Cross out “union” and replace it with “marriage” and that’s exactly how it works now, except that the state allows you to use your religious officiant to stamp your civil marriage license as a matter of convenience. Why do so many people not get that?
Or it’s glossed over that there are churches out there that are pro-gay marriage and that some would like to marry their congregants.
Ah, but maybe Omar has hit on the solution.
All those that are happy to get married by a judge in a civil service are done - as far as the state is concerned. But people who want to be married religiously have to get married by a judge AND their minister/pastor/iman/rabbi/priest… 
That would make it perfectly clear that civil marriage and religious marriage are two completely separate things - much more so than mere word use.
(1) So what about couples like Mr. S and me, who did not and never intended to have children? Is our marriage less valid? Should we not have been allowed to get married?
(2) You don’t need government permission to “provide a nurturing environment for the production of future citizens and taxpayers,” either.
IMHO marriage is about public commitment and legal rights. Children optional.
If both are willing to adopt the children and assume full parental responsibilities they should be allowed to marry. Once you get the basic idea that civil Marriage is primarily about accepting the responsibility for raising the children, then most of the rest follows logically from the premise.
This is a loop hole that should be closed. Civil marriage is for children.
Most of the these can be handled contractually without even using the word marriage. In fact, most of them were handled contractually back before civil marriage laws were passed. We eliminate joint returns and only have single, family and head of household returns. I frankly think a lot of hard feeling in the long run if all this gets worked out ahead of time. What if you don’t want your spouse to inherit all your property or to make end of life decisions for you? People don’t think prenuptial agreement are romantic, but I don’t think marriage should be about romance. If you want romance, then shack up. If you want to raise a family then get married, but remember it isn’t about you anymore. It is about the children.
I have to admit, I haven’t thought about the immigration angle before. If they already have children, then that is easy, but if they don’t, then I’m not sure what to do.
Bull. Marriage being “for the children” is a very, very new concept. Like within the last century.
Marriage has been about assets for thousands of years.
When, exactly, where the items listed handled “contractually”? Did people have contracts with the federal government? And just when do you think “civil marriage laws” were created, last week? Besides - those contracts you’re talking about? Those were marriage contracts.
Personally, I think we ought to go back to marriage contracts. Let’s have a default contract that sets out in specific all of the details we have spelled out in various laws. That way at least people would (theoretically) know what they’re signing up for.
Then change the law to set certain minimums that must be included in a marriage contract (e.g., child support, inheritance, medical rights, etc.) and let people rewrite them as desired. All the state does is register the marriage.
Churches can do whatever they want, I couldn’t care less about religious ceremonies.
Back on topic…Catholic or not, it seems to me to be hypocritical for any divorced Christian to have issues with gays. Jesus was pretty damn specific about divorce. Homosexuals he didn’t mention.
That’s quite a slope. First they came for the homosexuals…
“It is about the children” <----- cite please
When I got married, 100 years ago, I had no intention of having children and neither did my husband.
If I ever get married again, I’m still not having children.
Both of those marriages, the real one and the imaginary one, are accepted by any state in the union as legitimate.
Civil marriages are NOT about children. In modern times, they are about two people who love each other wanting to make a public commitment to each other, and to share their lives and their assets with each other, in the ways that they see fit, in a manner that has been accepted in this country (and others) for centuries. In earlier times, they were about sharing assets, or joining powerful families, or maintaining wealth within a certain circle. Those might have included love, but not necessarily, and they might have included children, but not necessarily.
There is no legitimate argument that same-sex marriage is any less legitimate than any other type of marriage, there is no legitimate argument that same-sex marriage harms in any way any other types of marriage, and there is no legitimate argument that marriages of any type are about raising children.
That’s correct. See my response in post #25. I know some unmarried couples and frankly they seem to just about as happy as the married ones. Maybe having a marriage license makes you happier, but it isn’t clear to me why that is the government’s concern.
No that is your responsibility. If you don’t do it right, the government may take your children away and charge you with child support.
Go ahead and draw up a contract and have a public commitment ceremony. You may need to spell out the legal rights you are talking about. As I explained in the previous post, I think most can be handled contractually.
Did you ever consider that your mother might have a valid point? Sure she’s been divorced three times. But if gay marriages were legal, she might have been divorced ten or fifteen times by now.
This right here is food for thought, I tell you what.
I want some of what you are smoking. It’s gotta be good stuff.
I didn’t get married to prove to the government that I was happy in the arrangement. I got married for the public commitment, as a declaration to the world at large, and also for the legal benefits.
I also don’t recall seeing anything on the marriage license application where I was required to commit to having, or attempting to have, children. How is THAT any of the government’s business? (Hint: Future taxpayers re going to be created whether or not their parents are married, you know.)
Also, I find your assertion that my marriage is less valid because we don’t have kids highly offensive. I suspect that people who want kids but CAN’T have them would find it even more so.
Children can be taken away from bad parents regardless of their marital status OR sexual orientation. What in holy hell does this have to do with the argument against gay marriage?
Why should we force certain couples to jump through a lot of hoops to attempt to replicate the legal benefits of marriage when we already have the procedure in place in one handy step?
Good Christ, people do love to jump through hoops to justify bigotry, though.
del
State and insurance company conferred benefits cannot be handled by contracts set up by the couple themselves.
What about couples who marry intending to have children, but then change their minds? What about couples who marry with the intention of having children but then discover they are infertile? Should they be compulsarily divorced? If so, how many cycles of IVF should we allow before we declare them irredeemably barren and ineligable for the favourable tax status and other legal benefits of marriage? What if they then later manage to have children, does their marriage get automatically reinstated or do they need to re-apply?
The only thing gay marriage will ruin is gay marriage.
I have created a GQ thread in which to answer this question.
Most Christians believe that other sources besides Jesus’ direct words inform their understanding of their religion. It would be a rare Christian, for example, who felt that Paul’s words carried no particular import.
And in I Corinthians 6:9, Paul pretty clearly says that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God, and proceeds with a list of wrongdoers that includes gays.
I’m not sure what reasoning non-Catholic Christians use to justify their acceptance of divorce, but they certainly cannot be tagged for adopting a non-scriptural attitude concerning gays.
I didn’t say it was non-scriptural, I said it was hypocritical.
“Oh, I can ignore the words of Jesus Himself when I want to, but by God, you better go by what Paul said. Oh, except for that stuff he said that I want to ignore.”
Just seems to me that the words of the Man should take a little precedence.
JoelUpchurch, I would also be interested in finding out how I can contractully obtain tax benefits, Social Security and other federal benefits, immigration rights, and so on, without a state-recognized marriage. Me and a few million other folks who are denied those benefits.
That’s how it works in the US: you aren’t married unless you get a marriage license, which is issued by the state. A clergyman cannot marry a couple without the license; any marriage without it is invalid.
The government has an interest in keeping a record of marriage because marriage gives legal benefits – joint tax returns, rights to an estate if there’s no will, etc. It’s a much more stable and convenient place for the recordkeeping (suppose a parish folds – where are the records?)
Fair enough - as I say, I’m not sure what the rationale is for accepting divorce.