How about this one?
It is a waste of Texas taxpayer money to litigate this. It's not hate. It's a politician putting himself in an attractive light with his constituency.
Umm...who is punishing Christians? I didn't say anything about that, please re-read again.I appreciate your answer would be to punish Christians
How is removing government benefits from religious ceremonies punitive, especially given the complaints Christians have been lodging about it?However, if traditionally marriages conducted in churches have been honoured by courts, how would your solution not be punitive and seen as such?
Not surprising...most definitions provided by those opposed to same sex marriage generally violate the first amendment and they know it.Notice Countryboy didn't offer any other definition.
Not surprising...most definitions provided by those opposed to same sex marriage generally violate the first amendment and they know it.
I understand your point, I'm not buying it, and I'm saying let's test it. There's no animus if a State goes out of the marriage business. If a State removes all legislation related to marriage licenses, the issuance of them, the validity of them, who can perform marriages, etc., it is actually opening up the business of marriage rather than stunting it. It is saying as a government they are letting the free market and private enterprise take over. It's not prohibiting marriage, it's just getting out of the way. How is that a sign of animus?
Congratulations on referring to a video which said exactly what I said, which is the definition provided in opposition is a religious one. Thank you for proving my point.
So let someone prove it in court. The argument I would make is that the Supreme Court has decided to open up the long standing legal definition of marriage and mandate its broadening across the country so, therefore, we as State x have decided to get out of the way and allow for the broadening and availability of marriage to anyone and everyone who chooses that path. We will no longer set up restrictions and regulations, bylaws and fees, and simply recognize any coupling that comes our way. How can that be punitive?
Umm...who is punishing Christians? I didn't say anything about that, please re-read again.
How is removing government benefits from religious ceremonies punitive, especially given the complaints Christians have been lodging about it?
Again, please re-read my post again. I feel as if you completely misunderstood what was said.
Not surprising...most definitions provided by those opposed to same sex marriage generally violate the first amendment and they know it.
What you're ignoring is the many ways being married or not affects our legal rights and responsibilities. They could open it up and say that 28 year old men can marry 4 year olds....
Congratulations on referring to a video which said exactly what I said, which is the definition provided in opposition is a religious one. Thank you for proving my point.
By the way, it's good to see you agree with Obama that homosexuals should be granted equal rights under the law, regardless of what he personally agrees with. I guess this makes you a liberal now?
Are there any circumstances in which the state can deny a person a gun license, in violation of the very real right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, without them having broken any laws?
The problem is the state can't (realistically in this reality in 2015) get completely out of that business. It will have dozens or hundreds of laws that distinguish between a married person and a single person having to do with all kinds of contract rights and responsibilities, debt, child rearing, divorce, etc. And even if Texas repeals ALL its laws, the married couple in Texas will travel to other states with those laws. And so it will have to define the qualifications for "marriage" and who is legally allowed to perform them, and the rights of each party when that marriage terminates, and how a couple goes about doing that. The "free market" doesn't make laws and so cannot assume those functions.
Let's say the state delegates that responsibility to Koch Enterprises - gives them a contract or permission to issue those licenses. A condition of that contract or that permission to grant marriage licenses with Koch has to be that the private firm issue licenses in accordance with all applicable laws, which will require them to issue them to all qualified couples, including SSMs. They can't get around the legal obligation by assigning their duties to a third party.
I took your comments the only reasonable way they could be taken. You recommended that Christians who typically, for the most part, marry in their church - a ceremony that has been recognized by governments for your country's entire history and longer - should be penalized and have to also get a State sponsored ceremony/marriage if they wish to have the State recognize it. That's punitive and spiteful.
Firstly, if there are "hundreds of laws that distinguish between a married person and a single person" then those laws are on their face discrimination based on marital status and a State should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. Why should a married person have greater or different rights and access than a single person?
Secondly, if the State is out of the marriage business, you can bet there will be a booming business in attorneys advising and drafting marriage contracts - likely the same attorneys who practice divorce and family law since they're the ones who are intimately knowledgeable about the flaws in the State's marriage contracts.
Finally, if the State government is out of the marriage business, they wouldn't be contracting any third parties to perform marriages or dissolve marriages or adjudicate disputes - the courts will do that - or in all likelihood, the feds may step in since they and the Supreme Court decided they know best - let them have the mess.
I took your comments the only reasonable way they could be taken. You recommended that Christians who typically, for the most part, marry in their church - a ceremony that has been recognized by governments for your country's entire history and longer - should be penalized and have to also get a State sponsored ceremony/marriage if they wish to have the State recognize it. That's punitive and spiteful.
What you're ignoring is the many ways being married or not affects our legal rights and responsibilities. They could open it up and say that 28 year old men can marry 4 year olds....
In 37 states a girl of any age can consent to having an abortion at any age without her parent's permission. Why shouldn't they be able to consent to marriage? Of the two, marriage is less traumatizing.
Also, a few months ago a judge in NY ruled that two chimpanzees had "legal person" status.
Chimpanzees granted petition to hear 'legal persons' status in court | World news | The Guardian
Th state can't make any discrimination for any reason? Why not?
I think that is a bit of hyperbole. There are state and federal laws protecting children.
However, it is possible for a state to blackmail a religious organization who refuses to break from religious teachings by refusing to marry same sex couples. In fact, Churches have been at the "mercy" of the state in the whole process.
The government does not recognize marriages that result from church weddings per se. They grant the Priest/Rabbi/Minister authority to take on the role of a legal authority having jurisdiction. That is why someone must get a marriage license before they have a church wedding. Without the license, no wedding, no matter how many "I do's" are involved.
So a state can decide they don't like the stand a church is taking, so it outlaws recognition of any wedding performed in a church. Everyone would have to get married in a civil ceremony presided over by a judge or similar authority. The church part could only be a celebration, or confirmation.
Far fetched. Probably. But in this punitive time in society where anything goes, perhaps not.
I don't know how it works anywhere else, but we had a church wedding and applied for the license with the state who checked our qualifications for marriage and issued the actual license. The pastor was granted permission by the state to conduct the ceremony, but he could not issue the license - it had to be approved by some government clerk, after we paid our small fee..
1. Marriage is a contract someone under the age of consent cannot enter into a contract.
2. The chimp case has nothing to do with anything in regards to this debate. Granting them a hearing for status as "legal persons" does give them any rights that a human enjoys.
What you're ignoring is the many ways being married or not affects our legal rights and responsibilities. They could open it up and say that 28 year old men can marry 4 year olds....
The comment was that the state would get out of the business and recognize any couple. Obviously the state will regulate marriage, if nothing else to prevent valid marriages between an adult and a toddler or young child.
Actually, there can be a wedding and a marriage, but it won't be recognized by the state, which I think is your point.
OK, it is far fetched. For hundreds of years the state hasn't gotten involved in a church's decision to perform a marriage ceremony or not.
Now that's the worst slippery slope argument I have ever heard. In fact it's slippery cliff
Firstly, if there are "hundreds of laws that distinguish between a married person and a single person" then those laws are on their face discrimination based on marital status and a State should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination. Why should a married person have greater or different rights and access than a single person?
Secondly, if the State is out of the marriage business, you can bet there will be a booming business in attorneys advising and drafting marriage contracts - likely the same attorneys who practice divorce and family law since they're the ones who are intimately knowledgeable about the flaws in the State's marriage contracts.
Finally, if the State government is out of the marriage business, they wouldn't be contracting any third parties to perform marriages or dissolve marriages or adjudicate disputes - the courts will do that - or in all likelihood, the feds may step in since they and the Supreme Court decided they know best - let them have the mess.
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?