Gay Marriage

[greyyguy]

Last night the Democratic presidential hopefuls had a debate sponsored by the LGBT advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Republican candidates were invited as well but none of them accepted the invitation. Salon has a summary of what was said and none of it sounds very impressive to me, with the exception of Mike Gravel who pointed out the fact

Comments

[punkalicia]

well, even if ssm were 'legal' no church is required to perform a marriage they don't want to.

synagogues that are in the Conservative alliance (or however it's done, it's a specfic affiliation, not that they are little c conservative. they are between reform and orthadox in 'strictness), will not perform 'mixed' marriages between jews and nonjews. so churches/temples/synagogues already have the right to refuse to perform a marriage.

there are plenty of marriages that happen without the civil part. there are churches that will perform same-sex marriages, but they just don't get the civil parts.

[punkalicia]

oh, and what i also meant to say:

i think it should just all be civil partnerships, and fuck 'marriage'. it's a patriarchally loaded thing anyways.

[greyyguy]

Robert Heinlein had a solution to marriage issues in some of his books where instead of a "forever and ever" sort of thing, marriages became contracts with set durations, renewable options, and agreed legal limits on property and all. I thought that was a great idea.

[greyyguy]

That's true- I had forgotten about that. So all the parts to this already exist.

[kendokamel]

I think most countries in Europe have two ceremonies, as well.

If you think your god needs your help in this creation, or that you are the only one allowed to be right, isn't that the sin of pride?
Amen!

[greyyguy]

I was thinking it happened in other places, but Brazil was the only one I was sure of. A coworker got married there and showed us the wedding video, telling us about the two ceremonies. It was very interesting.

[klynn]

I personally throw all 'rules' pertaining to marriage and religion out the window. Ditto for the 'rules' about the government deciding who I can or can't be married to. Marriage is an agreement between two people, no matter if that agreement is based on shared beliefs or shared needs. Its always made me angry that even though Ken and I have been a "domestic couple" for 6 years, I don't qualify for his health insurance through his work. Yet, if we were a "domestic couple" of the same sex, I would qualify. What sense does that make!?!? NONE. Two people should be able to be recognized as 'married' for whatever reason they choose. YES, there should be an element of civil (legal) finality to it (i.e. a legally recorded union that would protect each party in the event of a 'divorce' and most especially protect any children which come from the union) but, again, no one should have the right to say what I believe or tell me whats proper for my lifestyle.

That is all.

[greyyguy]

Having one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for another group is just wrong, and it has no business being part of the legal system.

[klynn]

EXACTLY.

[danger0usbeans]

In every state that I'm aware of that has a domestic partnership law, straight people are not excluded. In fact, I have some straight friends who have a domestic partnership so she can be on his insurance, but they are not married.

[ericthemage]

I don't blame them for playing it safe, really. In Michigan an amendment to our Constitution passed with over 80% of the vote, specifying one man and one woman, and we're more liberal than a lot of states. There are far too many religious nuts out there to risk the presidency over one issue. It sucks, but that's America.

[greyyguy]

True- and that is something really wrong with politics today. There is too much religion in it, and too many people being intentionally deceitful to try to appeal to everyone.

[greyyguy]

Heh- true. But then they would need to know more about the religion and the country they are claiming to be all for. And that is work. It is far easier to assume everything is the way they want it and go from there.

[rasilio]

As far as the state is concerned Marriage is an important contractual agreement between the parties involved.

When you marry in many ways you become 1 legal entity, it also gives default answers to questions of inheritance, power of attourney in emergency situations, and for who is responsible for raising any children.

In my opinion the State should not sancion any Marriage, that should remain a strictly religous institution. However they should confirm and enforce any contracts of union that any individuals wish to enter regardless of race, gender or number of participants

[greyyguy]

That makes sense, if you look at marriage as a religious institution, but as you point out the state of marriage is a legal entity. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the state giving legal powers to religious organizations. Which is why the suggestion of separate marriage types seems to be a reasonable compromise.