Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming


Again, why should ONLY religions have the power to marry people...

Governments (society) have been performing marriages for a long time. Why should that power be taken away and handed over exclusively to a bunch of religions who can't even agree on the subject.

Ming, I think you are still hung up on the religious view of marriage that requires some "power" to unite two people.

Historically, marriages are formed by contract and society gives married couples certain rights and obligations by default. The only valid question we face is should the law extend these same rights and obligations to gay marriages.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wezil
Cut and paste and wait for an answer....

Gay Couple:

Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'

Straight Couple:

Step 1: Go church of their choice - get 'married'

Please tell me where the inequalities are in this arrangement?

Yep... both get screwed, because they HAVE to go to a church to get married And that's what I'm arguing against... giving churches the exclusive rights to Marriages.

Some people seem to want to remove the government from performing marriages... Whether you agree that they should have the power or not... THEY ALREADY DO... and have had so for a very long time.

So to take that power away, YES, You are giving more power to religions.

There is a big difference in most peoples minds on the terms Civil Unions and Marriages. While you may argue that both will have the same rights and be the same, they aren't the same. PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED, not have a "civil union". The word MEANS SOMETHING to people...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wezil


Ming - Last try. I'm taking power AWAY FROM religion. 'Marriage' will have ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL EFFECT. Civil unions, of which ALL may avail themselves is the only legally binding contract here. If this is not 'equal' enough then I can only assume that what you are really pushing for is symbolic recognition from groups (not the State) that won't/can't accept gay relationships. Symbolic or not, to hell with their beliefs.

Wezil, your views and mine are very close on this subject. They differ only in the involvement of the state in solemnizing the marriage with some ceremony. I suggest you look at Kalifornia's new "domestic partner" legislation which gives domestic partners all the rights and obligations of married couples under the law by simple registration.

But Kalifornia still issues marriage licenses and conducts marriage ceremonies even though the procedure does nothing whatsoever substantively. Nothing!!!! People have equal rights either way. So why is the license and the ceremony required with the one and not the other. It makes no sense whatsoever.

However, the distinction is being driven by the defense of marriage act. It denies federal rights to gay marriages while permitting them for domestic partners.

The way this argument is evolving is a joke when one considers the substance of what is going on.

[Wezil]

Damn you are being obtuse today Ming. Check the edit to my post where I included the steps for atheists (ie SKIP THE CHURCH as it is not a LEGAL requirement)

Marry in a Church if you want. Call yourself married (as you would be!) and get on with it.

Try an honest response Ming. I know you can argue better. Seems you can't accept being wrong.

[Elok]

But how are you giving power to religions? If the word's all that matters, like I said, get yourself married by a nonreligious organization. They'll crop up quickly enough, just watch.

[Wezil]

Ned - I know what you are saying, and I could agree to such a prctise as well. Unfortunately the gay community (for understandable reasons) will not accept the 'separate but equal' ideas that I think that proposal involves. I may misunderstand the legislation.

As to the power to the Church debate - does anyone seriously think organised religions would like my proposal? Not likely. So I ask, who's zoomin' who here?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wezil
Damn you are being obtuse today Ming. Check the edit to my post where I included the steps for atheists (ie SKIP THE CHURCH as it is not a LEGAL requirement)

Marry in a Church if you want. Call yourself married (as you would be!) and get on with it.

Try an honest response Ming. I know you can argue better. Seems you can't accept being wrong.

A civil union is NOT considered a "marriage" by many people. You are the one missing the point and are wrong.

Your whole point is that Governments should do ONLY civil unions, and that religions should do "marriages".

So under your way... ONLY religious people could get married, while others would have to SETTLE for a civil union.

Again... The state ALREADY had the power to perform marriages... and you want to TAKE THAT AWAY and hand it ONLY to the religions... So YES, you are GIVING POWER TO THE RELIGIONS... what don't you understand about this. Seems you are the one that can't admit they are wrong

[Ned]

Originally posted by Elok
Who says you have to be married by a religion? If you really want to be married, I don't suggest making that exclusive to a religious group, only exclusive of the government. I have nothing against a "secular union society," or some such, marrying atheists off. I do have a problem with religious veneration being given to the government equivalent. Which is why I say they should have the power to confer legal rights, and leave the symbolism up to the people receiving those rights. It's not like we're setting up a dichotomy of "worships a god" vs. "respects the government."

This argument is virtually the same as mine concerning our situation in Kalifornia. We have two systems now that yield identical rights but with two different names.

This is a joke, IMHO. An obscene joke.

But, it is caused by the DoMA which denies legal benefits to gay marriages.

So long as that Act continues in its present form, we could finesse the situation by eliminating marriage licenses and civil marriages altogether and having all couples exclusively use the domestic partnership registration procedure to record their "marriages."

[Wezil]

Yes, sounds similar.

I am in no way saying gays can't marry (despite Ming's continued protestations otherwise). Go ahead and marry in any Church which can recognise your marriage under the terms of their dogma. There ARE churches that will marry gay couples. If you don't want to marry in a church - DON'T. Your choice and nobody else's.

Still waiting for an explanation on how this is discriminatory.......

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wezil
Ned - I know what you are saying, and I could agree to such a prctise as well. Unfortunately the gay community (for understandable reasons) will not accept the 'separate but equal' ideas that I think that proposal involves. I may misunderstand the legislation.

As to the power to the Church debate - does anyone seriously think organised religions would like my proposal? Not likely. So I ask, who's zoomin' who here?

The way to go is simply eliminate marriage licenses and civil ceremonies in favor of domestic partner registration. People can call themselves married if they want.

If we could amend the DoMA to permit federal recognition of gay marriages, your solution might be acceptable as well. But so long as that Act exists, they cannot obtain federal rights by virtue of anything which is called "marriage."

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ned


Bogus. We should not, repeat NOT establish separate but equal. All contracts of marriage are marriages regardless of how made or how soleminized. The Mass. Sup. court has already ruled that separate is not equal in this realm. They are right.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying (or I didn't do a good job of saying it.)

Civil unions should be what is recognized by the state, both for straight and gay. Marraiges should be for the people in their religion without forcing the religion to change its methods of operation. There are some churches out there who marry homosexual couples. The only thing marraige should be for is those who want to join their coupling (and the benefits involved) with their religion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes, sounds similar.

I am in no way saying gays can't marry (despite Ming's continued protestations otherwise). Go ahead and marry in any Church which can recognise your marriage under the terms of their dogma. There ARE churches that will marry gay couples. If you don't want to marry in a church - DON'T. Your choice and nobody else's.

Still waiting for an explanation on how this is discriminatory.......

Wezil, I urge you to review the Kalifornia law on this. You still are hung up on the notion that someone has to perform a "ceremony" to form a valid marriage.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wezil
I am in no way saying gays can't marry (despite Ming's continued protestations otherwise). Go ahead and marry in any Church which can recognise your marriage under the terms of their dogma. There ARE churches that will marry gay couples. If you don't want to marry in a church - DON'T. Your choice and nobody else's.

Why should they have to "marry" in a church? Why can't the government MARRY THEM... LIKE THEY DO EVERYBODY ELSE ALL READY! The whole point is that SOME DON'T WANT TO MARRY IN A CHURCH... why should a CHURCH be the only one that can RECOGNISE a marriage...

Let's review your whole idea.

Right now, people can get married by the state, religion, ships captian, whatever...

You want to change it so only religions can officially "MARRY" people... and that everything else is JUST A CIVIL UNION... and that if you want to be "married", you need to go to a church.

How is this NOT handing power to the churchs and taking it away from government.

A "civil union" is not a "marriage". The term marriage means something to people, and not just religious people. Whether the "rights" that come with each are the same isn't the issue... you are saying that only people married in a Church are married, the rest is just a "civil union"... That is discriminating against those that want nothing to do with a church... straight or gay.

[Wezil]

No, actually I'm not. The 'ceremony' is entirely that. A symbolic process with no legal weight. Have all the ceremonies you want (or none as the case may be for atheists).


I do find it strange however that someone would argue us atheists are being hard done by b/c we can't marry in a church. Strange, but no atheists I know want to be married in a church.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wezil
No, actually I'm not. The 'ceremony' is entirely that. A symbolic process with no legal weight. Have all the ceremonies you want (or none as the case may be for atheists).

Then why not CONTINUE to let governments do MARRIAGES. That is a "ceremony" as well... WHY DO YOU INSIST on changing it to a "Civil Union".

It doesn't change ANYTHING... except telling people that they have to do ANOTHER ceremony if they wish to be actually married.