- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In certain states, a civil union provides the same benefits as a legal marriage.
“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.
Read more: A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts — Infoplease.com A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts — Infoplease.com
People getting married in a church are officially considered married by the state, so I don't understand your statement.
Still, my "right to contract" is limited in many ways by the government. Saying that I can marry a person I am attracted to does not change that. My right to contract is regulated, just in a different way.
No, but they are valid reasons for society at large to oppose it.
This is a matter of opinion....I myself am often telling religious people I associate with that they "need to calm down" over this issue and many others, however, I am able to see there desire to influence the society they live in. You can't ignore the wishes of a sizeable portion of society just becuase you think they are being "silly".
This is why I support civil unions....compromise.
If churches could legally be forced to perform same sex marriages, do you believe they should be? I ask only out of pure curiosity and I'd like to see other SSM proponents answer this.
If churches could legally be forced to perform same sex marriages, do you believe they should be? I ask only out of pure curiosity and I'd like to see other SSM proponents answer this.
Ok, my initial question was not so much if such a challenge would actually win in court, I was more asking would you support forcing churches to perform SSM if it could be done?
Why do I ask? Well, CT has made an argument regarding a homeless shelter that the shelter should not receive federal funding for refusing gays. Funding is, indeed, one way the federal government exerts control, so maybe I've asked the wrong question. Let me ask this one instead, do you all believe a church should lose its tax exempt status if it refused to perform SSM?
Churches do not receive federal funding for performing wedding ceremonies, nor is that why they do not pay taxes. The two have nothing to do with each other.
I missed the federal funding part of the homeless shelter. Anytime a church receives federal funding for something, then it should have to abide by discrimination laws. If they are completely privately funded, then it should be up to them who they allow into their shelters unless they can show some other reason beyond religious objections for the discrimination (I'm thinking a funded place specifically for people of a certain sex for specific reasons, such as abuse).
Correct. That is not the case here however. No funding for, nor tax relief because of wedding ceremonies.
I would not that I don't have a problem with churches adding small conditions to things like homeless shelters. In Grand Rapids MI, the big homeless shelter/soup kitchen expects homeless people to say a prayer together at meals, and something like that, I simply don't think is worth making an issue over, whether they get money from the government or not.
This is a state issue, but really, marriage shouldn't be a legal/civil issue at all. Leave it to religion where it ultimately belongs. If gays want to marry, they could find a church to marry them-no problem.
I'm only saying that marriage itself is ultimately a religious issue. If the government had no dealings with it, it would be less complicated which is good. But I believe this is a state issue. The fed is far too involved these days.
Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.
It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.
Equal rights shouldn't be a state issue.
Equal rights shouldn't be a state issue.
I'm only saying that marriage itself is ultimately a religious issue. If the government had no dealings with it, it would be less complicated which is good. But I believe this is a state issue. The fed is far too involved these days.
It is up to states to decide who can marry and who can't. However, as Loving taught us, the laws as to who can and cannot marry cannot violate the constitution. So while yes, marriage is a state issue, it does not mean states can be allowed to exclude groups unlawfully. SSM is on the way to being allowed across the country. It is coming, and it is coming soon. When DOMA goes down, that will spell the end, since at that point, every state and the federal government will have to recognize any SSM from any state.
correct it will happen in the not so far future and the states will have to abide as they should.
The DOMA case is, if not a sure thing, close to it. That will be the catalyst.
Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.
It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.
But then don't we have the "full faith and credit" matter to deal with? If DOMA goes, the only alternative will be a constitutional amendment to define marriage. That means going back to the voters. And a public debate. I'm looking forward to it, myself.
It doesnt have to mean that at all just like loving vs virgina didnt mean that.
Marriage is a state issue. Churches don't issue marriage licenses, states do. You are correct in that the federal government has no business in this though.
It's pretty simple actually and yet everyone wants to make it so damned complicated. If states A, B, C, D and E want to legalize gay marriage, I have no problem with that. If states F, G, H, I and J want to ban gay marriage (or define marriage as being between a man and a woman), I have no problem with that either. If gays want to marry, move to a state that legalizes it. It's no different than if someone moves from state X to state Y because the tax laws are far more lenient in state Y than they are in state X.
You could SAY its ultimately a religious issue but the fact remains its not.
The easiest solution would be equal rights and not discriminating.
ANd marriage in general is a state issue but equal rights and discrimination is not and one that ruling is made similar to the ruling that was made on interracial marriage the states can stick it.
lastly if you want government not to grant ANY marriages thats fine but thats a different topic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?