THanks for clarifying that. It's a ridiculous claim, but still nowhere near the idea that there is no difference between a politician who wants to make a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and one who opposes such an amendment. I'm sorry but that idea is just incredibly stupid. It makes no sense.
No...the distinctions are pretty clear. Nobody is advocating forcing churches to marry gay couples. A church wedding is merely one of many ways to enter into the legally recognized union called marriage. The legal union is one created by civil law. It is, therefore, a civil union. I am Catholic. I divorced my first wife. If I get remarried, the state will recognize the union at civil law, but the church will not recognize the marriage. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Marriage is a religious rite. The union created at law is no different than if the couple went to the JP and did it. Since the two are not the same thing, it is not having your cake and eating it too. It is recognizing the concept of marriage for what it is...a religious rite.
You don't make sense. Just because the catholic church will not "recognize" your next marriage does not mean some other church won't. Likewise, of course I'm not advocating forced gay marriages in any church - that should be up to the church's discretion. Ergo - it is the church that decides who they will marry, gay or otherwise, not the state. Exactly as the US constitution intended. You are having your cake and eating it. You are saying marriage is "religious", and then arbitrarily deciding what constitutes appropriate "religiousness" according to your own worldview. That's fine and dandy (I certainly don't care what you personally define as marriage), but the state BY DEFINITION should not care, and neither should a competing church, who should be allowed to marry whomever.
This is ridiculous. I really think you don't get the distinction. For every marriage in the US, there are two components: 1. Religious. 2. State civil law sanctioning it and providing rules to protect the spouses from each other in the event of dissolution. EVERYBODY, gay, straight, or otherwise is deserving of the protection of the state civil laws. The various states call it marriage, but it really is not. That is borrowing the religious name for a civil union ie a union in which the state civil laws provide protection (divorce laws, etc). Churches, through their doctrine, decides who they recognize as married, even if the state does not. It is bizarre that being able to delineate the differences between the two components could be considered having your cake and eating it too. I guess it could be...unless you understand the basic premise.
Refman: Maybe I'm missing something but tomorrow morning I could go with my girlfriend to the justice of the peace and get married by the state. My gay friends cannot do the same thing. That is the problem. And it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with equal rights and the denial of same. If the anti-gay lobby is so freaked out by gay marriage that they'd like to take the state's right to marry people away, FINE. Do it now. And let churches discriminate at will. That is their prerogative. It should not be the government's. All I'm advocating for is EQUAL rights.
I think we are saying the same thing, just from different angles. Marriage is religious you say - fine, whatever. Then the state should be ambivalent to rules and regulations defining it. If the catholic church does not want to call you married - hooray for them. The church of the flying spaghetti monster down the street recognizes you as married, marries you in their sanctuary and life moves on. Similarly, if a gay couple wants to get "married", the state should be ambivalent. If the church of the flaming jesus is willing to marry gay couples, so be it. The catholic church can b**** and moan until the rapture about how horrible that is, but it's not the state's place to step in and define it. As you said, civil unions from a legal perspective should be available to anyone via laws pertaining to equality.
basso is such a huge supporter of gay rights that he acknowledges no difference between a politician who supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and a politician who is opposed to such an amendment. Nothing says support for gay rights like that. How could anyone ever doubt basso's immovable resolve to seeing justice done? I mean look at his statements on the subject. He doesn't see party affiliation when it comes to gay rights. How could he? He doesn't even see the difference in changing our governing document to discriminate against homosexuals, and not changing it to discriminate against homosexuals. Can he see at all?
You are missing my point. What I am advocating is the law abandoning the use of the term marriage. Marriage being a term with religion in its origin. Its use in law is outmoded. What the law really recognizes is a union between two people created and protected by civil law. What I am advocating is a system by which you and your girlfriend can go to the justice of the peace and enter into a civil union. If you want to go to a church and get married within that church, that would be one of many ways to enter into that civil union. If a gay couple wants to, they could go to the justice of the peace and enter into the same civil union. No differences. If a church wants to recognize that union as a marriage, that would similarly be one of many ways to enter into that union. Marriage remains a religious rite. All the law will care about is whether the partners to the relationship (heterosexual or homosexual) have entered into the civil union. This way, all of those persons who wish to legally commit can do so. All can get the same rights and protections that such unions provide. I hope I cleared up what I really mean.
For a lot of people, it is semantic. It is all about nomenclature. The nomenclature, as it pertains to law, is outdated. Change it, and make things fair across the board.
What you are saying is fair and makes sense. It doesn't make sense when people(not that you are doing this) use this reasoning as an excuse to say same sex marriage isn't needed. Until the law IS changed for heterosexuals then same sex couples should have the same rights regarding marriage. Because whatever the law is for one, it should be the same for both.
I forgot to mention I'm really for the war in Iraq and keeping it going with our troops still in place. I just don't happen to see a difference between politicians that want to end the war and allow the troops to return home, or be used in Afghanistan to fight the terrorists and their supporters who attacked the U.S. and politicians who believe our troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely and the war in Iraq should continue. They are exactly the same to me.
What do you mean basso is not a friend of the gay community?? He has been up Trader_Jorge' azz for months.....that explains Trader_Jorge's absence from the boards.
Marriage isn't a religious word. The latin base of the word is "maritare" which literally means "give husband to." They shouldn't care if it's called gay marriage because their religion doesn't own the word or the concept.
I don't agree with the semantics argument. Married vs Civil Union. Most churches won't recognize gay marriage whether it's legal or not anyway so whats the difference? People either think gay couples should be married or they don't. Gays either have the right to be recognized by our government as married or they don't. Right now they don't in most places.
