Can Consensus be reached on Gay Marriage?

[emilynghiem]

Can consensus be reached on gay marriage? - Vote - SystemWiki

Yes, keep Traditional Marriage as is, allow churches to recognize Gay Marriage, and all couples to establish civil contracts with equal neutral terms

Yes, keep Govt Neutral and out of Marriage and let people and churches decide privately

No, force States to recognize all Marriage equally despite objections

No, ban Gay Marriage despite objections

Maybe, hold Constitutional Conventions to decide by consensus or separate policies

Maybe, let States vote and people decide by majority rule

Other, please discuss
======================================

 

[DGS49]

The key to reaching consensus is to promote the idea (fact) that the "Institution of Marriage" that is created by the State is totally different from the "Institution of Marriage," that is created by a Church.

We Catholics are more formal in our thinking than most, but still, consider this: The Church doesn't recognize marriages performed by a JP. The Church doesn't recognize divorces if the marriage was performed in the Church. The State doesn't recognize "annulments" of marriages by the Church (even if a priest performed the marriate), nor does the State recognize the concept of "consummating" a marriage.

The solution is to REVOKE the right of religious priests and ministers to perform civil marriages (or for the religious ministers, en masse, to resign their credentials). Thus, when a couple decides to get married, they have to decide separately, whether they want to be married by the State, by a Church, by neither, or by both.

What difference should it make to any Church what a state legislature wants to recognize as a "marriage"? The legislature is considering a package of public policy matters when making that choice, including taxes, inheritance, health insurance, welfare benefits, pensions, and who know what else. If the State wants to allow people to "marry" their family pets, what does that matter to the Church? It might make perfect sense from a public policy perspective, and it's none of any Church's business.

Consider the AIDS pandemic. If recognizing gay "marriage" will reduce the spread of AIDS by encouraging male homosexuals to remain mainly faithful to one another, that by itself might be a good enough reason for a state legislature to decide that it wants to recognize gay marriages.

"Marriage" is two separate institutions (maybe more), and let's leave it at that.

 

[emilynghiem]

The key to reaching consensus is to promote the idea (fact) that the "Institution of Marriage" that is created by the State is totally different from the "Institution of Marriage," that is created by a Church.

We Catholics are more formal in our thinking than most, but still, consider this: The Church doesn't recognize marriages performed by a JP. The Church doesn't recognize divorces if the marriage was performed in the Church. The State doesn't recognize "annulments" of marriages by the Church (even if a priest performed the marriate), nor does the State recognize the concept of "consummating" a marriage.

The solution is to REVOKE the right of religious priests and ministers to perform civil marriages (or for the religious ministers, en masse, to resign their credentials). Thus, when a couple decides to get married, they have to decide separately, whether they want to be married by the State, by a Church, by neither, or by both.

What difference should it make to any Church what a state legislature wants to recognize as a "marriage"? The legislature is considering a package of public policy matters when making that choice, including taxes, inheritance, health insurance, welfare benefits, pensions, and who know what else. If the State wants to allow people to "marry" their family pets, what does that matter to the Church? It might make perfect sense from a public policy perspective, and it's none of any Church's business.

Consider the AIDS pandemic. If recognizing gay "marriage" will reduce the spread of AIDS by encouraging male homosexuals to remain mainly faithful to one another, that by itself might be a good enough reason for a state legislature to decide that it wants to recognize gay marriages.

"Marriage" is two separate institutions (maybe more), and let's leave it at that.

Thanks DGS
For those who cannot separate marriage under the church from marriage through the state, these beliefs should be respected also.

Thus, such persons should have the option of having the state stay out of marriage altogether, and agree on neutral language such as civil contracts instead.

People per state need to agree, either to have neutral language, and/or agree to remove "marriage" from state jurisdiction altogether.

You have the right idea, and I agree with the CONCEPT,
but in practice, the people in each state need to agree on the language or agree to drop it.

I recognize some people have beliefs where they CANNOT separate church from state,
so they should be accommodated equally.

 

[Politico]

Can Consensus be reached on Gay Marriage?

No. As I have said for years both sides are steaming piles of shit. Divorces, baby mommas doing the dirty on Friday night, diggers looking for a quick buck, property division, alimony, wage garnishment, children used as emotional pawns, getting pregnant. Divorcd under the guise that they had irreconcilable differences with the guy they planned on sucking dry for a paycheck on purpose. They should have to endure the same shit as the rest of us do. But the gays err...homosexuals refuse to be honest. And the religious freaks won't put their Bible thumping ways aside regardless of what sense it makes.

 

[Noomi]

Force the States to allow gay marriage no matter what their homophobic citizens want.

 

[DGS49]

Noomi person, what about plural marriages? Incestuous marriages between (among) competent adults? Inter-species marriages?

Where would YOU draw the line, and why?

 

[Inevitable]

Noomi person, what about plural marriages? Incestuous marriages between (among) competent adults? Inter-species marriages?

Where would YOU draw the line, and why?

Plural marriages I could care less. Incest hs nothing to do with marriage incest is sexual intercourse. You can't marry a pig or a box or a toaster because those objects can't enter any kind of contract.

 

[Inevitable]

I voted other. All that really needs to happen is the ruling of doma section 2 unconstitutional. Don't have to force states to do anything don't have to accept anything Just allow the good faith and credit clause to apply.