Same-sex marriage approved by the state of New York.

Tenets, not tenants.

Do you want the gov't to force Church B to recognize interracial marriage? Do you even want the gov't to recognize interracial marriage? Or would it be cool with you if a defense of marriage act outlawed it outright? Or if an amendment to the Constitution said that blacks and whites could never marry?

This exact conversation took place over that exact issue and it wasn't so long ago.

 

Well put. I would also add that allowing Gays to marry in no way forces religious institutions to recognize those marriages. The Catholic Church or any other institution under separation of church and state can still refuse to allow Gay marriages in their churches and also recognize them as sanctified. As the quote you note though is that in terms of civil society the government is the only agency that can confer the status of marriage.

I understand and personally agree with Commodore's point that the state should be out of the marriage business but given that in our society the government has been involved in marriage and is very very unlikely to get out of it then we should work to expand that institution. TO say that we shouldn't because government shouldn't be involved in the first place just strikes me as the perfect being the enemy of the good.

Let me give an example that you and Commodore might appreciate. Lets say that a state is giving restaurant licenses to American, French, and Chinese restaurants but not licensing Mexican restaurants. Now should we say it is wrong to license Mexican restaurants because the state shouldn't be involved in licensing altogether and we are just expanded the licensing regime? That is an argument that few, especially Mexican restauranters would buy.

 

If this happens at all presently, it will stop the week after gay marriage is legalized nationwide. Gays don't want to shove anything down your throat (okay, okay, settle down), they just want equal rights.

 

No one is forcing you to get a gay marriage. You are still free to not personally accept gay marriage as much as you were before.

 

No church is being forced to accept a gay marriage or any marriage. As far as a church is concerned they are free to accept or not acknowledge any marriage.

 

True. Every church in the world could reject gay marriage and it should still have a guaranteed place of sanction. This is exactly the argument for government staying in the marriage business. The importance of marriage being offered by a secular source (the government), is a great example of separation of church and state that ensures that no group is denied the dignity conferred by equal rights under the law.

 

What about common law marriage? Are those now enforced?

 

I don't think the government should have say in marriage at all.
If Church B does not recognize interracial marriage . . . *shrug*
Interracially married people need to find another church.

It is hard to say . . you have freedom of religion . .then constrain what your tenets can and cannot say . . . how is that free?

Rocket River

 

My basic point is. . . .
marriage .. . Gay, Straight, interracial, etc
SHOULD NOT BE A GOVERNMENTAL ISSUE

whether you are married or not . . . should have no effect whatsoever
on your rights/privileges/etc . . as far as the government is concerned.

Example:
I find tax breaks for the married to be discriminatory to the single.
Me and my girlfriend live together with no marriage. . why should our taxes be different than a married couple?
Still two people paying taxes. . . what's the difference?? There should not be any difference! Why is the government making it different?

Rocket River

 

If the state has no involvement in marriage, who decides secular issues like division of property, custody of children, tax issues, benefits, issues relaying to family, visiting rights, etc?

 

Well in that case then why should we have ever desegregated schools when education shouldn't be a government issue?

See my response to Basso's post above. Its a fact that the government is involved in marriage, has been since before this country was founded and is unlikely to get out of that business. The argument that we shouldn't expand the legal definition of marriage because government shouldn't be involved in the first place is either making the perfect the enemy of the good or a red herring to try to shift the argument to argue against gay marriage without straight out saying that you don't want gays to marry.

 

Since everyone's taxes were involved. . and taxes paid for the schools
that was the governmental 'IN' . . in those situations
There is no such 'IN' for marriage.

Heck . . . I dunno . . .not my intention.
Beyond the academic . . I don't care.
I mean . . i prefer the Gov to be out of it. . . but beyond that
not my issue. . . .

Next step is to continuation to expand it.
Why not include the polygamist?
What is the real argument against polygamy?

If the definition of marriage is malleable . . . the next question is .. . when or where does it stop . . . or does it?

Rocket River

 

Division of property, custodial rights, etc - all the civil service stuff.

It stops whereever society feel comfortable with it.

This idea that government should be out of marriage is nonsense - it's like saying government shouldn't provide one of its most basic of services: organizing and creating structure in society. Marriage is not a religious institution; it's existed since the advent of any sort of organized civil society. Marriage is ALSO a religious thing, but neither side has any exclusivity to the concept. Non-religious societies have always had marriage too. It would be just as silly as to say the Church should not be involved in marriage.

 

Finally, esteban can marry a tranny!

 

good for them

 

I guess I see too much of a paradox where it seems the more rights and liberties people are given, the more they enact on those rights not be discreet but to be DOUCHY and annoying


Liberty for all for sure. Though isnt that really the true "spoils" of liberty ?

 

Ticky tack, but I don't think ALL anti-gay arguments are founded in religion. I am not religious. I respect the institution of man-woman family enough and THE IDENTITY of straight to where I had skepticism of allowing gay marriage. Nothing to do with religion.

But other than that small bit, yes its well reasoned.

 

Generally marriage is about about family and children. The "nuclear" family of a committed father and mother is still considered the model of stability for children. Probably a good idea to incentivize that setup with less tax liability (Though listing dependents could have the same benefit).

I'm single, no partner. But I surely don't think I should be taxed LESS than a family. If anyone is gonna be taxed less, it should be the family whether they are married or not. But yeah if they can recognize common law marriage, they should recognize a common law tax rate with it?



As it relates to gay marriage, its part of why I was initially against it years back. To me the benefit of marriage is mostly toward children, but had my doubts about gays raising children. Not about their parenting ability but about the world valuing reproducing as much straightness as it can. And since gays can't reproduce with each other, they'd be in it just for the tax breaks. (And having a surrogate mother fertilize and carry of their sperm is just...just...)

But then it became interesting why gays would even WANT to marry, doing that "antiquated" institution in this Brave New World thats moving away from marriage and everything else. Hard to define in the law books, maybe it does say something about "love" after all.

 

Great, now go sanction MMA damn it.

 

Except then why should I as an adult with no children have to pay taxes for schools? Or for that matter then why should the tax code reward people for having children?

The government already has an 'IN' regarding education. Your reasoning strikes me as fairly weak to say that we shouldn't be expanding marriage because government has no business in marriage anymore than we should be expanding eligibility to education because government has no business in child rearing.

So you don't care, its not your issue but you are arguing against it. Got it.

Personally I would allow polygamy as long as it was consenting adults but the problem with it is that the tax and legal codes are not set up to deal with multiple party marriages whereas it is set up for two people. Gender doesn't particularly affect those issues.

Just to add since I recall you complaining about how men often get the short end of the stick in divorces making marriage more gender neutral would actually help that.