DOMA ruled unconstitutional

defaultdotxbe said:
i had thought about this last year and i concluded the government shouldnt recognize any marriages, since marriage is a religious institution

instead, the government should issue civil unions (to everyone, not just gay couples) and the union is whats required for next of kin rights, spouse benefits on insurance and pension, changing your name, getting cheaper car insurance etc

the church would continue performing marriage ceremonies as it sees fit, and pastors would have the same "power vested in them" to issue a civil union at the same time

therefore, the church doesnt have to recognize civil unions (they will continue to live in sin as far as god is concerned, and it doesnt sully the word "marriage") and the government wont recognize marriages (oddly this would allow polygamy, lol, have as many marriages as the church lets you, but you can only be in one civil union)


of course it will never work, but at least it will expose the true motives of those opposed to gay marriage, as its not about "cheapening the idea marriage" its about the government letting those filthy sinner fags have their way
Click to expand...


I very much agree with your position.
 
BenBurch said:
Get ready to be forced to accept it.
Click to expand...


Thank you.

He doesn't get it and probably never will.

I'm not asking for permission; I'm asserting our rights and demanding equal treatment.

The longer this country takes to recognize basic human rights, the graver the consequences will become.

I've already washed my hands of the US government and the majority of the American people. I will do nothing to further the interests of these people and will not work for any government institution. My research will not benefit them.

They can all go to their hell.
 
Alt+F4 said:
At least McCain and Bush were upfront regarding their opinion regarding gay marriage. While campaigning Obama said he would support repealing DOMA then in the case of Smelt v. United States the Justice Department defended the constitutionality of DOMA.
Click to expand...

You seem to be presenting that as some sort of contradiction. One can accept that a law is constitutional and still support it's repeal. I, for example, think that we need to repeal a large percentage of our anti-drug laws. That doesn't mean that I think they are unconstitutional.
 
I ain't bashin' no-one but it ain't happening in this country not in my or your lifetime.
 
bynmdsue said:
I ain't bashin' no-one but it ain't happening in this country not in my or your lifetime.
Click to expand...
On this issue, both you and your beloved country are pathetically behind the times.

Same-sex marriages are currently performed and recognized in Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden.

Same-sex civil unions and registered partnerships are recognized in Andorra, Austria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Luxembourg, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

This may be an argumentum ad populum, but I note most of the countries I mentioned trend pretty high on various rankings pertaining to human rights, livability, and happiness. I also note they have not been smitten from the face of the Earth by a vengeful God, nor have their societies collapsed under the weight of unrestrained debauchery.
 
Last edited:
While I disagree with Obama regarding his view of gay marriage, that issue is not where I see his failing in this general area. As well as others at the DOJ.

His main failing is his appointment of Holder and retention of so many "moles" left over from the Bush Administration. That includes scores of Attorneys General who should have been required to resign the day of Jan. 20. As a result, I think that way too much of the policy and implementation activities of the DOJ remain in the hands of those who do not necessarily support the ideas and policies of Obama.

In short, his real failure is not taking a firm grasp of the DOJ. This DOMA matter is a symptom, not the disease.

That said, I also recognize that the Elephants in the Senate have clogged up the approval pipeline with over 200 appointees awaiting approval. This is far more than in past administrations. Thus, some blame must be laid at the feet of the opposition party.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i had thought about this last year and i concluded the government shouldnt recognize any marriages, since marriage is a religious institution

instead, the government should issue civil unions (to everyone, not just gay couples) and the union is whats required for next of kin rights, spouse benefits on insurance and pension, changing your name, getting cheaper car insurance etc
Click to expand...

Yep....

defaultdotxbe said:
the church would continue performing marriage ceremonies as it sees fit, and pastors would have the same "power vested in them" to issue a civil union at the same time
Click to expand...

... and that's where you lost me. No, don't give the clergy ANY civil powers. The government sanctions civil union for any couple who qualifies. The church can do any silly ceremony thereafter but what ever they do would have NO value in the eyes of the law. Basic church/state separation.
 
bynmdsue said:
I ain't bashin' no-one but it ain't happening in this country not in my or your lifetime.
Click to expand...
The court is going to overturn Prop 8 in California. In 2012, gay marriage will be on the ballot and will win. It will not be overturned. That will break the political dam and other states will fall in line pretty quickly.

It'll essentially be over in a decade. I hope you live long enough to enjoy moving from the 18th to 21st century.
 
SezMe said:
Yep....

... and that's where you lost me. No, don't give the clergy ANY civil powers. The government sanctions civil union for any couple who qualifies. The church can do any silly ceremony thereafter but what ever they do would have NO value in the eyes of the law. Basic church/state separation.
Click to expand...


Oops... I missed that when I agreed with him earlier.

Clergy gets no role related to civil unions.

No government recognition of any role for religion whatsoever.
 
I don't mind the clergy being able to marry people. I don't mind a ship's captain being able to marry people. The license is important, but not critical. For may years, some states have acknowledged "common-law" marriages that had no certificates at all, or sometimes only a hand-written recording in the family bible. True, it makes certifying the marriage difficult some times, but that's always been the case, even with documented marriages.

But I see no need to call them "civil unions". The term "married" is deeply ingrained into our society and any attempt to somehow make one "kind" of marriage different from another is going to perpetuate inequality. Changing "marital status" to "civil union status" on all those forms is a waste of time and will be misunderstood by many. So just call 'em all "marriage" and be done with it.
 
Tricky said:
I don't mind the clergy being able to marry people. I don't mind a ship's captain being able to marry people. The license is important, but not critical. For may years, some states have acknowledged "common-law" marriages that had no certificates at all, or sometimes only a hand-written recording in the family bible. True, it makes certifying the marriage difficult some times, but that's always been the case, even with documented marriages.

But I see no need to call them "civil unions". The term "married" is deeply ingrained into our society and any attempt to somehow make one "kind" of marriage different from another is going to perpetuate inequality. Changing "marital status" to "civil union status" on all those forms is a waste of time and will be misunderstood by many. So just call 'em all "marriage" and be done with it.
Click to expand...


If 'marriage' is the name for what the government will recognize, then 'marriage' must be the name that will be used for all 'civil unions', and same-sex marriages must be recognized by the government as being entirely equivalent to opposite-sex marriages.

Clergy should not be able to act as agents of the government in any capacity.
 
When they say it will cheapen marriage, they really let their bigotry flag fly.
 
my point was when you get married in a church you are both religiously and legally married, i see no need for that system to change

having never been married i dont know whats involved in getting a marriage license or any other legal paperwork required before the ceremony, so it may not be any additional hassle to have to obtain the union from a justice of the peace or something anyway, my thought was just to keep the transition from a 1-concept marriage to a 2-concept system as smooth as possible
 
Tricky said:
So just call 'em all "marriage" and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Oh, I completely agree, Tricky. I was using "civil union" to be precise in the context of the law. But call 'em marriages, chicken coops or a horse trailer for all I care. The key is recognizing that a marriage is a contract in the eyes of the law and not some biblically-ordained institution.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
my point was when you get married in a church you are both religiously and legally married, i see no need for that system to change

having never been married i dont know whats involved in getting a marriage license or any other legal paperwork required before the ceremony, so it may not be any additional hassle to have to obtain the union from a justice of the peace or something anyway, my thought was just to keep the transition from a 1-concept marriage to a 2-concept system as smooth as possible
Click to expand...

Generally, you go to the courthouse and obtain a marriage license. You have to present proof at that time that you've fulfilled the requirements for that state's marriage. (Example: Michigan requires an STD test.) After that, you have a certain amount of time (varies by state. I think I had a week in Michigan, but can't remember. I got it the day before the wedding) for the marriage to be "solemnized", at which point it is official. Whoever was the official, such as clergy or judge (we had a caterer. She also had some sort of religious title, but she was not a rabbi, but basically she had filed some paperwork with the state to say that she would do weddings, and she wanted to know if we wanted just the ceremony, or also the catering package) signs on the dotted line and mails in the proper paperwork to the records office.

Traditionally, the religious aspects matter, but today anyone can do weddings as long as they register with the state, and get the paperwork right.
 
SezMe said:
Oh, I completely agree, Tricky. I was using "civil union" to be precise in the context of the law. But call 'em marriages, chicken coops or a horse trailer for all I care. The key is recognizing that a marriage is a contract in the eyes of the law and not some biblically-ordained institution.
Click to expand...

Did you hear about how the governor of Hawaii recently vetoed the "civil unions" bill? It was passed by the legislature handily, but she sat on it until they had adjourned for the session so they couldn't override her veto.

The most amazing thing about it was her objection. She said, even though it is not called marriage, it is too similar to marriage in practice.

What? I thought the whole thing was that "marriage" was supposed to be between a man and woman and if gay people wanted a union, it should be called something else? So that's what Hawaii did. Now the objection is that it ISN'T called marriage?
 
pgwenthold said:
...
What? I thought the whole thing was that "marriage" was supposed to be between a man and woman and if gay people wanted a union, it should be called something else? So that's what Hawaii did. Now the objection is that it ISN'T called marriage?
Click to expand...

The objection is that, in law, it does not have the same properties as marriage, and that other states, who are bound to accept marriages from any state, may choose not to accept it. And it cannot have the same properties in law unless;

1. DOMA is ruled unconstitutional.

2. The legal definition of Marriage is broadened to include the category of civil unions.

"Separate but equal" is never "equal."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom