Who won't settle for anything less than legal?

[hematite153]

I decided that I needed to correct a few misconceptions....
/carmi

It's always useful to have more information enter the conversation.

I'm biased, I know, but all of these discussions always lead me back to a certainty that equal marriage is essential.

After all, the hetero couples are discussing their reasons for choosing not to marry. I support their right to make decisions that are right for them and their relationships. Without equal marriage, same-sex couples cannot differentiate their choices for society.

Marriage was/is important for me, but I understand that some people make different choices. My DW was with her ex for 6+ years, they owned a house together, etc. However, they were also clear with each other that they had not made a lifetime commitment and would not have gotten married.

When my DW and I got together, I got lots of weird looks from people who figured that I was some sort of rebound relationship and that our talk of 'marriage' was odd. Yet, if they had been a straight couple that was equally clear about their lack of future, people would have been able to differentiate the two relationships. Ah well...I'm married now...and others can sort out their own decisions. (I will continue to hope for change for those who are not allowed to choose.)

 

[PHILCT]

What if someone suddenly decided to invalidate all MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES that were not performed by an appropriate religious sect.

That Marriage without Religion was not recognized.

In that case CIVIL MARRIAGE was on the same level as GAY MARRIAGE.
Both were intolerable to the concept of the Government's view on Non Religious Marriage.

All CIVIL Marriage Rights were disolved.

All Children born to CIVIL Marriages were deemed illegitimate.

All Marriage, Tax, Legal Perks were removed for these CIVIL Marriages.

What if Straight Couples who got CIVIL Marriages in Canada, came over the border to the United States to find their Marriage Illegal ?

----

Simply the word "Marriage" should not be owned for Religious Marriages.
Let the Religious Organizations use the adjective "RELIGIOUS" in front of the
word Marriage if they need that comfort zone.

If the government can allow CIVIL Straight MARRIAGES, it should allow CIVIL GAY MARRIAGES. Two consulting adults over 18 kind of thing !

Let the Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques decide who gets to perform RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES. But they should not control who gets a CIVIL Marriage. That is the function of the government.

It is time the government allows GAY CIVIL MARRIAGES, so that Gay Couples can have the same rights and benefits based on Marriage for Insurances, Property, Wills, Partner Death Benefits, etc. that heterosexual couples receive today.

UNION versus MARRIAGE, the difference should only offend some RELIGIOUS organizations, not the government.

---

Now if I can only find a Loving Partner to Marry, I need some of those benefits ! My Medical Insurance Premiums are killing me !

---

I think I would rather now talk more about DISNEY !

 

[hematite153]

What if Straight Couples who got CIVIL Marriages in Canada, came over the border to the United States to find their Marriage Illegal ?

I think I would rather now talk more about DISNEY !

Since you'd prefer to talk about disney, I'll assume that you likely won't read this. However, I wanted to correct an inaccurate assumption that seems implicit in this line.

Separating the idea of religious and civil marriage does not solve the problem of the US government not recognizing Canadian marriages.

I am Canadian and was married in a religious ceremony.

 

[PHILCT]

I think your marriage should be recognized universally, I am embarassed about the U.S. position on Gay Marriage denial.

I just wanted others to realize how much they take for granted their rights by their legal civil marriages today, and how would they feel if they were taken away.

 

[Viki]

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but my take, as a religious professional, is that most state governments are much more politically conservative than many religious communites. I've been officiating at lesbian and gay "marriages" for years. But there are very few states that can say likewise. Many people don't realize it, but built into many state constitutions are preferences for nuclear families. I predict changing that will be much harder than changing the stance of many mainline communities of faith.

Having said that, however, I should note that marriages are really best viewed as civil functions - not religious events. Outside of our RC brothers and sisters marriage is not viewed as a sacrament and it's pretty clear that many people of no particular faith persuasion marry all of the time. In my particular religious persuasion - Lutheran - Martin Luther was pretty clear that this was all the pervue of the State, not the Church.