If the Feds Won't Do It...

Put another way: marriage is a church thing; civil partnerships belong to the state. Originally Posted by John Bull

Again, agreed. But the flaw their is that most laws are written in terms of the word "married", not "civilly united". Besides, I know a lot of marriages that aren't always civil.

You all are no F**k'n fun. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Stirring the pot are we?

A little different twist from a twisted soul.

If the states want to recognize civil partnerships of whatever nature - OK! But they have no business getting involved with what is a holy, church sacrement. The states should, of course, recognize the legality of the sacrement but it's none of their damned business what the various churches recognize and bless, each in their own way. Put another way: marriage is a church thing; civil partnerships belong to the state. Originally Posted by John Bull

If I understand this correctly: If a church blesses same-sex unions as marriage then the state should be obligated to accept it as such? That is of course stipulating to your statement.

Of course, why marriage should be seen as simply a church (or I would assume you mean religious) sacrament is not clear to me.

And (for the sake of a weekend argument ) the states? Originally Posted by Rudyard K

"He who would inquire into the essence and attributes of various kinds of governments must first of all determine 'What is a state?' At present this is a disputed question. Some say that the state has done a certain act; others, no, not the state, but the oligarchy or the tyrant. And the legislator or statesman is concerned entirely with the state; a constitution or government being an arrangement of the inhabitants of a state. But a state is composite, like any other whole made up of many parts; these are the citizens, who compose it. It is evident, therefore, that we must begin by asking, Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?"

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html

SCNR.

A little different twist from a twisted soul.

If the states want to recognize civil partnerships of whatever nature - OK! But they have no business getting involved with what is a holy, church sacrement. The states should, of course, recognize the legality of the sacrement but it's none of their damned business what the various churches recognize and bless, each in their own way. Put another way: marriage is a church thing; civil partnerships belong to the state. Originally Posted by John Bull

Ahh, if it were only that simple. Why should a state "of course" recognize the legality of a sacrement? Then again, why should'nt they?

If a legal marriage (or a civil partnership, as you call it)...as well as the legal benefits and obligations of such marriage or partnership...is an inalienable right of each and every one of us...then each and every one of us have the right to engage in such legal marriage or partnership in whatever manner is deemed to be inalienable.

But, on the other hand, if such legal marriage or partnership...as well as the benefits and obilgations associated with such legal marriage or partnership...is not an inalienable right of each and every one of us...then the methodology of determination of what is a legal marriage or partnership can be determined on whatever basis some popular vote determines.

I think it is much more of the latter. As such, I think it is best determined on the more local level. Since the US constitution did not grant that right to the Feds...it appears that right has remained with the states. If a state constitution reserved that right to the counties...then such right should be determined at the county level...and so on, and so on.

What method that state or locality chooses to use to determine a legal marriage or patnership should be left up to a popularity contest of that state or locality.

DG, does bring up a good point related to reciprocity. Of course, reciprocity would have to be determined at the Fed level. Which would, of course mean, if the Fed choose it to be so, that any state had recognize whatever union any other state recognized.

Which brings into question...is "reciprocity" an inalienable right?

These are the problems we all have with all these issues. IMHO, we have...and should have...very few inalienable rights. Because if it is an inalienable right...then it is up to the Fed to administer it as such across the land...and we are required to come up with a "unified" answer (as to what that inalienable right is) for some 360 million folks...who all have their own mind. So, half the people are pissed off all the time. If, OTOH, it is not an inalienable right...then each state or smaller locality...can determine for its own state or locality what is right for that population base. The folks in Texas may think the folks in California are wierd as shit because they might allow a union between a blond and a brunette...when everyone in Texas knows that redheads and brunettes go together much better. If that belief by Texans is based on religion or tea leaves, who cares? It doesn't really matter, because the Californians don't have to go there or live with it...and Texans don't have to go to California or live with its rules.

It is better for all of us to have an opinion that lots of the rest of us are weird as shit...than to have half the people pissed off because slightly more than 1/2 of the country is forcing their mores on the other 1/2.

Why should a state "of course" recognize the legality of a sacrement?

For recording who is and who isn't afforded whatever benefits married folks are entitled to or whatever penalties.
As to the "right" to marry etc.; I know of no right to marry or not to marry in any constitution.
My main point is that marriage is a thing of the churches, not a thing of the state except for the aforementioned record keeping. If a church wants to marry a man and a vegetable, it's their business and if a state wants to record that marriage for record purposes, so be it.

My main point is that marriage is a thing of the churches, not a thing of the state except for the aforementioned record keeping. If a church wants to marry a man and a vegetable, it's their business and if a state wants to record that marriage for record purposes, so be it. Originally Posted by John Bull

Granted. But where things got muddy was in sloppy drafting of laws to provide "benefits" or "rights" to a married couple without specifying what marriage consisted of. Sure in the Grand Kumquat Church, it is perfectly appropriate (and even encouraged) to marry a vegetable. But the question is does the fact that a particular church recognizes that union as a marriage entitle the happy couple to state benefits/rights in the state where the union occurred and all other states? Marriage started as a religious service, that was then adopted for the states purposes. It is certainly understandable that religious types might object to the state defining who is or who is not married -- since marriage is a term that has meaning within their faith.

The only logical way out of the mess is to separate church and state (in a more useful way than getting rid of Christmas displays and renaming Las Cruses) and let churches keep the term "marriage" to which their own particular rules apply and let the state have "civil union" which would be a more uniform and inclusive term (probably limited to one species). All existing marriages could be declared official civil unions at the same time as all references to the word marriage in the law is replaced by the new term. But that will never happen. Logical solutions don't fire up the base and produce campaign contributions.

But that will never happen. Logical solutions don't fire up the base and produce campaign contributions.

Word! and Double Word!

Marcus, that's fantastic.

I say, Press 3 to be drenched and teleported to paradise. ;-)

But then again, political discussions always lead to me being naughty.

Logical solutions don't fire up the base and produce campaign contributions. Originally Posted by pjorourke

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with DG, word.

If a legal marriage (or a civil partnership, as you call it)...as well as the legal benefits and obligations of such marriage or partnership...is an inalienable right of each and every one of us...then each and every one of us have the right to engage in such legal marriage or partnership in whatever manner is deemed to be inalienable. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

See now, I believe that it is a inalienable right or not but make it equal for ALL. I believe that equal means equal.

To take it a step further (or maybe backwards) I do nor believe in such a thing as hate crimes. Murder is murder and should be treated as such. Gay people want equality except when they can get more from the system. They should be kicked in their balls for such a nonlinear position!

I don't think gays have a consitiutional right to marriage...but if a state wants to give it to them so be it.

I think the better argument is the "business case" for offering "domestic partner benefits." That is why many top corporations offer them. Gay people can be exceptional engineers, accountants, lawyers, etc. and a competitive marketplace has caused some of the stodgiest, conservative corps. to recognize their relationship.

What more do you really need? The marriage between a man and woman is different than man and man. (Can we at least agree on that much?) At least in my Church, marriage is a sacrament. If you can find a church that wants to marry a gay couple, so be it. So why not be content with recognized "civil unions" -- why insist on marriage?

To take it a step further (or maybe backwards) I do nor believe in such a thing as hate crimes. Murder is murder and should be treated as such. Gay people want equality except when they can get more from the system. They should be kicked in their balls for such a nonlinear position

WTF

Word! And while we're at it, let's quit giving away your money and mine to every pressure group who will promise politicians votes. Not limited to but certainly including the deduction for home loan interest.

I think the better argument is the "business case" for offering "domestic partner benefits." That is why many top corporations offer them. Gay people can be exceptional engineers, accountants, lawyers, etc. and a competitive marketplace has caused some of the stodgiest, conservative corps. to recognize their relationship. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

And then there are hairdressers, waiters and interior decorators.

And then there are hairdressers, waiters and interior decorators. Originally Posted by pjorourke

You know it, sister !!!

WTF

Word! And while we're at it, let's quit giving away your money and mine to every pressure group who will promise politicians votes. Not limited to but certainly including the deduction for home loan interest. Originally Posted by John Bull

Home loan intrest is like Social Security....ain't nobody gonna touch it! I do agree that it is a BS deduction.

So why not be content with recognized "civil unions" -- why insist on marriage? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Because they do not get the same benifits that a married couple gets. They are not the first in line upon a spouses death without a will: they are not considered family by hospitals.....yadayadayada.

I don't give a shit if a church don't wanna a marry their gay ass but they should have equal rights.

I believe that each and everyone of us ought to be able to marry the one they love upon legal consent. Plenty of gay ass churchs for them to get married in!

For you that think the Fed's should not decide but the states should, why not take it even closer to the people and let each person decide. Denying them things that you or I can have is just not right. Once they decide to marry, they should legally be treated like any other married couple.

That does not mean that I have to like it but tough shit on what I like. Equality is Equality. You can't spin it no other way but it not being egual. You make it equal and then i don't give a shit whatca call it! Civil Hell is what it mostly is anyway.