ass relative can step in front of you. Federal law only recognizes the term marriage, civic unions have 0 meaning federally, where a lot of the rights are (for example, if you made your same sex partner your beneficiary on a 401k, and you die, a relative could challenge your right to give that money to him (speaking hypothetically), but if you are legally married, they cannot (at least,they won't be able to if Scotus throws out DOMA), because 401k's are under ERISA).

I'm not positive but, I'd bet a dollar that you're singing my song, here; most specifically: I absolutely want the words "married" or "marriage" stricken from every law ever written and replaced with (I think I've worked myself into a verbal issue, here): "partnered" or "Civil Union". I want the government to pretend it's never seen the word "marriage". I want "married" to carry NO LEGAL RIGHTS WHAT-SO-EVER.

Now, I'm not nit-picking but, there's a typo (I think) that I'd like to clarify. You typed: "Marriage could be left to the churches as a religious right, but to get governmental rights, people would need a civic union, gay, straight, poly ...". I think you meant "rite"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

It is interesting that no one has proposed doing what I am saying, throw out marriage completely as a legal term, and make everyone have a civic union, and re-write federal regs to recognize only civic union..problem is, that would give a lot of bigots no more excuses, since civic unions are not holy.....and if you want proof, take a look at the rednecks in North Carolina, who not only banned same sex marriage, they banned gays getting through contracts or other means, any of the rights of marriage.

That is EXACTLY what I proposed, several posts back( Here and here and here and here . I said that it would do two positive things:

1) Give everyone the right to be recognized by the law as far as their relationship status

2) Remove the government from religion which just defends our constitution.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

There is an interesting twist to the sacredness of marriage, and that is that there are more then a few churches that marry same sex couples and consider it sacramental marriage, blessed and so forth...so why when it comes to 'defending' marriage we only hear from the shithead evangelicals and the morons from the RC (who frankly, have so little moral capital, why anyone listens to them I don't know)....is the RC and the evangelicals the only true faith and therefore their declarations of marriage are more valid then let's say the UCC? So the state is deciding now which religious view is real? I would have argued that same sex marriage bans violate the first amendment, because it doesn't allow the weddings of churches who believe same sex marriage is sacred , de facto granting unique status to one religious belief, which is illegal, the state is not supposed to give weight to any one religious belief, it is supposed to be neutral. If a church considers same sex couples married, then it should be recognized by the state, whether the Catholics or evangelicals like it is mute. The line of the religious conservatives is basically marriage is sacred and therefore should not be allowed in the law for same sex couples because of their belief, and that is dead, spot wrong, to those religions who marry same sex couples.

If we seperated marriage out from the law, this would be avoided, but don't hold you breath, DOMA proves what the real intent is.

quote:

The whole sacredness of marriage has only become an issue when same sex folks wanted to marry, they didn't make a big deal that for example, a church wedding counted the same as one done by a JP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Dudette,
from your cite:


According to the United States Census Bureau, the fifteen largest trading partners of the United States represent 73.9% of U.S. imports, and 71.7% of U.S. exports as of December 2011.[1] These figures do not include services or foreign direct investment, but only trade in goods...
This list does not include the European Union (EU), which includes four (Germany, UK, France, Netherlands) of the above states in a single economic entity. As a single economy, the EU is the largest trading partner of the US with $367.8 billion worth of EU goods going to the US and $268.6 billion of US goods going to the EU as of 2011, totaling approximately $636.4 billion in total trade.[2]

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html#2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

dude.. my link does list the countries in the EU.. Germany is #5, the UK #6, etc, etc.. just cuz they are lumped together by your govt on another page (not as "trading partners") as "Trade in Goods with European Union" does not make the EU a trading partner)... it is like lumping each continents trade with the US together (it does not make any continent a "trading partner")...

The e.u. is not a continent.
If it were not considered a "trading partner" the sites referenced would not note the distinction of it's status as the largest trading partner.
I have no quible with a position that states that canada and mexico are #1 and #3 trading countries of the u.s. and that combined these two american economic powerhouses dominate u.s. international trade

quote:

the EU is just an agreement between countries

quote:

If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them? I'd put the over/under at 30 days.

quote:

quote:

I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you?
What derogatory terms do I "keep using"?

"stick and move...stick and move"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

There is an interesting twist to the sacredness of marriage, and that is that there are more then a few churches that marry same sex couples and consider it sacramental marriage, blessed and so forth...so why when it comes to 'defending' marriage we only hear from the shithead evangelicals and the morons from the RC (who frankly, have so little moral capital, why anyone listens to them I don't know)....is the RC and the evangelicals the only true faith and therefore their declarations of marriage are more valid then let's say the UCC? So the state is deciding now which religious view is real? I would have argued that same sex marriage bans violate the first amendment, because it doesn't allow the weddings of churches who believe same sex marriage is sacred , de facto granting unique status to one religious belief, which is illegal, the state is not supposed to give weight to any one religious belief, it is supposed to be neutral. If a church considers same sex couples married, then it should be recognized by the state, whether the Catholics or evangelicals like it is mute. The line of the religious conservatives is basically marriage is sacred and therefore should not be allowed in the law for same sex couples because of their belief, and that is dead, spot wrong, to those religions who marry same sex couples.

If we seperated marriage out from the law, this would be avoided, but don't hold you breath, DOMA proves what the real intent is.

This is an interesting argument and I would agree except that the other side of the coin is as much of an infringement on religious freedom.

Whether you agree with them or not, would it be right for the government to be able to force churches to marry people that those churches don't feel fit the definition. It becomes a true case of "live and let live" which isn't going to happen with such a hot topic issue.

I already gave an answer earlier but I'll repeat it. If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them? I'd put the over/under at 30 days. How is that (here comes the phrase the PPLs love in all cases except this one) "seperation of church and state"? How does that not violate the first amendment?

Conversely, the way I see it, the only way to make this work is to have two different kinds of marriages (with only one, being legally recognized). That seems to fit all the criteria of making as many people as possible happy.

Gays and lesbians are recognized by the law (which is really what the argument is allegedly about) and religious folk get to "protect" their sacrements.

Those religions that feel that marrying same-sex couples is the right thing to do have no one to answer to except their congregations/hierarchy/higher power and those that don't have to answer to the same entities.

Either way you slice it, gays and lesbians get to be recognized equally, under the law and churches that don't want to marry gays and lesbians don't have to.

I will repeat: I think the only reason the choice of wording has become a bone of contention is to keep the issue alive. If the real goal is equality, there has to be "give" on both sides.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

This is an interesting argument and I would agree except that the other side of the coin is as much of an infringement on religious freedom.

quote:

Whether you agree with them or not, would it be right for the government to be able to force churches to marry people that those churches don't feel fit the definition.

quote:

It becomes a true case of "live and let live" which isn't going to happen with such a hot topic issue.

quote:

I already gave an answer earlier but I'll repeat it. If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

If we keep the term "marriage" and goverment passes a law that "all marriages" are equal, how long before someone uses the courts to force a particular religion to marry them? I'd put the over/under at 30 days.

Has this happened in any of the jurisdictions with same-sex marriages? It's been almost a decade in Massachusetts.

quote:

get married by the local priest or get married by the elvis impersonator in Vegas, counts the same, you are married.

So elvis or the guy with the invisible friend...when you say I do she is now entitled to 50%

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you?

I'm working on changing two things:

1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter.
2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples.

You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Why is it important that it be called a marriage, if benefits are conferred by it being a civil union?

Because it is a marriage: a loving, faithful commitment to building a life together. And, imho, gay folks' marriages deserve the same respect and dignity as others'. Part of that respect stems from nomenclature.
Why is it so important to you that the word "marriage" not be applied to same-sex couples? You're going through remarkable contortions, including an ahistorical redefinition of the term, just to keep from sharing the word with queers.

I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you?
I'm working on changing two things:
1. So that there is a separation from religion and State in this matter.
2. Allow access to being wed to same sex couples.
You apparently miss - not the first time - that non-religious weddings between opposite sex couples would also not be called a marriage, and, if a church participates in a same sex wedding, it would be a "marriage." This has nothing to do with the sex of the couples, really, but in the officiating of the wedding.

If the two terms are equal then how bout the same sex folks call their unions marriages and the jesus phreaques call their unions religious unions?

• 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: Powergamz1
No, you aren't. And it isn't 'derogatory' to correctly point out when you are making up falsehoods.
Your argument from the beginning has been to repeat the failed tactics of anti-miscegenationists and segregationists, by taking away the word marriage and the right to a government issued marriage license, from same sex couples and sticking gay people with the 2nd class citizen 'separate-but-unequal' status of civil unions, by citing the blatant lie that marriage is a religious icon.
You've been given authoritative links to the facts which debunk those lies every time you parrot them, and you repeat the pattern of running away, blithely pretending that reality simply doesn't exist, and then pulling another drive-by regurgitation.
You can keep playing this 'two plus two equals 22' sophomoric game all you want, no one is falling for 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)