The politicization of homosexualityFollow

Hmmm... Aside from the wording then, what's the point of calling a civil "marriage" something else? In the US at least, there is zero concordance between a church marriage and a civil one.

Two people can walk up to a Justice of the Peace, witnesses in tow, sign some paperwork (and pay an administrative fee), and be civily married. That gives them the legal status of being married, which includes a number of purely secular benefits including including joint guardianship of eachother and any children they produce, automatic power of attorney over eachother (and children), and automatic inheritance from eachother (and to any children).

There is nothing religious involved there. Nothing at all.

Two people may also choose to get a religious marriage. The process varies, but generally requires a priest to perform a ceremony. This grants them the status of marriage within the church, which basically just absolves them from sin when they have sex together (and may or may not last into the afterlife, or even into future reincarnations...). Oh. And children produced by them aren't going to be bastards in the eyes of the church.


See! Two completely different things, yet also somewhat similar. A church wedding does not conver the civil status of marriage, and vice-versa. One is not required for the other to take place (although most churches will require a civil marriage take place before they'll grant one in the church, and many priests that perform wedding ceremonies are also bonded with the state to allow them to conduct the civil ceremony as well).


I had a friend of mine perform the wedding ceremony for his brother. Since it's a purely ceremonial service, anyone can do it. However, they still had to do the civil stuff and fill out the paperwork to be "legally" married.


So I guess I don't understand why it matters what we call it. I suppose we could rename the civil marriage to "civil union", but in my opinion, that's just as silly as legistlatively renaming "Evolution" to "Biological changes over time". It's still the same thing, and the reasons for changing the name are equally invalid. Just because a religion has a ceremony with the same name as a state status does not mean that two are the same. Civil marriage convers some very "legal" things that have nothing to do with religion. Religions do not collect income taxes in the US. They do not establish inheritance. They do not grant power of attorney. They do not grant guardianship. They don't do any of those thigs in the US. The government does. Thus, it is completely appropriate for the government to perform and regulate the status of "married" as it applies to those purely civil issues.

Because I was looking for a constitutionally acceptable compromise that would also remove the inane argument from the religious right pertaining to the "sanctity" of marriage. If you are asking them to accept a different definition of marriage isn't it just as valid to be asked to apply a different name to that definition?

I'm not. Civil marriage has been what is is for a long time now. Even if we're to accept your 19th Century date for commonplace secular marriage, 150ish years is long enough to get used to the idea that "marriage" isn't the sole province of religion.

Since you brought up the point that, by Christ's death bringing the New Covenant to the people, making them "free" from the rules of old, let me ask you this.

I suppose the Ten Commandments would be invalid then ?

I mean, Christ died. He was the New Covenant. He abolished the need of rules for sacrifice, et cetera, that were laid down in the Old Testament.

Who is the one that picks and chooses which parts of the Old Testament are still valid, and which are not ?

If all religions have equal protection under the law, what about the religions that say it is fine and dandy for marriage to be defined as "Two people" rather than "One man and one woman" ?

If marriage is, as you say, a religious matter, and all religions are valid, would that NOT make gay marriage valid ?

Paganism comes to mind. Most paths define a person by their soul rather than by the outside shell. Since souls have no gender, pagan ceremonies between homosexual couples have been going on for years, in case you didn't know.

There's a religious marriage for you, even if it's not legally binding because our f*cking government has taken upon itself to decide that, not only that it has, in its infinite wisdom, the RIGHT to dictate OUR definitions to us, but also claims that Christianity is above various forms of Paganism as our definitions of marriage don't mesh.

Either it's not a religious issue, and anyone should be free to marry whomever they choose, or it is, and people still should be free to marry whomever they choose since ALL RELIGIONS ARE GRANTED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

Your choice.

Edited, Thu Feb 26 11:32:50 2004 by Dalliance

Yes and no. As a "legal" set of rules, it was fulfilled through Christ. However, there's not a thing on there that Christ doesn't touch upon in his own teachings in the Gospels. It's safe to say that if you "Love the Lord above all else" and "Love and honor your neighbor", you won't be stealing, commiting adultry, creating false idols, disrespecting your parents and the rest of it. There's no harm in the Ten Commandments being read and observed today by Christians -- it's pretty much a set of rules telling you to do what Jesus tells you to do anyway. It just gives ideas on how to go about it.

Let em eat cake.

i'm down for making divorce illegal. with the only exception being fornication allowing it...that only because its biblical. I know at the very least, they make divorce quite a complicated process to discourage it..I still don't understand the dissolution package they sent me.