A proposal to solve the whole thing.

[dianaiad]

Here is an article I'm thinking of sending to....someone.

I'm sure it's useless; everybody is so intent on holding his or her own opinion regarding this and in pounding the other side into the pavement that it will be ignored or argued with. However.....

What do y'all think?

Who'd read it?

[center]A Proposal to solve the marriage problem in the USA.
[/center]

[center]Get government out of the marriage business, period. [/center]

mar•riage/ˈmarij/
Noun: 1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2. A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

Almost every definition of the word ‘marriage’ includes two very important ideas: ‘formal union,� and ‘recognized by law.� The purpose behind getting married seems to be…to form a family. The idea of a formal recognition of a familial (sexual) relationship has been around since before written history began.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this, though I have heard precious few people comment on this, is the wording “recognized by law.� Please notice; marriages are not MADE by law, but only recognized by law. Marriage, as an idea and an institution, predates the USA, is practiced and defined very differently by many different cultures outside of the USA (and within it, state by state, as well). Marriages have included polygamy, polyandry, monogamy, groups with both men and women in the relationships and homosexual relationships.

Even in today’s American culture, when a couple decides to ‘go get married,’ they are thinking about the wedding ceremony that is performed by their clergyman (or the Elvis impersonator or the friend on the beach) and about the vows they take there…vows that are not, and cannot be, enforced by civil law. They are not thinking about the license they paid for three days previous, or the signing of the certificate—which doesn’t apply government rights to that marriage until it is properly filed by the officiator.

No, the government doesn’t define, or make, the marriage. The government recognizes a marriage that the participants have made.

Today there is a huge controversy about whether or not gays may marry one another. In California, where gays had every single one of the civil rights that the government could grant a recognized marriage, it was not enough; gays wanted to be recognized and approved of culturally as MARRIED.

This is understandable; why not, if they have made a formal commitment to one another, and they have all the civil rights, why can’t they call themselves ‘married?� It doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, on the surface.

However, it is unreasonable. Since “marriage’ as an idea does predate any law or right attached to it, and since the whole idea is about families and what cultures and belief systems think marriage ‘really’ is, then having the government dictate to everybody who they can consider ‘married’ is going to cause problems. It is, in fact, establishing a religion…or at least a religious stance. That is fundamentally against the First Amendment. There are many cultures and belief systems that do not think that gays can marry one another. Not ‘they should not,’ but rather ‘they cannot.� To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs in order to comply with something so completely against their own ideas is indeed ‘establishing a religion.� However, that is, as far as I can see, exactly what gays want here. It’s not that they want the equal rights; in California they HAD those. They want the forced cultural and religious approval to which they have no right.

However, they DO have the right to those legal rights; whether or not gays may marry is a religious, moral and ethical problem, not a legal one. The government has the right to assign civil rights to whomever it wishes, and not only should, but MUST, ignore religious and cultural opinions in doing so. If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again. Certainly if a homosexual couple belongs to a culture/belief system/church that accepts their marriage, then they have a right to BE married…and certainly nobody can tell them that they are not, within those beliefs.

It’s a quandary and a problem…and a problem that government is not well equipped to solve. I know this, because my own belief system has seen, to its huge cost, what happens when the government decides to enforce its definition of ‘marriage’ upon a group that believes differently. We have been ejected from our nation, made legal prey by the governor of a state, had close to HALF the armed services of the USA sent against us in order to remove and arrest the governor of the territory we were finally able to settle.

That was a while ago, true. However, less than ten years ago one of our offshoot sects had their towns invaded by men with full body armor, automatic weapons, tanks and guns—and the authority of the state—and the women and children taken away in Baptist buses, interned in a facility where the sanitary facilities were ‘Andy Gumps� in the back parking lots, and the children removed from their mothers because the state wanted to enforce ITS definition of marriage upon a group that disagreed.

I can’t tell you how often I have been told that, if gay marriage were made legal that nobody would force religions to accept them. Please pardon me if I am skeptical; given the above examples, I have a right to be.

But…do I have the right to keep those who do not share my faith from being happy and getting married because I don’t want the government interfering with MY freedom of religion?

It’s a problem.

Here’s the solution.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let’s get back to the idea that the government only RECOGNIZES marriages, and does not make them. In fact, let’s not even do that. Let ALL aspects of marriage that the government can enforce be given a name that reflects the government’s ability and power; make ‘em all ‘civil unions.’ Remove all legal power from clergymen who perform marriages, so that ‘marriage,’ that institution that predates law and is recognized so differently by so many different nations and states, means only the part that is managed by the church, the culture and the couple.

Make this a two tiered event…if a couple wants both the marriage and the legal rights that the government says can go with it, they have to sign the civil contracts with the government..and that’s what they would be called; civil contracts, or civil unions. THEN, if they want to, they go get married according to their own beliefs or in whatever fashion appeals to them. They can do both, or one, or the other. The ‘wedding’ will have no legal power…just religious or personal, and the civil union has no religious meaning; strictly legal contractual stuff.

That way anybody can marry…and I do mean really get married...as they wish, AND they all get the rights; gay, straight, whoever. At the same time, though, religions cannot be sued, fined, or legislated against if they say to someone who hasn’t been married according to their beliefs “sorry, you ain’t married.�

A gay photographer who specializes only in gay weddings…and advertises this…cannot be sued for discrimination by a straight couple who wants him to shoot their wedding, and vice versa. (as far as I am aware, though there ARE such gay photographers who specialize in gay only weddings, none have been sued. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the ‘vice versa’)

It’s not even as if this is so unusual and outrageous an idea. “Two tiered� weddings have been around, in many other nations, for quite a while.

So that’s it. That’s my idea. Get government entirely out of marriage. Everybody wins; gays get the rights, gays may marry, and those who disagree with gay marriage can’t be forced to change their religious behavior and beliefs, even as they will have to, in non-religious public arenas, obey the law regarding civil rights. Everybody wins.

[help3434]

Here is an article I'm thinking of sending to....someone.

I'm sure it's useless; everybody is so intent on holding his or her own opinion regarding this and in pounding the other side into the pavement that it will be ignored or argued with. However.....

What do y'all think?

Who'd read it?

[center]A Proposal to solve the marriage problem in the USA.
[/center]

[center]Get government out of the marriage business, period. [/center]

mar•riage/ˈmarij/
Noun: 1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2. A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

Almost every definition of the word ‘marriage’ includes two very important ideas: ‘formal union,� and ‘recognized by law.� The purpose behind getting married seems to be…to form a family. The idea of a formal recognition of a familial (sexual) relationship has been around since before written history began.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this, though I have heard precious few people comment on this, is the wording “recognized by law.� Please notice; marriages are not MADE by law, but only recognized by law. Marriage, as an idea and an institution, predates the USA, is practiced and defined very differently by many different cultures outside of the USA (and within it, state by state, as well). Marriages have included polygamy, polyandry, monogamy, groups with both men and women in the relationships and homosexual relationships.

Even in today’s American culture, when a couple decides to ‘go get married,’ they are thinking about the wedding ceremony that is performed by their clergyman (or the Elvis impersonator or the friend on the beach) and about the vows they take there…vows that are not, and cannot be, enforced by civil law. They are not thinking about the license they paid for three days previous, or the signing of the certificate—which doesn’t apply government rights to that marriage until it is properly filed by the officiator.

No, the government doesn’t define, or make, the marriage. The government recognizes a marriage that the participants have made.

Today there is a huge controversy about whether or not gays may marry one another. In California, where gays had every single one of the civil rights that the government could grant a recognized marriage, it was not enough; gays wanted to be recognized and approved of culturally as MARRIED.

This is understandable; why not, if they have made a formal commitment to one another, and they have all the civil rights, why can’t they call themselves ‘married?� It doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, on the surface.

However, it is unreasonable. Since “marriage’ as an idea does predate any law or right attached to it, and since the whole idea is about families and what cultures and belief systems think marriage ‘really’ is, then having the government dictate to everybody who they can consider ‘married’ is going to cause problems.

The law and government is a reflection of our government. The U.S. is not run by foreign dictators. The U.S. government is run by people we have elected and people appointed by those we have elected.

It is, in fact, establishing a religion…or at least a religious stance. That is fundamentally against the First Amendment. There are many cultures and belief systems that do not think that gays can marry one another. Not ‘they should not,’ but rather ‘they cannot.� To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs in order to comply with something so completely against their own ideas is indeed ‘establishing a religion.� However, that is, as far as I can see, exactly what gays want here. It’s not that they want the equal rights; in California they HAD those. They want the forced cultural and religious approval to which they have no right.

This is ridiculous. Having the government recognize gay marriage doesn't change any doctrine. It may force business owners and managers with certain religious beliefs to act differently, but it does change their doctrine.

However, they DO have the right to those legal rights; whether or not gays may marry is a religious, moral and ethical problem, not a legal one. The government has the right to assign civil rights to whomever it wishes, and not only should, but MUST, ignore religious and cultural opinions in doing so. If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again. Certainly if a homosexual couple belongs to a culture/belief system/church that accepts their marriage, then they have a right to BE married…and certainly nobody can tell them that they are not, within those beliefs.

It’s a quandary and a problem…and a problem that government is not well equipped to solve. I know this, because my own belief system has seen, to its huge cost, what happens when the government decides to enforce its definition of ‘marriage’ upon a group that believes differently. We have been ejected from our nation, made legal prey by the governor of a state, had close to HALF the armed services of the USA sent against us in order to remove and arrest the governor of the territory we were finally able to settle.

Back then the LDS church was the victim of those who wanted the government to limit the definition of marriage. Now the LDS church is on the side of those who want to limit the definition of marriage. I certainly haven't heard of any General Authorities saying that the government should get out the business of recognizing marriage altogether. Please show me any such statements from a General Authority if there are any.

That was a while ago, true. However, less than ten years ago one of our offshoot sects had their towns invaded by men with full body armor, automatic weapons, tanks and guns—and the authority of the state—and the women and children taken away in Baptist buses, interned in a facility where the sanitary facilities were ‘Andy Gumps� in the back parking lots, and the children removed from their mothers because the state wanted to enforce ITS definition of marriage upon a group that disagreed.

I agree that the government was too heavy handed in this case, but the invasion was prompted by allegations of abuse. It is true that the caller lied about her identity, but several men were convicted of sexually assaulting minors.

I can’t tell you how often I have been told that, if gay marriage were made legal that nobody would force religions to accept them. Please pardon me if I am skeptical; given the above examples, I have a right to be.

The above example are examples of the government trying to limit, not expand, the definition of marriage.

But…do I have the right to keep those who do not share my faith from being happy and getting married because I don’t want the government interfering with MY freedom of religion?

It’s a problem.

Here’s the solution.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let’s get back to the idea that the government only RECOGNIZES marriages, and does not make them. In fact, let’s not even do that. Let ALL aspects of marriage that the government can enforce be given a name that reflects the government’s ability and power; make ‘em all ‘civil unions.’ Remove all legal power from clergymen who perform marriages, so that ‘marriage,’ that institution that predates law and is recognized so differently by so many different nations and states, means only the part that is managed by the church, the culture and the couple.

Make this a two tiered event…if a couple wants both the marriage and the legal rights that the government says can go with it, they have to sign the civil contracts with the government..and that’s what they would be called; civil contracts, or civil unions. THEN, if they want to, they go get married according to their own beliefs or in whatever fashion appeals to them. They can do both, or one, or the other. The ‘wedding’ will have no legal power…just religious or personal, and the civil union has no religious meaning; strictly legal contractual stuff.

That way anybody can marry…and I do mean really get married...as they wish, AND they all get the rights; gay, straight, whoever. At the same time, though, religions cannot be sued, fined, or legislated against if they say to someone who hasn’t been married according to their beliefs “sorry, you ain’t married.�

Interesting idea, but I doubt it will happened. It would require more widespread change than simply expanding the definition of marriage.

A gay photographer who specializes only in gay weddings…and advertises this…cannot be sued for discrimination by a straight couple who wants him to shoot their wedding, and vice versa. (as far as I am aware, though there ARE such gay photographers who specialize in gay only weddings, none have been sued. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the ‘vice versa’)

I don't see how taking the legal aspect out of weddings would prevent businesses from being sued for discrimination.

It’s not even as if this is so unusual and outrageous an idea. “Two tiered� weddings have been around, in many other nations, for quite a while.

So that’s it. That’s my idea. Get government entirely out of marriage. Everybody wins; gays get the rights, gays may marry, and those who disagree with gay marriage can’t be forced to change their religious behavior and beliefs, even as they will have to, in non-religious public arenas, obey the law regarding civil rights. Everybody wins.

But in those countries they are called civil marriage instead civil unions, are they not? From what I understand in those countries LDS members in those countries don't face a year penalty for marrying outside the temple. The LDS church should remove the year penalty in North American even if the law doesn't change.

[dianaiad]

The law and government is a reflection of our government. The U.S. is not run by foreign dictators. The U.S. government is run by people we have elected and people appointed by those we have elected.

"Majority rules?" The constitution was written to protect the rights of those who might be overruled by the majority. No matter who approves of what 'side' is being protected.

It is, in fact, establishing a religion…or at least a religious stance. That is fundamentally against the First Amendment. There are many cultures and belief systems that do not think that gays can marry one another. Not ‘they should not,’ but rather ‘they cannot.� To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs in order to comply with something so completely against their own ideas is indeed ‘establishing a religion.� However, that is, as far as I can see, exactly what gays want here. It’s not that they want the equal rights; in California they HAD those. They want the forced cultural and religious approval to which they have no right.

This is ridiculous. Having the government recognize gay marriage doesn't change any doctrine. It may force business owners and managers with certain religious beliefs to act differently, but it does change their doctrine.

Now THAT argument makes my blood boil. It says "You can think what you want, but you aren't allowed to behave according to your beliefs or indeed, behave in any way contrary to MINE."

Perhaps reading the actual text of the first amendment would be salutary here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please notice the italicized part: it's about more than 'doctrine.' It's about the 'free exercise' of that doctrine.

Back then the LDS church was the victim of those who wanted the government to limit the definition of marriage. Now the LDS church is on the side of those who want to limit the definition of marriage. I certainly haven't heard of any General Authorities saying that the government should get out the business of recognizing marriage altogether. Please show me any such statements from a General Authority if there are any.

Actually, given that the church had no objections to the California laws granting full civil rights to gay couples who entered into a domestic partnership/civil union, and only got involved when they demanded religious and cultural recognition of those rights as 'marriage' according to religious and cultural definitions, I think you are a bit off base here.

Either way, I'm not representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints in this proposal. I used our history as an example of what happens when the government is given that sort of power, but hey; had it happened to someone else, I would have used them, as well.

AMOF, the FLDS folks are considered to be pretty darned heretical by the CoJCoLDS, come to think. I used 'em anyway.

I agree that the government was too heavy handed in this case, but the invasion was prompted by allegations of abuse. It is true that the caller lied about her identity, but several men were convicted of sexually assaulting minors.

Yes...but they were indicted BEFORE the raid, and the principle excuse for the raid was, as you mentioned, a fraudulent call....which it turns out the Texas authorities knew was fraudulent.

.......and since when do the 'ends justify the means," anyway? Every single court that heard appeals in this case told the Texas CPA to cut it out; studies showed that there was very little, if any, child abuse going on in that compound, and that in fact by taking the children away from their mothers and putting them into the Texas foster care system, Texas had increased their likelihood of abuse by over ten times.

You are aware, as well, that appeals to every single case that used evidence obtained in that raid are still going through courts, and it looks like they may all get thrown out, right?

The above example are examples of the government trying to limit, not expand, the definition of marriage.

Limit, expand....the words you are looking for are 'change' and 'define."

Interesting idea, but I doubt it will happened. It would require more widespread change than simply expanding the definition of marriage.

Not really, no. It would, I contend, be far simpler.

..............and may I ask; did you read my entire post before you began to reply?

I don't see how taking the legal aspect out of weddings would prevent businesses from being sued for discrimination.

Quite easily. Nobody has ever sued a Hawaiian luau catering company that specializes in Kalua pork for declining to do a Bar Mitzvah.

Nobody has ever sued a Kosher deli for refusing to sell ham sandwiches.

Nobody has ever sued a wedding dress designer for refusing to make a wedding dress proper for a 'Temple' wedding (that is, modest, with actual sleeves).

Businesses could be sued for refusing to 'do' parties celebrating a civil union...but not for the wedding.

But in those countries they are called civil marriage instead civil unions, are they not? From what I understand in those countries LDS members in those countries don't face a year penalty for marrying outside the temple. The LDS church should remove the year penalty in North American even if the law doesn't change.

That's not the problem, and please don't tell me that you don't know this. The PROBLEM doesn't lie in a 'year wait." It lies in the government forcing its idea of marriage upon religious people who have RELIGIOUS objections to the RELIGIOUS aspect of a MARRIAGE.

Separate church and state here. Call marriage what it is; a custom that has predated almost every government ever historically recorded; religious and cultural, a trade of promises between people that simply cannot be enforced by ANY government. Let the government apply civil rights where it will, to whatever relationship it likes.

People can then choose. Civil unions for the rights, Marriage for those aspects that the government has no 'say' over.

Unless you can figure out how to make 'failing to love, honor and cherish' against the law, and prescribe jail time for it?

[McCulloch]

[center]A Proposal to solve the marriage problem in the CSA.[/center]

Yesterday there was a huge controversy about whether or not whites may marry blacks. This is understandable; why not, if they have made a formal commitment to one another, and they have all the civil rights, why can’t they call themselves ‘married?� It doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, on the surface.

However, it is unreasonable. Since “marriage’ as an idea does predate any law or right attached to it, and since the whole idea is about families and what cultures and belief systems think marriage ‘really’ is, then having the government dictate to everybody who they can consider ‘married’ is going to cause problems. It is, in fact, establishing a religion…or at least a religious stance. That is fundamentally against the First Amendment. There are many cultures and belief systems that do not think that whites can marry blacks. To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs in order to comply with something so completely against their own ideas is indeed ‘establishing a religion.� However, that is, as far as I can see, exactly what civil rights activists want here. They want the forced cultural and religious approval to which they have no right.

Whether or not whites may marry blacks is a religious, moral and ethical problem, not a legal one. The government has the right to assign civil rights to whomever it wishes, and not only should, but MUST, ignore religious and cultural opinions in doing so. If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again. Certainly if a mixed race couple belongs to a culture/belief system/church that accepts their marriage, then they have a right to BE married…and certainly nobody can tell them that they are not, within those beliefs.

It’s a quandary and a problem…and a problem that government is not well equipped to solve. I can’t tell you how often I have been told that, if racially mixed marriage were made legal that nobody would force religions to accept them.

[help3434]

The law and government is a reflection of our government. The U.S. is not run by foreign dictators. The U.S. government is run by people we have elected and people appointed by those we have elected.

"Majority rules?" The constitution was written to protect the rights of those who might be overruled by the majority. No matter who approves of what 'side' is being protected.

I agree. That is why bans against gay marriage have been struck down as unconstitutional even in states where the majority of voters voted for the ban.

p=695045#695045]help3434[/url]"]
This is ridiculous. Having the government recognize gay marriage doesn't change any doctrine. It may force business owners and managers with certain religious beliefs to act differently, but it does change their doctrine.

Now THAT argument makes my blood boil. It says "You can think what you want, but you aren't allowed to behave according to your beliefs or indeed, behave in any way contrary to MINE."
[/quote]
That is not what I am saying. I mean in the context of a business that is open to the public. For example a business owner who holds to Christian Identity (Christian White Supremacy theology) is not allowed to refuse service to non-white customers even if mingling with non-white people is against his religious beliefs.

[help3434]

Back then the LDS church was the victim of those who wanted the government to limit the definition of marriage. Now the LDS church is on the side of those who want to limit the definition of marriage. I certainly haven't heard of any General Authorities saying that the government should get out the business of recognizing marriage altogether. Please show me any such statements from a General Authority if there are any.

Actually, given that the church had no objections to the California laws granting full civil rights to gay couples who entered into a domestic partnership/civil union, and only got involved when they demanded religious and cultural recognition of those rights as 'marriage' according to religious and cultural definitions, I think you are a bit off base here.

How am I off base? Church leaders supporting civil unions is not the same thing as church leaders saying that the government should not recognize marriages.

<snip>

Interesting idea, but I doubt it will happened. It would require more widespread change than simply expanding the definition of marriage.

Not really, no. It would, I contend, be far simpler.

How is changing how the whole thing works simpler than expanding it?

Businesses could be sued for refusing to 'do' parties celebrating a civil union...but not for the wedding.

That doesn't make sense. Neither parties or weddings (in your scenario) are legally binding events. Either businesses could be sued for both or sued for neither.

But in those countries they are called civil marriage instead civil unions, are they not? From what I understand in those countries LDS members in those countries don't face a year penalty for marrying outside the temple. The LDS church should remove the year penalty in North American even if the law doesn't change.

That's not the problem, and please don't tell me that you don't know this. The PROBLEM doesn't lie in a 'year wait." It lies in the government forcing its idea of marriage upon religious people who have RELIGIOUS objections to the RELIGIOUS aspect of a MARRIAGE.

I was going off on a tangent. It is not THE problem you were talking about in the thread, but it is something that some people consider a problem. In some countries (but not others) the LDS church make some people choose between having a wedding that includes those that don't have a temple recommend, instead of letting them have both in a short period of time.

Separate church and state here. Call marriage what it is; a custom that has predated almost every government ever historically recorded; religious and cultural, a trade of promises between people that simply cannot be enforced by ANY government. Let the government apply civil rights where it will, to whatever relationship it likes.

People can then choose. Civil unions for the rights, Marriage for those aspects that the government has no 'say' over.

Unless you can figure out how to make 'failing to love, honor and cherish' against the law, and prescribe jail time for it?

Maybe it is a good idea. Are there any members of Congress that have talked about it?

[dianaiad]

[center]A Proposal to solve the marriage problem in the CSA.[/center]

Yesterday there was a huge controversy about whether or not whites may marry blacks. This is understandable; why not, if they have made a formal commitment to one another, and they have all the civil rights, why can’t they call themselves ‘married?� It doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, on the surface.

However, it is unreasonable. Since “marriage’ as an idea does predate any law or right attached to it, and since the whole idea is about families and what cultures and belief systems think marriage ‘really’ is, then having the government dictate to everybody who they can consider ‘married’ is going to cause problems. It is, in fact, establishing a religion…or at least a religious stance. That is fundamentally against the First Amendment. There are many cultures and belief systems that do not think that whites can marry blacks. To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs in order to comply with something so completely against their own ideas is indeed ‘establishing a religion.� However, that is, as far as I can see, exactly what civil rights activists want here. They want the forced cultural and religious approval to which they have no right.

Whether or not whites may marry blacks is a religious, moral and ethical problem, not a legal one. The government has the right to assign civil rights to whomever it wishes, and not only should, but MUST, ignore religious and cultural opinions in doing so. If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again. Certainly if a mixed race couple belongs to a culture/belief system/church that accepts their marriage, then they have a right to BE married…and certainly nobody can tell them that they are not, within those beliefs.

It’s a quandary and a problem…and a problem that government is not well equipped to solve. I can’t tell you how often I have been told that, if racially mixed marriage were made legal that nobody would force religions to accept them.

The only argument you are making here is that because YOU believe that it should be legal for 'whites to marry blacks" and that this notion should be forced upon religions, that it should be acceptable for the government to force it.

I don't see that this argument is any more valid than that of gays. Please notice that my proposal absolutely allows gays to both get the rights AND get married exactly the way anybody else does. The only thing it allows...that you don't like...is that those who have different viewpoints of this than yours must march to your drum.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

Today there is a huge controversy about whether or not gays may marry one another. In California, where gays had every single one of the civil rights that the government could grant a recognized marriage, it was not enough; gays wanted to be recognized and approved of culturally as MARRIED.

nope not really a controversy. I give it till the end of summer when the supreme court rules on it. A civil union doesn't grant federal rights which makes it separate but not equal...

Do you have an issue with atheists getting married? Do you have an issue with Hindis getting married? what about buddhists?

The above marriages are still against christian theology as they are not marriages recognized before god and they are all living in adulteress sin!!!!

Which makes the laws against banning gay marriage unconstitutional. Your opinion on the matter makes no difference. Your fears and negative attitudes about homosexuality and their marriage is not enough to hold hostage our legal system and the rights of other.

Good luck on taking away the marriage rights of everyone lol and gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states this year so good luck fighting that argument.

A September–October 2014 YouGov poll found 48% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, 39% oppose, and 13% weren't sure.[14]

A Pew Research Center poll released in September 2014 found 49% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, 41% oppose, and 10% don't know.[15]

A Gallup poll conducted in May 2014 found that 55% of Americans support allowing marriage for same-sex couples, 42% opposed, and 4% had no opinion on the issue. This was the largest percentage ever measured by the organization.[16]

An April 2014 Public Religion Research Institute poll sponsored by the Ford Foundation found that 55% of all Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 39% were opposed.[17]

A Pew Research Center poll released in March 2014 found 54% of Americans favor same-sex marriage, 39% oppose, and 7% don't know.[18] It also researched support for same-sex marriage among Republican leaning voters in the United States. 61% of Republican leaning voters aged 18–29 support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while only 27% of Republican leaning voters over 50 years of age are supportive.[19] 52% of Republican voters aged 18–50 support same-sex marriage.[20][21]

there is also the lack of public support to ban gay marriage to. No amount of gerrymandering can prevent this....

There is no controversy except in the minds of those who have negative/fearful thoughts about LGBT's and them getting equal rights.

[Bust Nak]

What do y'all think?

I've seen you post that proposal before. I'll repeat my sentiment here. The purpose behind getting married is official recognition and that is exactly the role government should fill. Gays DO want to be recognized and approved officially as MARRIED, and there is no reason why that legal right should be withheld form them. By all means keep government away from the religious aspects, I wouldn't object one bit if you say gay people cannot have a holy matrimony, nor are there laws controlling that.

There is already a two tiered event, if a couple wants the marriage and the legal rights that goes with it, they go to the government and sign a the civil contracts with the government. THEN, if they want to, they go get the approvial according to their own beliefs or in whatever fashion appeals to them. The ‘wedding’ will have no legal power, just religious or personal, and the marriage has no religious meaning; strictly legal contractual stuff. THAT is how anybody can marry and religions cannot be sued, fined, or legislated against if they say to someone who hasn’t been approved according to their beliefs “sorry, your marrage isn't holy.�

That photographers can get away with discrimination against straight couples, is not a reason to let other photographers can away with discrimination against gay couples. You should be going after the gay specialists instead of allowing a free for all.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

Today there is a huge controversy about whether or not gays may marry one another. In California, where gays had every single one of the civil rights that the government could grant a recognized marriage, it was not enough; gays wanted to be recognized and approved of culturally as MARRIED.

nope not really a controversy. I give it till the end of summer when the supreme court rules on it. A civil union doesn't grant federal rights which makes it separate but not equal...

The Federal government does not recognize marriages between same sex partners either; that is a separate issue from the right to marry in a state. However, if you wish, I'll change this: CALIFORNIA gave same sex partners every single one of the rights to civil unions/domestic partnerships that CALIFORNIA gave to married couples.

The solution, of course, is to have the Feds recognize all civil unions....and not recognize 'marriages,' because 'marriage' is strictly a religious/cultural tradition with no legal force. Given that it will have to change exactly as much to recognize all state marriages, I don't see the difficulty.

Do you have an issue with atheists getting married? Do you have an issue with Hindis getting married? what about buddhists?

What did I write? I mean, really. WHAT DID I WRITE?

What is there about the idea that everyone can marry who they wish according to their own belief systems, traditions and preferences went totally whoosh?

The above marriages are still against christian theology as they are not marriages recognized before god and they are all living in adulteress sin!!!!

.....and that is the problem of the Hindu, Buddhist, whoever, how, exactly? The idea is to completely separate church and state.

I'm sorry, did you actually read the proposal? I'm beginning to think you did not.

Which makes the laws against banning gay marriage unconstitutional. Your opinion on the matter makes no difference. Your fears and negative attitudes about homosexuality and their marriage is not enough to hold hostage our legal system and the rights of other.

Do me a favor. Pretend that I'm not a homophobe, a hated Christian, an idiot or a bigot.

Then read the proposal again. You know, take your preconceptions of me out of the mix and READ THE PROPOSAL.

Then perhaps you will figure out that if the government actually went for this, it's the 'Christians" (and other religious systems) that LOSE here. Think about it. If 'marriage,' the religious/cultural/traditional aspect of it that involves vows that the government simply cannot enforce, has no legal force, and the government assigns the civil rights to 'couplehood' to anybody it wants to irrespective of religion, sexual orientation or whatever, the churches lose their political clout in that area.

Of course, I think everybody gains, myself; everybody gains the 'right to the rights,' and the ability, moreover, to marry according to their own beliefs and preferences. There is no downside here.

Unless of course the goal is not to get the rights and ability to marry, but rather to shove the noses of everybody ELSE in the manure and crow "NYA NYA WE SHOWED YOU!"

the problem is, those who take that tack don't get any more than they would my way...and they end up being as oppressive as those they have been fighting.

Good luck on taking away the marriage rights of everyone lol and gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states this year so good luck fighting that argument.

Well, that settles it. You didn't read it at all, did you?