Let's just stop recognizing marriage as a whole

[Relaxer]

Well, if marriage is so bad, then it shouldn't be available to anyone. If gay people or dumb people or promiscuous people or people who actually, y'know, have lives'n'shit, want to make the mistake of getting married, they should be able to.

[jd930]

the problem with gay marriage is the problem with marriage as a whole... that it is essentially an archaic, religion based institution.   If people want to get married in a church, they can abide by whatever rules their church imposes, but the state has no business getting involved in any of this.

What should be available to all people, regardless of orientation, are civil unions -- those would convey all the legal rights and benefits that marriage confers. 

Of course, if this idea ever goes anywhere, the wingnuts will go back to accusing gays of "destroying marriage."   It should be destroyed -- at least as a government-sponsored institution.

Absolutely. Does the separation of church and state ring a bell? 

From Justin Bond's blog (http://justinbond.com/)

"Marriage should be left strictly to religion. Get married in a church, temple, mosque or synagogue, have a hand-fasting ceremony, do whatever you believe to be the right thing. If your religion is an oppressive one that won?t allow you to do it in their church then you?re going to have to search your soul and make a decision as to what kind of fucked up doctrine or dogma you want to place your faith in.

But in the meantime? Now that Prop 8 has been struck down by what appears to be a concentrated effort by tax-exempt religious organizations across this country it seems we need to be fighting for two things.

1) The repeal of tax-exempt status for any organization that uses that status to disrupt our democracy or affect the outcome of free elections by tax-paying citizens, effectively stripping our citizens of their basic constitutional rights- and by this I not only mean to create homes and families, but to have free and fair elections.

This prop 8 victory if allowed to stand can lead to numerous problems. Organized religions must be put in check in order for this to be a free, rational and peaceful society.

As members of a minority who have repeatedly felt the sting of their hateful oppressive tactics it is up to us to stand up to them and refuse them their power.

2) The word ?Marriage? should be stripped from all civil codes and laws. Let marriage be what its supporters believe it to be -a ?sacred? right. Then let?s get on with fighting for ?equal rights? for all citizens of this country by giving organized religion its right to oppress its own believers -not us! We, and all people who choose to form a legal partnership should be demanding the government create a class of civil union that applies to all couples gay, straight or otherwise who seek to form a legal and binding partnership with equal rights and privileges afforded to all those who choose to enter it. The word ?marriage? should be stricken from the law books as it is unconstitutional and oppressive to minorities.

Once that is taken care of anyone who has a love and compassion-based spiritual community will be able to get married in peace and without government interference. PRAISE THE LORD!"

[manimtired]

i havent seen so many lols since the lol-lehammer olympics in 1994! LOL!

[Vas Deferens]

U and julian should pork each other LOL lol lolz

i havent seen so many lols since the lol-lehammer olympics in 1994! LOL!

[manimtired]

that didnt bring the LOL

[Venerable Bede]

the problem with gay marriage is the problem with marriage as a whole... that it is essentially an archaic, religion based institution.   If people want to get married in a church, they can abide by whatever rules their church imposes, but the state has no business getting involved in any of this.

What should be available to all people, regardless of orientation, are civil unions -- those would convey all the legal rights and benefits that marriage confers. 

Of course, if this idea ever goes anywhere, the wingnuts will go back to accusing gays of "destroying marriage."   It should be destroyed -- at least as a government-sponsored institution.

Absolutely. Does the separation of church and state ring a bell? 

a few things here-

1) the california civil union law conferred upon same-sex unions the same legal rights and responsibilities as "married" couples, the only difference being straight couples got to use the word marriage; it doesn't matter in what form the couple made their vows or where the officiant proclaimed "by the power of the state of ____".  i still fail to see how that distinction takes away someone's rights.  i know what the california supreme court said, i simply disagree with it's reasoning.  

2) there is nothing in the constitution about "separation of church and state."  it's an annoying topic, but as long as people keep saying it, i'll keep responding.

3) about the ballot initiatives, i bet vansmack knows which one i would support. . .

4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .while i fundamentally agree that the state shouldn't care who makes up the union (to an extent), there are other reasons why the state must have some take on a civil union/marriage.  i am willing to accept the notion that if you can find a recognized church/religious organization to oversee such a ceremony, then the state should simply accept it (i'm going to ignore the slippery slope arguments), which is just the inverse of doom's anti-religion-based screed.  for all your hate, there are a lot of people out there who want familiar terms.  Note- this was fixed in a pretty common sense way.

5) while there is a similar fiduciary reason as #4, the federal government should care even less about the make-up of the civil union/marriage than the state, to which matters it is appropriately before.  in whatever form a civil union/marriage is accepted by the state, the same tax benefit should flow through to the federal side.  yes, there's a sticky legal wicket to get through, and, as vansmack has once, ironically, accused me of is that this will likely benefit lawyers.  

[sweetcell]

4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .

i don't think anyone is arguing with you on that one, marriage/civil union is a contract between two people with financial and legal implications.  so the STATE should make the rules, not the churches (what doom said).  it's the churches who are keeping same-sex marriages illegal.

[vansmack]

3) about the ballot initiatives, i bet vansmack knows which one i would support. . .

Venerable supports all reach arounds.  That's all I know.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

My post was neither anti-religion nor a "screed."  Anti religion would be to say "religion is Santa Claus for adults," which I also believe, but I didn't put in my post.

[Venerable Bede]

4) all that being said, there is a significant fiduciary reason why the state should retain an interest over civil union/marriages. . .

i don't think anyone is arguing with you on that one, marriage/civil union is a contract between two people with financial and legal implications.  so the STATE should make the rules, not the churches (what doom said).  it's the churches who are keeping same-sex marriages illegal.

what do you mean, the churches.  i can be sure that the unitarian church up the street from my work is more than happy to perform any and all ceremonies.  if anything, doom's argument is that the state has relinquished the definition of a marriage to the churches. . and for any and all religions to have any impact on modern-day society is anathema.  i am not so willing to completely forsake religion and it's positive benefits upon society and the billions of people worldwide. 

i will say that the debate on this issue is incredibly polarized and that polarization is hindering the ability of people to compromise and come to an equitable solution- which is how the california civil union law got passed in the first place.  i might add that a large majority of the california population supports civil unions, even in the face of prop 8 passing.  simply concluding that religion is the reason why prop 8 passed or failed is short-sighted and does a dis-service to the whole debate.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

simply concluding that religion is the reason why prop 8 passed or failed is short-sighted and does a dis-service to the whole debate.

this is true.  I think that properly done and campaigned, a resolution to overturn Prop 8 could just as easily pass.

[walkonby]

doctor doom.  as in doom.  as in the doom our world will face in the shadows of planet x.  as in the return of the ones that fell from the skies and gave us our knowledge leading up to this moment of conceived enlightenment on the computer.  as in holy shit batman.  well at least they will have finished all seven seasons of Lost by then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0bj76389U

[vansmack]

Please Watch.

I think my favorite was the little girl with the "Don't be Gaycist" sign.  Wish I had thought of that.  that, and the one hot couple.