CDZ Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

[Fair&Balanced]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

How do you force someone to "believe" in a religion or anything else. Marriage for many people has nothing to do with religion or religious institutions.

You are correct about that. As I said, MANY people believe in the tradition of marriage and aren't religious. Nothing wrong with that. at all.

 

[PurpleOwl]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

There is no requirement under the law that Civil Marriage conform to any religious consensus. Civil Marriage is a legal status, not a religious one.

If a couple desires to have a religious status - they are welcome to get married by an organized religion, however that is not needed to as part of the Civil Marriage contract.


>>>>

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex. Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex. If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist. Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

 

[PurpleOwl]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

How do you force someone to "believe" in a religion or anything else. Marriage for many people has nothing to do with religion or religious institutions.

the only reason to get married other than religious reasons is for the benefits the government awards you for being married. without those benefits marriage is nothing but a religious ritual.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

There is no requirement under the law that Civil Marriage conform to any religious consensus. Civil Marriage is a legal status, not a religious one.

If a couple desires to have a religious status - they are welcome to get married by an organized religion, however that is not needed to as part of the Civil Marriage contract.


>>>>

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex. Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex. If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist. Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

Marriage regulates sex? Really? How does it do that since sex outside of marriage is no longer illegal. ??

Most people don't care much about what the church says about sex either.

Many churches do in fact recognize and bless gay marriages and therefore that are in fact equal to straight marriages.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

How do you force someone to "believe" in a religion or anything else. Marriage for many people has nothing to do with religion or religious institutions.

the only reason to get married other than religious reasons is for the benefits the government awards you for being married. without those benefits marriage is nothing but a religious ritual.

You have some very strange ideas.

 

[PurpleOwl]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

There is no requirement under the law that Civil Marriage conform to any religious consensus. Civil Marriage is a legal status, not a religious one.

If a couple desires to have a religious status - they are welcome to get married by an organized religion, however that is not needed to as part of the Civil Marriage contract.


>>>>

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex. Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex. If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist. Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

Marriage regulates sex? Really? How does it do that since sex outside of marriage is no longer illegal. ??

Most people don't care much about what the church says about sex either.

Many churches do in fact recognize and bless gay marriages and therefore that are in fact equal to straight marriages.

Technically, sex outside of marriage is still illegal in some parts of the world, but since were talking about the USA, marriage laws regulate sex by encouraging people to get married, with monetary and legal benefits, children are still encouraged to wait to have sex until they are married, which you aren't allowed to do, until you reach a certain age, deemed appropriate by your local state government. Divorce laws are designed to encourage women to become broodmares by eliminating the fear of getting divorced. Even gay marriage laws which again are still very new, are exclusive to monogamous couples and while monogamy can exist without religion, marriage cannot.

 

[PurpleOwl]

You have some very strange ideas.

I know and I understand and forgive your initial hostility

 

[pwjohn]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

How do you force someone to "believe" in a religion or anything else. Marriage for many people has nothing to do with religion or religious institutions.

the only reason to get married other than religious reasons is for the benefits the government awards you for being married. without those benefits marriage is nothing but a religious ritual.

In other words it don't mean squat to you ! Or it means everything to you this you're deeply offended by gays getting married.

 

[oldsoul]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

 

[oldsoul]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Really Bubba?? Congratulations . You have come up with a load of equine excrement that I actually haven't heard before!!

Tax exempt status for churches should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

How so? They are seen, regardless of religion, as a non-profit, or a charitable organization. Granting tax fee status, in no way, sanctions an entity, otherwise both The American Red Cross and The Salvation Army would be considered sanctioned organizations. Are you arguing that they are?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Really Bubba?? Congratulations . You have come up with a load of equine excrement that I actually haven't heard before!!

Tax exempt status for churches should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

How so? They are seen, regardless of religion, as a non-profit, or a charitable organization. Granting tax fee status, in no way, sanctions an entity, otherwise both The American Red Cross and The Salvation Army would be considered sanctioned organizations. Are you arguing that they are?

And as I predicted wait long enough and his true agenda is revealed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex.

Religious Marriage is a religious ceremony.

Civil Marriage does not require a religious component.

Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex.

Massachusettes was issuing marriage licenses in 1639.

Sorry they've been around for hundreds of years.

If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist.

Sure they would, maybe under a different name and contract law - but they'd still be around.

Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

#1 Homosexual Civil Marriages do receive the same benefits as hetersosexual Civil Marriages.

#2 You prove my point - thank you - on the differentiation of Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. Polygamous people are free to enter into multiple-partner Religious Marriage, they cannot however enter into multi-partner Civil Marriages. That shows the difference very well.


>>>>

 

[Slyhunter]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

The so called benefits that go with marriage aren't a right.

 

[Slyhunter]

All marriage laws should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

How do you force someone to "believe" in a religion or anything else. Marriage for many people has nothing to do with religion or religious institutions.

the only reason to get married other than religious reasons is for the benefits the government awards you for being married. without those benefits marriage is nothing but a religious ritual.

unfair benefits single people don't get so should be stricken from the books or given to everybody, equally married or not.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

The so called benefits that go with marriage aren't a right.

No, they are not. They are however a privilege and can't be denied based on "gay marriage is icky" or other such standards.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Civil Marriage laws have to do with Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is not part of Civil Marriage.


No violation.


>>>>

All marriage laws encourage a specific type of marriage, one that is determined by religious consensus. Giving citizens a higher status in society in exchange for conforming to a religious ritual, should be considered a violation, regardless if the participants are forced to believe in the religion, that the ritual was originally derived from, or not

There is no requirement under the law that Civil Marriage conform to any religious consensus. Civil Marriage is a legal status, not a religious one.

If a couple desires to have a religious status - they are welcome to get married by an organized religion, however that is not needed to as part of the Civil Marriage contract.


>>>>

Marriage is a religious ceremony, designed to regulate sex. Only recently have we seen the rise of secular marriages and that is only because the government gives so many benefits to married couples, in order to regulate sex. If the government did not award any benefits to married couples to begin with, secular marriages wouldnt exist. Homosexual, polygamous, and polyamorous marriages do not receive the same benefits as monogamous heterosexual marriages for religious reasons therefore it should be considered, a violation of church and state. Especially considering many religons recognize polygamous marriage

Marriage regulates sex? Really? How does it do that since sex outside of marriage is no longer illegal. ??

Most people don't care much about what the church says about sex either.

Many churches do in fact recognize and bless gay marriages and therefore that are in fact equal to straight marriages.

Technically, sex outside of marriage is still illegal in some parts of the world, but since were talking about the USA, marriage laws regulate sex by encouraging people to get married, with monetary and legal benefits, children are still encouraged to wait to have sex until they are married, which you aren't allowed to do, until you reach a certain age, deemed appropriate by your local state government. Divorce laws are designed to encourage women to become broodmares by eliminating the fear of getting divorced. Even gay marriage laws which again are still very new, are exclusive to monogamous couples and while monogamy can exist without religion, marriage cannot.

While it's true that government provides incentives for people to marry, to say that it for the purpose of "regulating sex" is preposterous and, you have nothing to base that on.

Broodmares?? Really

There are now gay marriage laws. There were laws against gay marriage and now they are history and you don't have to be monogamous to be married. More bizarre idiocy

Let me tell you something, my wife and I are atheists and were married in a secular ceremony. We are also non monogamous. And WE ARE MARRIED whether or not you chose to accept that. It don't mean a hill of beans to me,

 

[320 Years of History]

USA, marriage laws regulate sex by encouraging people to get married

That is not a "regulation of sex." In fact, civil marriage laws have nothing to do with sex, except perhaps those that stipulate consummation of the marriage, if any still do so. Even that, however, is not a regulation of sex, but rather a mandate that sex be part of a marriage regardless of what role it plays outside of state sanctioned marriage.

 

[320 Years of History]

We are also non monogamous.

TMI LOL!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

You seem to be confusing the topic here.

First of all, I did not agree with your stance on marriage as a right. I merely did not disagree. There is a difference, words mean things.

Secondly, having a right, and having government granted benefits of exercising said right, are two separate topics. We are discussing the right it's self here, not the government granted benefits of exercising the right.

Third, your argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage is a right and therefore a state MUST issue licenses to exercise the right. I contend that a true right does not, indeed cannot, require a license to exercise. If this were not true a state could mandate that a person, or group, obtain a license to exercise ANY right.

Is there anything in this post you would like to refute? If so, please explain, and substantiate.

I’m just going make one final statement and then we’re done here because this is getting us nowhere.



Marriage has been established as a right in some 14 different Supreme Court rulings. They stated that it is a fundamental right. They did not say that it is a right for whoever brought the various cases- such as those who were barred from marriage because they were inmates, or owed child support- because others had the right. They said that it is a fundamental right. With respect to same sex marriage however, they did say that the ruling based on the fact that “similarly situated heterosexual couples can marry, but that does not change the view that it is a fundamental right.

You might also want to have a look at this:

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel. Fundamental Right

Now, when the courts speak about the right to marry, they are not just talking about the right to possess a certificate of marriage and certificate of marriage. They are speaking of the myriad of benefits, rights, responsibilities and protections that go with marriage.

As for the issue of the marriage license I wrote extensively in post 154 above about what the license does not negate the fact that it’s a right, because if it is not a right than it would have to be a privilege and it is clearly not a privilege: CDZ - Contd: Are there ways to separate gay marriage and benefits from govt and protect people equally

My argument is that marriage AND the benefits that go with it are a right. The issue of the license is just a distraction. If a state can recognize legal marriage without issuing a license that is fine with me. However, not everyone can or should be married and all rights have limitation and that is why a marriage license is important. Marriage Licenses » Marriage Law » Procedures

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

IF a state said "we aren't doing marriage licenses any more" what could the feds do about it? Answer? Nothing.

This is where his (I assume Progressive is a he) argument fails. He keeps arguing that marriage is a right. Something I have yet to disagree with. Yet he seems incapable of refuting our assertion that a license to marry is not a right, and the states cannot be forced to issue them, assuming they were to stop issuing them to all, not just some.

It is logical that if marriage is a right, as you agree, then it must be a right for everyone just as free speech is. You can’t say that the government can do away with freedom of speech as long as everyone is effected equally, right? Now, if you can show how people would continue to have the right to marry, and all of the benefits that go with marriage, then I will agree that the government is not obligated to issue licenses.

The so called benefits that go with marriage aren't a right.

No, they are not. They are however a privilege and can't be denied based on "gay marriage is icky" or other such standards.

Wrong! See post 259.