Interesting point there

Post #307,109 by drook 4/10/09 9:46:26 AM Reply	Interesting point there In the text under the ad, they mention a New Jersey church that lost its tax-exempt status because they wouldn't allow same-sex marriage in their church. I suspect it's not a simple as that, but raises a point I've been making for years: Is marriage a civil event or a religious one? Pick one, it can't be both. If you want to perform a religious rite, you don't get to have it recognized by the state. I actually think that Mormon guy with seven wives and dozens of kids was legally correct. The state told him he can't be married to multiple women at once. So every time he took a new wife he divorced the last one. Of course he and his wives didn't recognize divorce as valid, so they considered themselves to still be married. The state agreed ... and declared the divorces to be a sham. And that's what bugs me about the government position on marriage. We can call you married -- common law -- if you've been living together long enough. So you can accidentally get married. We can decide that you "didn't really mean it" when you got a divorce. So you can accidentally stay married. Oops, spinning off into a rant. Point is, the state should have nothing to say about "marriage". Sure, they have an interest in making sure people support their children; that there's an equitable way to assess taxes on people living together; that there's some reasonable definition of "joint property". But none of that requires interaction with a religious ceremony. -- Drew
Post #307,110 by boxley 4/10/09 9:49:32 AM Reply	I have said that for years, the state has no business licensing religious ceremonies especially since the state's interest in inheritance identification is rendered moot by dna testing
Post #307,115 by drook 4/10/09 10:45:27 AM Reply	Is it? I keep seeing this statistic tossed around that 10% of us don't really have the father we think we do. I think that's one of those numbers that started as speculation and everyone picked up on it as fact, but I know it's got to be true sometimes. So let's say someone dies without a will, and with enough of an estate that people are willing to fight over it. If someone was raised as a son, the deceased is listed as the father on the birth certificate, no one ever challenged paternity until the probate fight ... what does the law say? -- Drew
Post #307,116 by boxley 4/10/09 10:50:14 AM Reply	Current law is the name on the birth certificate is the father, people have been using dna testing and suing over not paying child support on kids that are not theirs. Courts have consistently ruled against them
Post #307,124 by jay 4/10/09 12:01:58 PM Reply	Re: Interesting point there Oops, spinning off into a rant. Point is, the state should have nothing to say about "marriage". Sure, they have an interest in making sure people support their children; that there's an equitable way to assess taxes on people living together; that there's some reasonable definition of "joint property". But none of that requires interaction with a religious ceremony. Other way around. What happens in the church is a religious ceremony that can be called anything, but it's the legal part that is a marriage. Either way though, you are right. It's the ugly overlap between the religious and civil that makes marriage a problem. Jay
Post #307,138 by drook 4/10/09 3:28:30 PM Reply	Words count See "Defense of Marriage" ... "redefinition of marriage" ... etc. People are really hung up on the fact that they are "married" and don't want "those people" to be able to call what they do marriage. The way I see it, your religion can be whatever you want it to be. Like you said, call your ceremonies whatever you want. But if so many people want to get stuck on the word, to the point that they spend millions of dollars fighting it? Fine, call it something else. "Civil union" seems to have some traction. You can have a civil union and a marriage. A marriage or a civil union. Either/or, neither/both. Your church can have whatever rules they want about who can do it to/with whom. But the state doesn't get to have anything in the rules about gender, race, religion ... you know, that list they came up with in the 60s. -- Drew
Post #307,139 by beepster 4/10/09 4:26:55 PM Reply	bing bing bing! That's the hang-up. Its all in the word. If we have silly laws that keep a partner from sitting with his/her significant other because they don't have the right paperwork...then there needs to be a way for them to get the right paperwork. Its when you equate it to the M word that everyone get's their panties in a bunch. Mind you, I think the caucus somewhat enjoys getting the RR's panties in a bunch. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,144 by Another Scott 4/10/09 7:13:23 PM Reply	I view it differently. It's not just a battle over a word. The word is more than just short-hand. It wasn't that long ago that mixed-race marriages were illegal in many parts of the US. While analogies are always imperfect, making an analogy to that from the present situation is instructive, I think. Why couldn't there have just been a Civil Union for Obama's parents? Traditionally, many people believed that the races shouldn't mix. Why not just call a mixed-race union a Civil Union since so many people were upset about mixed-race marriages? Why not? Because "equal protection" is a vitally important concept. It must not be subordinated to religious doctrines. We tried "separate but equal" - it doesn't work and it's not good enough. Many of those who are most vociferous in their opposition to gay marriage are intent upon restricting the rights of others based on a world-view that is ultimately grounded in their religion and in their ignorance and fear of those who are different. Their fear of gay marriage has the same root as their fear of gay teachers or gay soldiers or ... As the Iowa court pointed out in their ruling in Varnum v Brien - http://www.iowacourt...arnum/07-1499.pdf - , unless there's a compelling state interest for an exception, then the law must apply equally to adults. The child-rearing argument holds no water, as the court pointed out. Neither do the other usual arguments against gay marriage. Nobody is forcing a church to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. Civil Union laws aren't good enough. Gay Marriage needs to be permitted. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,145 by drook 4/10/09 7:48:24 PM Reply	You missed the implication of what I said (Some) people are hung up on the word "marriage". I think for the most part they're hung up on the reality of what that word represents, and if we don't call it that it's like not recognizing China. It's a way of denying reality. So basically, I think they're wrong. However ... the fact that those people exist is the reality I have to deal with. I could pretend they don't exist and say, "Just call it marriage." But that doesn't seem to be working so well. So what could we do that achieves equality and pisses off both sides just about equally? (Usually the hallmark of an effective solution.) The state doesn't get to use the word "marriage" for anyone. Fundamentalists want to say, "You (the state) can't call that a marriage, because my religion says only a man and a woman can get married." Fine. You've just claimed "marriage" as a religious term, not a legal one. Then the state can't call what you have a marriage either. So gay couples don't get to call themselves "legally married". But neither do straight couples. They all get the same civil union as everybody else. And if they can find a church willing to perform a religious ceremony for them, and they call that a marriage? Then they're married. -- Drew
Post #307,146 by Another Scott 4/10/09 9:00:25 PM Reply	But the horse left the barn and is in the next county. I've said before that I think that the benefits and responsibilities that we associate with "marriage" should more objectively be associated with "family". My grandfather and his elderly sister lived together (with my uncle) for decades after their spouses died. There was nothing sexual going on, but they were a family as much as any other. Why shouldn't they have been able to file a joint return or claim all of the other benefits of married couples? Fixing that wouldn't involve abolishing the civil term "marriage", it would involve instead more formally defining "family" and adjusting the legal code as appropriate. I think "marriage" is a perfectly good term and there's no reason to give it up. Those who have no religion should not have to give up the term, either. Finally, I think there is less chance of disruption in applying a broader interpretation of "marriage" than in eliminating the term. I don't think that giving in to those who say "no marriage for you!" is a good solution because, as you say, it's not the word that really matters. They would (and they will) find another "tradition" on which to hang their ideology of excluding those who are different. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,147 by drook 4/10/09 9:17:55 PM Reply	Good idea, but DOA They'd just do a global search-and-replace on "marriage" and sub in "family". Defense of Family Act, etc. By changing the debate from "What counts as marriage?" to "Why is the state defining this in the first place?" you can at least (try to) have a better discussion. -- Drew
Post #307,193 by boxley 4/12/09 10:57:53 AM Reply	marriage is a religious term not a legal term the legal history all deals with inheritance and taxes not rights or abilities. With dna testing and civil unions the state gets out of the religion business remember that separation of church and state thingy?. Any one can claim they are married regardless of the state. I remember two guys from my youth that were married, introduced themselves as such. Were respected as such by people that knew them and that was in the late 1960's. They didnt need obama to walk them down the aisle to feel right. thanx, bill
Post #307,203 by drook 4/12/09 11:51:48 AM Reply	So they were covered on each other's insurance? They could visit in the hospital? They got the inheritance if someone died suddenly without a will? Yeah, that's the legal stuff, not the religious. And it's the stuff that the state hasn't (yet) decided to say can happen any other way than marriage. -- Drew
Post #307,208 by boxley 4/12/09 12:13:40 PM Reply	actually neither had insurance :-) they did discuss having wills, and general poa on each other so yes they were covered and it does cover the same things marriage does. A marriage license is similar to a general power of attorney confering many of the same rights and responsibilities
Post #307,192 by boxley 4/12/09 10:51:16 AM Reply	nope, my marriage was illegal in virginia when did I ever give a fuck about what was legal? The law in virginia could have determined that my marriage was a civil union, why would I care?
Post #307,160 by jay 4/11/09 12:47:49 PM Reply	I don't think it would really work If there was a way to make that work, I would be for it. But for it to work, you would have to convince everybody in the US that the distinction is a good idea and get them to use the correct terminology when they are talking about their relations. Otherwise, it would simply create a wonderful setup for verbal abuse of people who are not really "married". Jay
Post #307,169 by drook 4/11/09 6:52:43 PM Reply	People are lazy, I'm counting on that When someone today says they're married, do we ask if they said "I do" in a church or a courthouse? Nope. If they say they're married, they're married. Except when a gay couple says it, then the fundies say, "Oh no you're not!" Unless it was in Vermont ... or California, for a while ... or ... is it Idaho now? Can't remember. But if we "gave" the word to religion, then people could say they're married, and no one can tell them they're not. And people who have a civil union will also say they're married. And since there's no legal definition of the term, no one can say they're not. Similar to "lite mayonnaise". There's no legal definition of "lite" so anyone can use it. -- Drew
Post #307,180 by jay 4/11/09 11:32:44 PM Reply	There would be But if we "gave" the word to religion, then people could say they're married, and no one can tell them they're not. And people who have a civil union will also say they're married. And since there's no legal definition of the term, no one can say they're not. Similar to "lite mayonnaise". There's no legal definition of "lite" so anyone can use it. There would be very quickly, or we would be right back where we are now. Because either the two are legally defined to be entirely separate and that distinction is somehow forced on the public. Or the religious would be right back trying to outlaw civil unions for certain people, because the marriage word is only allowed to be used in certain ways. To separate the two, you have to change the language. And doing that by government fiat is very hard. Jay
Post #307,201 by drook 4/12/09 11:48:53 AM Reply	I'm not trying to change the language people use Just the language the government uses. Strike all references to marriage and all its permutations from all laws. Ooh, here's an idea for an ad campaign: Can a government bureaucrat define "love"? No. So why do we think they can define "marriage"? Let the government stick to taxes. I'll decide for myself who I love, and who I want to marry. -- Drew
Post #307,209 by boxley 4/12/09 12:15:10 PM Reply	can we use a fade away shot of a guy calling his german shepard? cause if you dont the whack jobs will
Post #307,217 by jay 4/12/09 2:47:42 PM Reply	Which isn't enough My point was that just changing the language of the government isn't enough. Lets say Dan and Bob decide to get a civil union. Dan refers to it as getting married at work. A fundy coworker sends a complaint to management and Dan gets fired. Now a suit can't be raised on discrimination, because Dan was't fired for being gay or being in a gay marriage, he was fired for telling a lie at work. And because marriage is a purely religious matter in your system, the state doesn't get a say in deciding what definition of married will be accepted or not. Jay
Post #307,218 by boxley 4/12/09 3:14:26 PM Reply	in the real world the fundie gets fired for insulting Dan's religious beliefs. What a fundie calls marriage is his definition, Dan has his own and they are allowed to be different. Can a muslim be fired for talking about his marriage to his 3rd wife back in pakistan? Dont think so
Post #307,219 by boxley 4/12/09 3:22:44 PM Reply	actually a real world example link picture http://www.firstpeop...-three-wives.html about half way down the link http://www.indianz.c...=1377&whichpage=4 One of my favorite stories of Quanah though is that after he surrendered, the Indian agent told him that he had to cut off his hair and that he could only keep one wife. According to the story his wives were standing around giving that good mean woman look when the agent told him this. Quanah said, "I will NOT cut off my hair. As to my wives...you tell THEM that." Quanah kept his hair and his wives.
Post #307,220 by beepster 4/12/09 3:39:28 PM Reply	What? telling a lie at work?? You gotta do better than that. There may be a few good examples...this isn't one of them. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #307,191 by boxley 4/12/09 10:48:13 AM Reply	bassackwards legal part is just that, a contract. Its the religious ceremony that means whatever to the participants. If the religion allows bob to marry rex, then they are married and the rest of the world can get over it
Post #307,154 by static 4/11/09 1:27:01 AM Reply	Interesting discussion. "Marriage" as a practice has been around a very very long time. As far as I know, it predates all existing legal frameworks. So the legal definition has very much come out of the religious definition. A lot of people wed to the religious practice forget that - sometimes willingly, I might add. Church-based officiators can be at pains to distinguish between the bit that makes a marriage legal in the eyes of the law from the bit that makes it valid in the eyes of a religion, but that doesn't mean that a) all are or b) all getting marriage appreciate that. Wade. "Ah -- I take it the doorbell doesn't work?"
Post #307,156 by Another Scott 4/11/09 9:12:03 AM Reply	I think that where you stand depends on where you sit. :-) Like you, I suspect that marriage predates written history. If that's the case, then how does one decide whether the framework it took place under was "legal" or "religious" or "social" or ...? I don't think the conclusion is that religion wins. The Code of Hammurabi (reigned 1795-1750 BCE) http://www.commonlaw.com/Hammurabi.html [...] 128. If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife. [...] 167. If a man has taken a wife, and she has borne him children and that woman has gone to her fate, and he has taken a second wife, and she also has borne children; after the father has gone to his fate, the sons shall not share according to mothers, but each family shall take the marriage-portion of its mother, and all shall share the goods of the father's estate equally. [...] Of course, it's known for being a framework of laws, so it's not really surprising that religion isn't mentioned in the discussion of marriage. http://en.wikipedia...._marriage_rituals Chinese marriage became a custom between 402-221 B.C. Despite China's long history and many different geographical areas, there are basically six rituals, generally known as the three letters and six etiquette [...] In my reading, marriages (and divorce) were a clan-to-clan arrangement. The state got involved in divorce if a crime had been committed by one of the people. Otherwise, there didn't seem to be a state or religious sanction. Instead it seemed to be based on building bonds between families. In Western societies, non-religious figures have conducted marriages for hundreds of years: ships captains (in some cases, see below), justices-of-the-peace, etc. And in the US, one need not even have someone else administer an oath or conduct a ceremony - http://www.straightd...rry-people-at-sea [...] Let's start with the one rock of certainty in this discussion: No state has enacted a statute explicitly authorizing ships' captains to solemnize marriages. However, in ruling on the validity of such marriages, the courts have waffled. On the one hand there is a longstanding legal presumption that if two people think they got married, they did get married, even if the proceeding by which this was accomplished was suspect. On the other hand, judges have also felt, jeez, we can't let just anybody solemnize marriages, we gotta have rules. This ambivalence has resulted in decisions on both sides of the fence. In Fisher vs. Fisher the court ruled a marriage by a ship's captain valid; in an 1898 case in California, Norman vs. Norman, the court ruled the opposite. It's important to note that in Fisher the court did not specifically single out ships' captains (as opposed to say, mailmen) as having the power to perform marriages; rather it ruled that, absent a statute to the contrary, and subject to certain other conditions, an exchange of vows between consenting parties constituted a valid marriage--as I read it, whether there was an officiant or not. In other words, marriage by ship's captain, or by anybody other than a recognized minister, JP, etc., was a type of common-law marriage. There are still some states that recognize common-law marriage. Typically all that's necessary is that the parties (1) be legally free to marry (e.g., no undissolved prior marriages); (2) properly consent; (3) "cohabit" (do it); (4) live together; and (5) let the neighbors think they're married. (Contrary to common belief, it is not necessary that the couple live together for seven years.) What's not required are the services of a minister. So while you're correct in saying "there is authority that a marriage performed by a ship's captain on the high seas is valid," captains don't have any special powers in this regard. A close reading of Fisher suggests the ceremony might as well have been performed by a waiter. [...] And so on. Whether one thinks that marriage is more of a religious or societal/legal institution, I think the "proof" of the proposition will depend on how one conducts the search. The historical record isn't complete, so the answer you get will depend on the assumptions you use. So, we're here, even if we don't all agree on how we got here. What seems to me to matter most in this context is: 1) Marriage has existed in our societies for hundreds of years. 2) Much of our legal framework and relationships with government and with the economy are influenced by whether one is married or not. 3) Equal protection arguments are compelling. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #307,175 by Ashton 4/11/09 7:57:14 PM Reply	Yep, I've 'committed marriage' upon 3 sets, so far -- in my capacity as a Reverend in the Church of Universal Life. Signed the documents just like any other er, professional. Two didn't work out.. one in weeks, t'other over several years. Third appears to be intact, hallow'ed by each's desire to accumulate as many $$ as possible. (Is gold thicker than blood?) Just a tad worse than the National Average, eh? (And No! I didn't wear my Mad Hatter hat for the ceremonies.) But Yess! -- sorely tempted :-0
Post #307,185 by static 4/12/09 4:12:16 AM Reply	I had another thought. Why does a legal framework need to define "marriage"? For welfare. Which includes taxation. Wade. "Ah -- I take it the doorbell doesn't work?"
Post #307,194 by boxley 4/12/09 11:04:12 AM Reply	thanks for proving my point state acknoledgement of marriage has to do with who gets the goods, not what religion they are. Also point out that your link is probably transliterated as opposed to translated. if a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract I really dont believe that the word marriage as we understand it is the actual translation of the words being used. A little bit like watching the cartoon land of the lost. We attribute modern terms and conventions on an alien race.
Post #307,236 by static 4/12/09 7:56:27 PM Reply	My point, too. As far as the state it concerned, it is to do with welfare and property and taxes and such. Wade. "Ah -- I take it the doorbell doesn't work?"
Post #307,161 by jay 4/11/09 1:01:55 PM Reply	Marriage probably predates religion The modern idea of religion in the US and Europe is largely derived from the Catholic concept. But marriage existed long before the Catholic church, and probably before religion in general. The Roman concept of marriage evolved out of the the pre-Roman family/clan system. And this seems to have happened in most places, where the early governments and religions simply documented and formalized existing practices. Jay
Post #307,162 by Andrew Grygus 4/11/09 2:06:48 PM Reply	I seriously doubt . . . . . there ever was a "time before religion". Religion evolved right along with humanity. Of course, so did social order, later formulated as "law".
Post #307,181 by jay 4/11/09 11:36:55 PM Reply	Unanswerable question That is an interesting and unanswerable question. The capacity for superstition developed right along with human intelligence. But when superstition becomes religion is a paper thin distinction that probably depends mostly on how you define religion. Jay
Post #307,184 by Andrew Grygus 4/12/09 3:40:17 AM Reply	Ummm . . . paper thin? That's a lot more substantial a separation than I'd credit it with . . . even though I'm not an atheist.

Welcome to IWETHEY!