The Sanctity of Marriage

[anonshadow]

Uh. I know plenty of people who have been married without a priest in sight. So on that point, you're dead wrong.

Ordained Minister, or something. Maybe not a priest, per se. I'm not up on the terms. The law says that for a couple to be married there has to be some sort of religious leader present. Wish you wouldn't call me dead wrong without looking into the matter.

Source that.

Because it's not true. When you whine about someone being wrong about something, show us proof that they're wrong. Because as it so happens, he isn't.

http://madrid.usembassy.gov/emba/marriage.html

Please note that American diplomatic and consular officers cannot perform marriages. Under U.S. law, only state-designated officials can perform marriages: diplomatic and consular officers are federal officials.

http://marriagelaws.info/

# A religious ceremony should be conducted under the customs of the religion, or, in the case of a Native American group, under the customs of the tribe. Religious ceremonies normally are conducted by religious officials, such as ministers, priests, or rabbis. Native American ceremonies may be presided over by a tribal chief or other designated official.

Civil ceremonies usually are conducted by judges. In some states, county clerks or other government officials may conduct civil ceremonies.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/cons_new/vi ... ge-us.html

In general, marriage licenses are available from the County Courthouse in the area where you intend being married.

http://travel.state.gov/family/family_i ... e_589.html

Marriages abroad are almost always performed by local (foreign) civil or religious officials.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/a ... /state.htm

For example, in most states, marriage licenses are issued by city or county governments.

No state requires a religious official to perform the marriage. None, zilch, nada. You're wrong.

Sounds great to me. Except for the bit where you say that a priest CAN'T marry people. That's an extreme change, contrary to what you said. You can't disallow them. That's discrimination and completely uncalled for. For some, it is very important to be bonded by a minister (regardless of whether it's called civil union or marriage). But other than that your plan sounds fine by me.

I believe he meant to say, "civil unionizing" people. Which was pretty obvious from the context.

[Eaquae Legit]

Ship captains can't marry couples. This causes a lot of trouble for people wishing to get married on a cruise. Oops.

Judges and most ministers can perform marriages. The wedding chapel folks in Las Vegas probably get a "minister's" licence because it's easier than going to school for years to become a judge. Couples there still need to obtain a marriage licence, though.

Luminousnerd, who's to say he didn't look into it before calling you "dead wrong." He has probably known it for a long time - it's not exactly obscure knowlegde.

[luminousnerd]

AnonShadow, you didn't read what I said. But that's fine. I haven't the energy or interest to combat it.

Judges and most ministers can perform marriages. The wedding chapel folks in Las Vegas probably get a "minister's" licence because it's easier than going to school for years to become a judge. Couples there still need to obtain a marriage licence, though.

Luminousnerd, who's to say he didn't look into it before calling you "dead wrong." He has probably known it for a long time - it's not exactly obscure knowlegde.

But you just proved my point. If you were arguing something else, then you simply misunderstood me.

[Eaquae Legit]

Correction, it MUST be performed by a priest in order to be legally binding. Pathetic, isn't it, how even after they steal the word they still need the help of the religions.

I wasn't twisting anything. Those are your words. What myself, Elena, and other people here have (correctly) pointed out is that you don't have to have a religious minister of any type presiding, or even remotely connected, in order to have a legally binding marriage.

Okay, I was willing to admit that I had no proof. But I certainly had reasoning, and my assertion was definitely founded. If you think otherwise, you're not even bothering to read my posts, or you are and you are lying to prove your point. But if you had read them and had an IQ above 2 you would realize that my statements, while unbacked by facts, have plenty of reasoning and plenty of foundation.

If it's reasoned and founded in something, then show us. That's what "proof" is. Otherwise it's simply opinion and others are free to tell you that you are wrong in the facts. I think "otherwise," and I have read your posts and I am not lying. I'm not even trying to prove a point, since I'm staying out of this particular discussion. And again, if it's "unbacked by facts," then you have NO reasoning, and NO foundation. That's just how it works when you want to have your opinion accepted as true. We're weird like that, here. You're entitled to all the sententiae that you want, but if you hope to have them taken as rationes, you need to back them.

Now, if you would like to say "I believe this because I just do, okay?" then people have to suck it up and admit that you're entitled to your opinion. It's only when you say "This is how it IS, and it just is, okay?" that people challenge you. And you say the latter quite a lot.

[luminousnerd]

*sigh* I'm done here.

I don't concede. I'm just tired of fighting it. It's not a healthy debate any more. Not fun. And I know I'm not going to convince any of you.

So I'm done.

[anonshadow]

In other words... you're wrong.

[luminousnerd]

*sigh* I'm done here.

I don't concede. I'm just tired of fighting it. It's not a healthy debate any more. Not fun. And I know I'm not going to convince any of you.

So I'm done.

[anonshadow]

You know, continuing to post "I'm done here" kind of takes away from the statement.

Can we get back on track and talk about gay marriages, now that luminousnerd has left the discussion?

For those of you who do not support gay marriage, do you support a complete legal equivalent that simply does not use the name?

[eriador]

I say that the government should give up on marriage, and let the church be in charge of marriages. However, these church marriage would have no legal standing. Instead, I think that all legal unions should be "civil unions". It would be these that would carry all of the legal benefits that marriage currently has. In actuality, this would be a very minor change from the current system. Essentially, the government(s) would have to change the laws to say "civil union" instead of marriage and they would have to say that for a civil union to be valid it would have to be performed by a government official. This would make a system where "marriage" in the church separate from "civil unions" from the government. This is just like it is now, just with "civil unions" replacing marriage (and priests not being able to create a legal bond). At least it would clear up the terminology issues.

My 2¢.

[LilBee91]

This is just like it is now, just with "civil unions" replacing marriage (and priests not being able to create a legal bond).

If priests couldn't make legal bonds, wouldn't that rob religious marriages of the legal rights given to civil unions? Or am I just misunderstanding your idea?

[eriador]

You can get both. Just like you have to get a marriage license now, you would go down to city hall and get a civil union, then go to the church and get married. Some churches would let you get married without a civil union, some wouldn't, it's up to them.

Does that make it clear?

[Sibyl]

You can get both. Just like you have to get a marriage license now, you would go down to city hall and get a civil union, then go to the church and get married. Some churches would let you get married without a civil union, some wouldn't, it's up to them.

Does that make it clear?

That's approximately the way it's done in some European countries, I believe. I got married at a time when I wasn't religious, and felt that a religious ceremony would have been hypocrisy. Legal was all we wanted.

[jotabe]

Yeah, in Spain the religious ceremony has no legal standing whatsoever. If you want to be legally married, you have to go to the judge and fill in the papers, make your oath and sign.

[LilBee91]

You can get both. Just like you have to get a marriage license now, you would go down to city hall and get a civil union, then go to the church and get married. Some churches would let you get married without a civil union, some wouldn't, it's up to them.

Does that make it clear?

A system like that could work. Though, if a religious ceremony (with a marriage license) could have the same rights without an additional civil union, it would be a lot more desirable for religious people.

[eriador]

Even to get a religious marriage now, you still need a marriage license. That's what the civil union is like. Except that because the religious marriage has no legal benefits, you can get one even though you don't have a civil union. That would actually INCREASE religious freedom, which is cool.

[Matty]

[devil's advocate]
So far all legalizations of gay marriage and civil unions have been imposed by courts, not the legislature, over the objection of what polls show is a clear majority of Americans that opposes gay marriage. Marriage is not only a contract between two people, it's a contract between those two people and society as a whole. (The couple agrees to keep their marriage vows, and society agrees to recognize their married status in formal and informal ways). Therefore, if society, for whatever reason, disapproves of a certain type of union, it is undemocratic for an unelected body to make that type of union legal. The reason society disapproves of the union is not the issue -- it cannot be put to logical scrutiny, because in a democracy, all that matters is the numbers.
[/devil's advocate]

[jotabe]

Except that in a (democratic) parlamentarian regime, even the power of the people is limited.

[anonshadow]

[devil's advocate]
The reason society disapproves of the union is not the issue -- it cannot be put to logical scrutiny, because in a democracy, all that matters is the numbers.
[/devil's advocate]

That's not true. I know you're playing the devil's advocate, but it's a flawed argument. Historically, the majority opinion is not what decides an issue--if that were the case, apartheid would never have been abolished and women would never have been given the right to vote.

The reason the majority of Americans disapprove of gay marriage absolutely is the issue--it determines whether or not their argument is constitutionally viable and, if not, the courts (who are often the ones to order a change in the status quo on serious issues) have the duty to strike down every law that is unfair and is not in keeping with the Constitution.

[Matty]

The reason the majority of Americans disapprove of gay marriage absolutely is the issue--it determines whether or not their argument is constitutionally viable and, if not, the courts (who are often the ones to order a change in the status quo on serious issues) have the duty to strike down every law that is unfair and is not in keeping with the Constitution.

No, the courts have the duty to strike down every law that is not in keeping with the Constitution. What does "unfair" mean? Many laws mandate different treatment for different groups. "Unfair" winds up meaning "whatever the Court doesn't like." The Constitution and 200 years of precedent are clear that it is the job of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and decide whether laws violate it -- not to interpret perceived implicit principles in some parts of the Constitution and make laws out of those.

And the courts had much more authority behind civil rights decisions than they do today behind gay marriage decisions. The 14th Amendment says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court looked at cases when states were violating rights guaranteed by the US constitution, and said that the states were acting unconstitutionally. Pretty cut-and-dried.

In the case of the Civil Rights movement, the legislation (the 13th -- 15th Amendments) came FIRST. The courts just helped enforce them. There has been no corresponding legislation on gay marriage. So the courts have no jurisdiction to create law on that subject. That power belongs to the legislature, and the people have not elected the legislators (at least in enough numbers) that will make gay marriage legal.

Obviously, the US is not a pure democracy, or even a pure republic -- the courts do have some power. But it doesn't apply to this extent.

[Ender97]

I hate to do this, but I feel that I need to open up this can of worms in order to explore a new aspect of this debate. One thing that I have not seen any one else bring up, yet have heard many "religious leaders" say is that homosexual marriage is the edge of a slippery slope. They argue that if you allow same sex marriage, then you well have to allow poligamy, polyandry. group and any other form of marriage, because to allow one is to set the precedent. Then any one that feels that they are being discriminated aginst due to their choice of partner coud force their way into being allowed to have a legal marriage. So they think that if you stop it at a man and a woman and keep it there, no other issues will come up.

[jotabe]

Problem with such relationships as polygamy (polyginy and polyandry) is that they aren't equalitarian relationships, hence they aren't the adequate brick to build our modern societies upon, hence they deserve no protection from society.
On the other side, gay couples are no different from heterosexual couples. They have the same problems, they offer the same benefits, they stand on the same terms. It is true that gay couples tend to last less, but from what i understand, as homosexuality is "getting ouf the closet" in our society, the couples based on homosexuality are approaching to last in average as much as heterosexual ones.

So ender, what can be done is stopping at 2 people (with no familiar relationship on first degree) and leaving it there.

While there are reasons to ban polygamic and endogamic marriages, there are no reasons to ban homosexual marriages, other than religious issues.
After all, lending money with interest is also as sin (as viewed in the Bible), and i have never heard any religous group to push for the abolition of banks.

[hive_king]

Personally, if a multi-member marriage can be managed in such a way that everyone is treated equally, without signifigant possibility of abuse of any involved, I'd say more power to them. The problem is, however, that polygamy can easily lead to abuse, like in the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. Thats one difference.