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.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 27 by dianaiad]

Washington is a no fault state when it comes to divorce. Meaning things like adultery etc are not grounds for a divorce. You can break up your marriage contract at any time but that is purely based on your legal options.

Why is that important you may ask?

Because it is in most religious vows to be faithful to one another. This is an example of a state not recognizing culture tradition or the vows you make at your wedding the only thing the state cares about are the legal documents you signed, not your culture tradition or religion.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...
Please notice; marriages are not MADE by law, but only recognized by law.

Then why did so many Christians vote to enact laws against gay marriage?

...
vows that are not, and cannot be, enforced by civil law.

They're enforced during the divorce, when if I fess up I wouldn't sleep with the pretty thing's sister, but I did, well I face a divorce if the pretty thing finds out. Fortunately, I ain't married, nor would I vow not to hook up with someone.

However, it is unreasonable. Since “marriage’ as an idea does predate any law or right attached to it
...

Argument from tradition. We humans have every right to define marriage in any way we see fit.

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 major problem being Christians gettin' in a huff.

We, the people have every right to want the government to recognize our "unions" with a word with such a rich heritage.

To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs

Please explain to us all how someone can be forced to change their beliefs? Remember, you ostensibly maintain the beliefs the government supposedly "imposed" on you. That you may not be allowed to legally practice those beliefs doesn't mean you ain't believing 'em.

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.

It never fails to amaze me how you, among all the folks on this planet, are singularly capable of knowing the motives of others. Your ability is, I contend, incontrovertible evidence that supernatural powers do exist.

Beyond that, Christians did pretty much the "forced cultural and religious approval" thing when they enacted laws against gay marriage.

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.

In Georgia, they DO NOT have those legal rights such as the ability to be married, "civil unioned", or even to hold onto a job (where the mere suspicion of homosexuality is sufficient cause to be terminated).

That you consider it a "religious problem" is, I contend, a problem of religion.

That you consider it a "moral problem" is, I contend, a problem of religion.

That you consider it an "ethical problem" is, I contend, a problem of religion.

If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again.

Then it can't take the opinion of religious folks who wish to dictate to the government what words it can and can't use.

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.

Plenty fair.

They'd then have the right to have the government refer to their marriages as, well, marriages.

It’s a quandary and a problem…and a problem that government is not well equipped to solve.

The government is perfectly capable of printing marriage, and most of the folks in government are capable of uttering the word.

Only don't it beat all, when that person in government is religious, some of 'em lose that ability from time to time.

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.

Yeah, 'cause the belief system that men are scrumptious never faced it no peril!

I note it was a majority Christian government that came after your Christian organization.

...
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.’

I see no need to let religious busy-bodies declare what terms the government can and can't use.

...
That way anybody can marry

No, they can "civil union", 'cause it might be their favorite religious organization won't let 'em marry.

Everybody wins...

I contend we lose when we allow the religious to dictate what terms the government can and can't use.

[dianaiad]

No. Her marriage may not have much 'religion' in it, but it has a LOT of 'culture' and 'tradition' in it.

I don't know if you were there at the wedding, but if you were, see if you can remember the vows those two exchanged.

If you weren't, consider the promises pretty much everybody who 'gets married' exchanges. You know the ones: "Do you promise to love, honor, cherish and protect, forsaking all others and holding only unto her (him)?"

Goat, is there a single promise made in that very standard CIVIL wedding promise that the government can enforce?

Tradition enforces it. Honor does, culture does....but the government?

No....and when it comes down to it, no government has ever been able to do that; these things are not quantifiable.

The government, however, CAN enforce things like survivors benefits, Social Security, insurance, community property and even child custody.

But it can't enforce any of the vows that couples take at the wedding.

Weddings...'marriage' is all about those unenforceable vows. The government can't enforce them, and it should have absolutely no say in who gets (or who recognizes) them or promises them.

None.

So, She really doesn't care if her marriage has no religion in it. It is a marriage never the less. You are making the invalid assumption that marriage is a strictly religious, based on your quotes.. Well. you are wrong. That is where your whole proposal breaks down, all based on the misuse of words.

"Based on my quotes,' the only thing you can say is that I believe that marriage is about religion AND/OR culture and tradition. 'Based on my quotes,' you can conclude that marriage has predated any government assignation of rights and obligations to it.

the promises that a married couple (or group, whatever) make to each other are from culture and tradition, and if that culture and tradition ALSO includes religion, that's too bad. It can, and is not then invalid because it does.

What marriage has ALWAYS predated and outlived is anything to do with the government.

Consider: if the USA simply disappeared, and all the laws on all the books turned invisible, would she no longer consider herself 'married?"

Indeed, Goat....my husband has been dead for twenty years now. The government says I'm not married. I don't get any of the benefits of being married. The GOVERNMENT says I can go out and get married to someone else.

But my church tells me that yeah, as it happens, I am still very much married. I think I am. Can the government tell me that my religious beliefs are bunkum and guess what...no I'm not?

Can it enforce that?

It can enforce the rules and things it doesn't assign to me, sure.

Finally, I'm more than a little tired of this wholesale eisegesis. I wish at least one of you would actually read what I wrote, instead of utterly misrepresenting it.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 27 by dianaiad]

Washington is a no fault state when it comes to divorce. Meaning things like adultery etc are not grounds for a divorce. You can break up your marriage contract at any time but that is purely based on your legal options.

Why is that important you may ask?

Because it is in most religious vows to be faithful to one another. This is an example of a state not recognizing culture tradition or the vows you make at your wedding the only thing the state cares about are the legal documents you signed, not your culture tradition or religion.

Like I said; the government can't enforce the wedding vows most people take when they get married. They can only enforce the legal contracts entered into. Therefore it is not logical for the GOVERNMENT to apply a name to something it has no control over, like the word (and the concept) "Marriage."

.....and since the government cannot enforce these things, then those who ask for those promises as part of a wedding ceremony shouldn't have the backing of the government.

You sign the contracts for the government....
and you get married. Either one or both, but they should remain separate; government out of marriage, marriage (as a cultural and/or religious thing) not a part of government.

[dianaiad]

From the OP:

...
Please notice; marriages are not MADE by law, but only recognized by law.

Then why did so many Christians vote to enact laws against gay marriage?

Because they are scared, because they are bigots...whatever. You will notice, Joey, that my proposal allows gays to marry EXACTLY LIKE 'straights,' with the same rights, the same duties, the same wording, the same marriages....

You know, like the gay couple who buys a house and the straight couple who buys the house next door? SAME THING.

...
vows that are not, and cannot be, enforced by civil law.

They're enforced during the divorce, when if I fess up I wouldn't sleep with the pretty thing's sister, but I did, well I face a divorce if the pretty thing finds out. Fortunately, I ain't married, nor would I vow not to hook up with someone.

However, it is unreasonable. Since “marriage’ as an idea does predate any law or right attached to it
...

Argument from tradition. We humans have every right to define marriage in any way we see fit.

You obviously don't think so, Joey. Or rather, you believe you have the right to define marriage any way you see fit, but you don't think I have the right to define it any way I see fit.

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 major problem being Christians gettin' in a huff.

And it's fine for Christians to get in a huff; you don't like 'em anyway. However, we must under no circumstances allow gays to get in a huff. Gotcha.

We, the people have every right to want the government to recognize our "unions" with a word with such a rich heritage.

Why?

To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs

Please explain to us all how someone can be forced to change their beliefs? Remember, you ostensibly maintain the beliefs the government supposedly "imposed" on you. That you may not be allowed to legally practice those beliefs doesn't mean you ain't believing 'em.

I strongly recommend that you read the wording of the first amendment. There's nothing in there about allowing people to believe something as long as they don't DO anything about those beliefs. I believe, actually, the words 'free exercise thereof" are in there, instead.

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.

It never fails to amaze me how you, among all the folks on this planet, are singularly capable of knowing the motives of others. Your ability is, I contend, incontrovertible evidence that supernatural powers do exist.

There is no other possible reason. None.

Beyond that, Christians did pretty much the "forced cultural and religious approval" thing when they enacted laws against gay marriage.

Where in my proposal is there any provision for a law against gay marriage?

In fact, it specifically requires that the government cannot define marriage for ANYBODY. Period. Not gays, not 'straights,' nobody. However, it can assign rights to any couple, gay or straight, who enters into a domestic contract. Then they can all, each and every mother's son and daughter of them, go get married.

Everybody wins, and I do mean everybody wins.

What I see in here...that is, what the problem is with you guys, isn't that you want to win. What you WANT is for those you dislike to LOSE.

[/quote]

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.

In Georgia, they DO NOT have those legal rights such as the ability to be married, "civil unioned", or even to hold onto a job (where the mere suspicion of homosexuality is sufficient cause to be terminated).

..........and you don't see where my proposal would solve that? Indeed, it would instantly allow same sex unions AND same sex marriages. Instantly...and all the folks in Georgia would simply have to stuff it.

That you consider it a "religious problem" is, I contend, a problem of religion.

That you consider it a "moral problem" is, I contend, a problem of religion.

That you consider it an "ethical problem" is, I contend, a problem of religion.

If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again.

Then it can't take the opinion of religious folks who wish to dictate to the government what words it can and can't use.

Of course it can...and should. Unless for some reason you don't think that religious people have the right to political opinions? I mean, your own atheism is certainly informing YOUR political opinions, isn't it?

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.

Plenty fair.

They'd then have the right to have the government refer to their marriages as, well, marriages.

Only culturally. In terms of paperwork and court cases, the term would be 'civil union...' and everybody can get one of those.

It’s a quandary and a problem…and a problem that government is not well equipped to solve.

The government is perfectly capable of printing marriage, and most of the folks in government are capable of uttering the word.

Only don't it beat all, when that person in government is religious, some of 'em lose that ability from time to time.

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.

Yeah, 'cause the belief system that men are scrumptious never faced it no peril!

I note it was a majority Christian government that came after your Christian organization.

...
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.’

I see no need to let religious busy-bodies declare what terms the government can and can't use.

I can, because when the government can use it, it can dictate what other people do about it. I find that to be power it should not have.

...
That way anybody can marry

No, they can "civil union", 'cause it might be their favorite religious organization won't let 'em marry.

Then they find a religious organization that WILL let 'em marry. This is not new, Joey. Catholics run into this sort of thing all the time, with their church's view on divorce and remarriage.

A religious belief SHOULD have the right to say who can, and who cannot, marry within its belief system. It should not have the right to declare who can, and who cannot, marry in any other belief system, culture or tradition.

Everybody wins...

I contend we lose when we allow the religious to dictate what terms the government can and can't use.

No, Joey. you win. You can get the rights but you don't have to make the promises. OR you can make the promises and not worry about the rights. Or you can do both, marry who and where you want to.

The only thing that will happen is that nobody LOSES, and that, my friend, is the true reason this proposal is so fiercely opposed.

It's not enough that gays WIN. Everybody else must LOSE....else this proposal would be taken and run with.

Because it allows everybody to win exactly what they all CLAIM to want; gays get the rights, gays get married. Religious folks can remain adamant that there is no such thing as a gay marriage under God, but they must recognize the civil rights of anybody who gets a 'civil union,' because THEY have to go that route, too.

I have come to understand, however, that what folks claim they want isn't what they actually want...and that goes for gays, for the religious, and for everybody involved in this.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 35:

Please notice; marriages are not MADE by law, but only recognized by law.

Then why did so many Christians vote to enact laws against gay marriage?

...
You will notice, Joey, that my proposal allows gays to marry EXACTLY LIKE 'straights,' with the same rights, the same duties, the same wording, the same marriages....

Folks like their history, their tradition, and they like to have the government respect that - Christians included, of course. The issue then becomes one of where is the greater good here. I propose that no Christian could ever be required to change their beliefs, on the basis of belief being "all in the head". With this in mind, it's merely accepting that some, who may or may not be Christian, wish the government to accept their unions with a word steeped in history and tradition - granted, that history and tradition may not have included gay marriages, but all history and tradition starts somewhere.

You know, like the gay couple who buys a house and the straight couple who buys the house next door? SAME THING.

So then, for homosexuals who buy a house, we should call that a "civil dwelling", leaving Christians the right to call their dwellings "houses"?

Argument from tradition. We humans have every right to define marriage in any way we see fit.

You obviously don't think so, Joey. Or rather, you believe you have the right to define marriage any way you see fit, but you don't think I have the right to define it any way I see fit.

What part of we humans are you most struggling to comprehend?

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 major problem being Christians gettin' in a huff.

And it's fine for Christians to get in a huff; you don't like 'em anyway. However, we must under no circumstances allow gays to get in a huff. Gotcha.

That'll be a point for the lady, please update your scorecards accordingly.

If I ain't a-adhocin' here, I propose that nobody is being "dictated to" when we as a society define a term. Folks are still free to disagree, to maintain their beliefs, to maintain their definitions.

We, the people have every right to want the government to recognize our "unions" with a word with such a rich heritage.

Why?

For the opposite of the reason you don't want 'em to?

To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs

Please explain to us all how someone can be forced to change their beliefs? Remember, you ostensibly maintain the beliefs the government supposedly "imposed" on you. That you may not be allowed to legally practice those beliefs doesn't mean you ain't believing 'em.

I strongly recommend that you read the wording of the first amendment.

I'm not much of one to hold too tightly to ancient documents and notions if they're shown to fail.

There's nothing in there about allowing people to believe something as long as they don't DO anything about those beliefs.

Again I ask, how is it possible to force someone to change their beliefs?

I believe, actually, the words 'free exercise thereof" are in there, instead.

So then, those religious folks who beat and kill folks should have their ability to act on their beliefs maintained?

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.

It never fails to amaze me how you, among all the folks on this planet, are singularly capable of knowing the motives of others. Your ability is, I contend, incontrovertible evidence that supernatural powers do exist.

There is no other possible reason. None.

How you're allowed to continually make such a blanket statement without sanction is beyond my comprehension.

I'll try one more time to report you.

Beyond that, Christians did pretty much the "forced cultural and religious approval" thing when they enacted laws against gay marriage.

Where in my proposal is there any provision for a law against gay marriage?

I retract and plow it under, as I note...

In fact, it specifically requires that the government cannot define marriage for ANYBODY. Period. Not gays, not 'straights,' nobody. However, it can assign rights to any couple, gay or straight, who enters into a domestic contract. Then they can all, each and every mother's son and daughter of them, go get married.

Noted for the above retraction.

Everybody wins, and I do mean everybody wins.

Except for those who want the government to recognize their "unions" as marriages.

What I see in here...that is, what the problem is with you guys, isn't that you want to win. What you WANT is for those you dislike to LOSE.

Not that you're saying otherwise, but for the observer, I'm heterosexual, and I want no part of no marriage. I speak in defense of some of my fellow human beings.

Do you NOT want for those you "dislike" to lose?

It's a bit off-putting that you continue to make such blanket statements with impunity.

One would hope a moderator would not be allowed to continually and repeatedly offer up such blanket statements.

Alas, those with your supernatural ability seem immune to the rules.

..........and you don't see where my proposal would solve that? Indeed, it would instantly allow same sex unions AND same sex marriages. Instantly...and all the folks in Georgia would simply have to stuff it.

I can dig it, but there's still the issue of what such unions'd be called.

If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again.

Then it can't take the opinion of religious folks who wish to dictate to the government what words it can and can't use.

Of course it can...and should.
...

Then it would be establishing a religion according to your own statement!

Unless for some reason you don't think that religious people have the right to political opinions? I mean, your own atheism is certainly informing YOUR political opinions, isn't it?

See above. I merely expressed a position based on your words.

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.

Plenty fair.

They'd then have the right to have the government refer to their marriages as, well, marriages.

Only culturally. In terms of paperwork and court cases, the term would be 'civil union...' and everybody can get one of those.

My point was that in "their" belief system, they "believe" they want the government to refer to their marriages as just that.

"I don't think they oughta use that word" seems like a weak argument when you ostensibly argue for their right to believe as they wish.

...
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.’

I see no need to let religious busy-bodies declare what terms the government can and can't use.

I can, because when the government can use it, it can dictate what other people do about it. I find that to be power it should not have.

So we argue about what term is appropriate.

...
That way anybody can marry

No, they can "civil union", 'cause it might be their favorite religious organization won't let 'em marry.

Then they find a religious organization that WILL let 'em marry. This is not new, Joey. Catholics run into this sort of thing all the time, with their church's view on divorce and remarriage.

I'm aware many theists'll skirt around their own "beliefs".

My position is that where we are so adamant folks get to hold onto their beliefs, those whose belief is that the government should call marriages marriages have, according to your own words, the right to ask the government to respect their beliefs.

A religious belief SHOULD have the right to say who can, and who cannot, marry within its belief system. It should not have the right to declare who can, and who cannot, marry in any other belief system, culture or tradition.

What makes a religious belief better, or more deserving than a belief? Some folks believe the government oughta call marriages marriages.

Do we allow a religious belief some sort of power over and above a belief, such that the religious belief informs us as to what the government can and can't call a marriage?

I contend we lose when we allow the religious to dictate what terms the government can and can't use.

No, Joey. you win. You can get the rights but you don't have to make the promises. OR you can make the promises and not worry about the rights. Or you can do both, marry who and where you want to.

I've ceded, with some measure of happy, all my rights to marriage. I simply wish to speak for those whom I feel deserve respect.

The only thing that will happen is that nobody LOSES, and that, my friend, is the true reason this proposal is so fiercely opposed.

Again with your supernatural ability to know the motives of everyone who disagrees with you!

It's not enough that gays WIN. Everybody else must LOSE....else this proposal would be taken and run with.

Again with your supernatural ability to know the motives of everyone who disagrees with you!


Frankly, until the mods do something about your repeatedly raping the minds of others, I see no use in continuing to feed such trollish behavior.


Snip remainder.

[JoeyKnothead]

To heck with this "I get to declare what it is every danged one of y'all think, 'cause it is, well I'm religious"!

I submit that every Christian is a gol' danged idiot, 'cause I know every one of y'all's thoughts. I declare I know what every danged one of ya thinks, and y'all's thinkin' idiocy!

I declare every Christian on this planet is a dadgummed liar 'cause I know every danged one of y'all's thoughts. I declare y'all couldn't fix a bowl of grits without frettin' the homosexuals having 'em some rights. 'Cause it is, I know what every gol' danged one of ya thinks!

I declare every Cristian on this planet is incapable of speaking truth, 'cause here it is, I declared I know what it is every dadgummed on of 'em thinks.


I declare Miss dianaiad's a bald-faced liar, for it is, I know what it is she thinks! I declare it is, she distorts her very words, such that, she can get her lie on, 'cause it is, I know what she thinks, and she's a-thinkin' her up some big ol' lies.

She's a liar, 'cause it is, I get to declare her motivations.


Tell me my I'm out of line.

Tell me I'm an instigator 'cause I dare tell you what you think!

Tell me I'm out of line for saying that if Miss dianaiad there gets to tell us all what it is we all think, that I'm out of line for declaring it is we all think she's an idiot!

Tell me it ain't right to call every Christian on this planet an idiot, 'cause I declare I know what it is, everyone of 'em thinks.


I absolutely reject the idea that the blanket statement of a moderator could be dismissed without comment, when it's understood that a moderator speaks with some moderatorial authority. Why put a "moderator" tag on someone, then expect 'em to not speak as one?


I propose that when when a moderator offers a blanket statement, of obvious idiocy, we should call every one of 'em it.

Loud. And often.

I declare Miss dianaid's an idiot, 'cause it is, I know what she thinks, and I get to declare her motivations, her mental capacity, and all such that allows me to discourage her arguments.


If she gets to declare the motivations of all who disagree, I propose all of us who do disagree, we get to respond as we see fit. We can toss us blankets, or biscuits, and to heck with the rules.

It's my firm conviction that Miss dianaiad suffers her being an idiot of extreme proportions, 'cause it is, I declare I know her thoughts.

I KNOW Miss dianiad is a liar, 'cause there it is, I said she was, for it is, she disagrees.

Do you DARE disagree with me, that I accuse you of of some ulterior motive?

EVERY Christian who disagrees with me is a shameful bigot, worthy of loathe. They're no more worthy of flushin' down the toilet, than the effort it takes to do it. 'Cause it is, I get to declare all of 'em's motivations.

'Cause it is, I declare, sans evidence, that I know what every gol' danged on of y'all think!

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 37 by JoeyKnothead]

Great post JK
While it seems, on the surface, one way, your meaning is received loud-n-clear. Needed to be said
So many times, (unseccessfully) veiled fear and ignorance hides behinds so many 'religious' comments that I wonder if the commentators honestly realize it
We will never know - many religious people are less than honest with themselves much less others from my experience anyway.

[Bust Nak]

Like I said; the government can't enforce the wedding vows most people take when they get married. They can only enforce the legal contracts entered into. Therefore it is not logical for the GOVERNMENT to apply a name to something it has no control over, like the word (and the concept) "Marriage."

Again, the premise that the government has no control over marriage is false. Government does and can enforce marriage, you seem to equate promises and vow with marriage, when it is the rights, privileges and obligation that the government cares about.

.....and since the government cannot enforce these things, then those who ask for those promises as part of a wedding ceremony shouldn't have the backing of the government.

And that's exactly what is happening now, which is why there are such things as divorce, the government don't enforced your wedding vows at all.

You sign the contracts for the government....

And the contract in question is called marriage.

and you get married. Either one or both, but they should remain separate; government out of marriage, marriage (as a cultural and/or religious thing) not a part of government.

Marriage is a legal thing, and up to the government to enforce.

Your entire proposal boils down to renaming marriage as civil union.

Because they are scared, because they are bigots...whatever. You will notice, Joey, that my proposal allows gays to marry EXACTLY LIKE 'straights,' with the same rights, the same duties, the same wording, the same marriages....

You know, like the gay couple who buys a house and the straight couple who buys the house next door? SAME THING.

You are forgetting one huge exception, your proposal allows people to discriminate against gay couples. It allows the a seller to refuse to sell a house to couple because they are gay.

Where in my proposal is there any provision for a law against gay marriage?

That would be the part where you say get government out of marriage: "It specifically requires that the government cannot define marriage for ANYBODY. Period. Not gays, not 'straights,' nobody."

Everybody wins, and I do mean everybody wins.

What I see in here...that is, what the problem is with you guys, isn't that you want to win. What you WANT is for those you dislike to LOSE.

The only thing that will happen is that nobody LOSES, and that, my friend, is the true reason this proposal is so fiercely opposed.

It is interesting that you would consider having to acknowlege someone's legal status as a loss. When you are allowed to refuse to acknowledge someone else's marriage, I'd call that you winning at their expense.

and you don't see where my proposal would solve that?

No, it would make it worse by giving official support for people to deny gay couples marrige as legit.

[Youkilledkenny]

Why do anti-gay people find it necessary to get involved with another person's marriage anyway?
Can't two people get married without any other people who may not even know these two being involved, cryin' about it, stomping their feet or even being happy?
Can't I marry a woman without a person complaining and challenging it? Likewise, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry a man with the same end result?
It's NOT about changing one's religious beliefs.
It's NOT about forcing straight people to become magically gay.
It's NOT about forcing anyone (gay or straight) to accept what two other people they don't know do with their personal life (so long as you understand you, as the complainer, have your own life to live and needn't be involved in other people's lives).
It's NOT about the secret 'gay agenda' paranoia running rampant within some conspiracy circles.
It IS about legal rights to everyone whom you share a society/country/culture with.
Why people make a mountain our of such a molehill is sad and telling of a bored lifestyle to me.