My Solution to the same-sex marriage issue

[Future Leader]

Reading the threads I've seen only talks about homosexuality, whether it's choice or not or if the entire arguement is moral and what not. Well I thought it would be interesting if someone tried to solve the whole conflict once and for all. Here it is, and i welcome any comments.

This is a very special issue because it blurs the line between church and state. The first legal and ethical question I have is, does the state have the right to become involved in the affairs of a religious ceremony? I believe the answer is no, every church has the right to worship and conduct it’s practices according to however they want, as long as it is not breaking the law. Now as just said, “as long as it is not breaking the law”, my second question is, is it against the law to deny same sex couples the right to “marriage”? Some would say yes it is because it creates a some what 2nd class citizen scenario, however because marriage is a religious ceremony, obviously created by the religious organization (regardless of beliefs) do they not have the right to control how and who may participate in these ceremonies? Much like The Boy Scouts of America has the right to deny women into their organization, (my 2nd question) don’t churches get the same right? This argument can also be said with restaurants having “the right to refuse service”.

Now with that all said, if churches have the right to deny same-sex marriage within their confines, doesn’t that also mean that churches have the right to allow same-sex marriage within their walls too? So my solution would be, to have the churches that do not believe in same-sex marriage continue to practice their beliefs and exclude homosexuals in their marital ceremonies. And on the other hand, churches that approve and support same-sex marriage to allow and conduct those ceremonies. This way, if same-sex marriage ever became legal in a state, a same-sex couple couldn’t threaten to sue a church for refusal of service, as well as they could always go to another church.

So my proposal in a nut shell would be: Let the individual churches decide. (as long as it is legal within the state)

Now this would undoubtedly cause an uproar in the social conservative communities over calling a same-sex union a “marriage” therefore my response to that would be, because it is a marriage. If it the marriage ceremony is done and recognized by a church then it is officially a marriage, not a civil union. Of course this marriage would include all rights included with a heterosexual marriage.

 

[numinus]

You are missing the point.

The question is -- does a gay have an inalienable right to marry someone of the same gender, hence necessitating a legal apparatus to protect this 'marriage'?

Obviously, there is no such right.

 

[Pandora]

Reading the threads I've seen only talks about homosexuality, whether it's choice or not or if the entire arguement is moral and what not. Well I thought it would be interesting if someone tried to solve the whole conflict once and for all. Here it is, and i welcome any comments.

This is a very special issue because it blurs the line between church and state. The first legal and ethical question I have is, does the state have the right to become involved in the affairs of a religious ceremony? I believe the answer is no, every church has the right to worship and conduct it’s practices according to however they want, as long as it is not breaking the law. Now as just said, “as long as it is not breaking the law”, my second question is, is it against the law to deny same sex couples the right to “marriage”? Some would say yes it is because it creates a some what 2nd class citizen scenario, however because marriage is a religious ceremony, obviously created by the religious organization (regardless of beliefs) do they not have the right to control how and who may participate in these ceremonies? Much like The Boy Scouts of America has the right to deny women into their organization, (my 2nd question) don’t churches get the same right? This argument can also be said with restaurants having “the right to refuse service”.

Now with that all said, if churches have the right to deny same-sex marriage within their confines, doesn’t that also mean that churches have the right to allow same-sex marriage within their walls too? So my solution would be, to have the churches that do not believe in same-sex marriage continue to practice their beliefs and exclude homosexuals in their marital ceremonies. And on the other hand, churches that approve and support same-sex marriage to allow and conduct those ceremonies. This way, if same-sex marriage ever became legal in a state, a same-sex couple couldn’t threaten to sue a church for refusal of service, as well as they could always go to another church.

So my proposal in a nut shell would be: Let the individual churches decide. (as long as it is legal within the state)

Now this would undoubtedly cause an uproar in the social conservative communities over calling a same-sex union a “marriage” therefore my response to that would be, because it is a marriage. If it the marriage ceremony is done and recognized by a church then it is officially a marriage, not a civil union. Of course this marriage would include all rights included with a heterosexual marriage.

They already can do that. It’s not so much about love as it is benefits. Any homosexual couple has had the ability to have a ceremony, the Unitarian church along with other churches will marry them or if they are atheists they can find a nice oak tree and invite their friends. But its not about the ceremony or the commitment it’s about the benefits. Being able to get eachother SS and retirement exc. But I disagree with fighting for homosexual couples rights to marry and not other groups. There are many polygamists who would like to be able to marry and they have a much bigger argument in their favor according to the law, yet their plight is ignored.

I think the solution is ....

Anyone or anything can marry anyone or anything any time in groups or in singles for any reason.

This way we are not infringing on anyone’s rights.


I also think the government needs to get out of marriage totally. We never used to need the government to validate our relationships and allowing them to do so have only caused problems.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Ceremony or no ceremony...a certificate of marriage needs only to be filed at the courthouse so that there is a public documentation for the records. IMO

Other then that, it should be no-ones business what gender the ceremony is!!! Age requirements vary throughout this great USA, I would like to see this established age set at 18 unilaterally, this would protect the younger girls getting forced into marriages in those polygamist faiths...I personally don't care how many wives they have...it's a none-ya to me...but they need to stop treating the young girls like breeding stock!

But I agree with you both about the separation of church & state...I've known some churches that have denied registered church members the ability to get married in their own church do to either or one of them having been divorced. This solution seems relatively simple to fix but then congress will/would find a way to make a 200 page document out of it and it'll all get lost in translation...somewhere along the way! LOL

 

[samsara15]

The Unitarians, and probably the Quakers, and probably many other of the more liberal denominations would willing authorize such marriages right now if they were allowed too. Only the government prevents them from doing so.

 

[SW85]

This is a very special issue because it blurs the line between church and state. The first legal and ethical question I have is, does the state have the right to become involved in the affairs of a religious ceremony? I believe the answer is no, every church has the right to worship and conduct it’s practices according to however they want, as long as it is not breaking the law. Now as just said, “as long as it is not breaking the law”, my second question is, is it against the law to deny same sex couples the right to “marriage”? Some would say yes it is because it creates a some what 2nd class citizen scenario, however because marriage is a religious ceremony, obviously created by the religious organization (regardless of beliefs) do they not have the right to control how and who may participate in these ceremonies? Much like The Boy Scouts of America has the right to deny women into their organization, (my 2nd question) don’t churches get the same right? This argument can also be said with restaurants having “the right to refuse service”.

You are exhibiting the typical tendency of people to confuse marriage the social/religious/cultural institution with marriage the legal institution.

If gays want to have a marriage ceremony in a church, they can, and no one's going to stop them. All that's being said is that those unions are not marriages in the legal sense of the word.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think the solution is ....

Anyone or anything can marry anyone or anything any time in groups or in singles for any reason.

This way we are not infringing on anyone’s rights.

I also think the government needs to get out of marriage totally. We never used to need the government to validate our relationships and allowing them to do so have only caused problems.

Within certain limits I can agree with you. Consenting adults should be allowed to marry in couples or groups. Plural marriage has a long history--even in the Bible. Incest should probably continue to be illegal in light of the potential for defective offspring.

 

[Pandora]

Within certain limits I can agree with you. Consenting adults should be allowed to marry in couples or groups. Plural marriage has a long history--even in the Bible. Incest should probably continue to be illegal in light of the potential for defective offspring.

I don’t see why we should disenfranchise brothers and sisters; they can always get a partial birth abortion right?

And two sisters can’t make a baby anymore than two brothers can.

What about half sister/brother?

First cousins

father/daughter

mother/son


We just need to simply have no rules but also get the government totally out of it

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Reading the threads I've seen only talks about homosexuality, whether it's choice or not or if the entire arguement is moral and what not. Well I thought it would be interesting if someone tried to solve the whole conflict once and for all. Here it is, and i welcome any comments.

This is a very special issue because it blurs the line between church and state. The first legal and ethical question I have is, does the state have the right to become involved in the affairs of a religious ceremony? I believe the answer is no, every church has the right to worship and conduct it’s practices according to however they want, as long as it is not breaking the law. Now as just said, “as long as it is not breaking the law”, my second question is, is it against the law to deny same sex couples the right to “marriage”? Some would say yes it is because it creates a some what 2nd class citizen scenario, however because marriage is a religious ceremony, obviously created by the religious organization (regardless of beliefs) do they not have the right to control how and who may participate in these ceremonies? Much like The Boy Scouts of America has the right to deny women into their organization, (my 2nd question) don’t churches get the same right? This argument can also be said with restaurants having “the right to refuse service”.

Now with that all said, if churches have the right to deny same-sex marriage within their confines, doesn’t that also mean that churches have the right to allow same-sex marriage within their walls too? So my solution would be, to have the churches that do not believe in same-sex marriage continue to practice their beliefs and exclude homosexuals in their marital ceremonies. And on the other hand, churches that approve and support same-sex marriage to allow and conduct those ceremonies. This way, if same-sex marriage ever became legal in a state, a same-sex couple couldn’t threaten to sue a church for refusal of service, as well as they could always go to another church.

So my proposal in a nut shell would be: Let the individual churches decide. (as long as it is legal within the state)

Now this would undoubtedly cause an uproar in the social conservative communities over calling a same-sex union a “marriage” therefore my response to that would be, because it is a marriage. If it the marriage ceremony is done and recognized by a church then it is officially a marriage, not a civil union. Of course this marriage would include all rights included with a heterosexual marriage.

Another simple approach would be to make everyone get a civil union license from the government (Federal government so it would be legal in all States) which grants all the same rights and privileges to all. Then the people could go to their church of choice to get some religion trowelled on if they felt so inclined, but the church service would have no more legal meaning than a baptism.

Nums, continues to harp on the "inalienable right" idea while conveniently ignoring the "...the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Gay people should be allowed to marry because there is no reason to deny them this wonderful social construct.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don’t see why we should disenfranchise brothers and sisters; they can always get a partial birth abortion right?

And two sisters can’t make a baby anymore than two brothers can.

What about half sister/brother?

First cousins

father/daughter

mother/son


We just need to simply have no rules but also get the government totally out of it

As long as children are not hurt, I don't care. Your comment about partial birth abortion wasn't called for, it was a cheap shot, don't mix your abortion issues with gay marriage please.

Most of the other groups you are talking about are vanishingly small, I've never heard of anyone in those groups desiring legal marriage. The only ones who have a viable numerical base are the plural marriage folks.

 

[Future Leader]

You are missing the point.

The question is -- does a gay have an inalienable right to marry someone of the same gender, hence necessitating a legal apparatus to protect this 'marriage'?

Obviously, there is no such right.

apparently it's not that obvious.

But its not about the ceremony or the commitment it’s about the benefits.

So people get married not out of love or comitment? They just want shared life insurance? under that reasoning no one should be allowed to marry.

You are exhibiting the typical tendency of people to confuse marriage the social/religious/cultural institution with marriage the legal institution.

If gays want to have a marriage ceremony in a church, they can, and no one's going to stop them. All that's being said is that those unions are not marriages in the legal sense of the word.

Marriage was a religious union before it became a legal contract, so marriage is a social/religious/cultural institutuion and not some just some papers you sign to share property.

Another simple approach would be to make everyone get a civil union license from the government (Federal government so it would be legal in all States) which grants all the same rights and privileges to all. Then the people could go to their church of choice to get some religion trowelled on if they felt so inclined, but the church service would have no more legal meaning than a baptism.

I agree 100% that does sound simpler anyways lol, it's clean and secular, I only did my solution my way to attempt to bring the church in

 

[Pandora]

So people get married not out of love or comitment? They just want shared life insurance? under that reasoning no one should be allowed to marry.

Life insurance can be obtained without marriage
So can anything legal if a person wants it with the exception of
Claiming someone’s S.S. or retirement plan


If it’s just about the commitment they would not be fighting for government marriage

If it was just about love the same

They already have that

The one thing they don’t have is the ability to get eachother social security or retirement plans if the other should die

States like Oregon does not have homosexual marriage but we do have domestic partners. Now mind you a male/female can not use the domestic partner clause, they have to get married but male/male can live together in a domestic partner relationship and they can be on eachother health insurance, you can get rid of guy one and replace with another guy... all you have to do is update your form.

I think it’s rather funny because they actually have more rights than non homosexuals

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So people get married not out of love or comitment? They just want shared life insurance? under that reasoning no one should be allowed to marry.

This gets muddled a bit. People want to get married because it's an important cultural construct that has many and far reaching benefits. Civil unions do not grant all the legal rights (more than 1043 in Federal Law) that "marriage" confers on legally married people. People want to get married because no one grows up dreaming of a civil union.

Since there are no rational reasons to deny marriage to all consenting adults, then the only case that can be made is based on religion--and anyone who has read any history knows what a disaster it is to have laws based on just religion.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Life insurance can be obtained without marriage
So can anything legal if a person wants it with the exception of
Claiming someone’s S.S. or retirement plan

If it’s just about the commitment they would not be fighting for government marriage

If it was just about love the same

They already have that

The one thing they don’t have is the ability to get eachother social security or retirement plans if the other should die

States like Oregon does not have homosexual marriage but we do have domestic partners. Now mind you a male/female can not use the domestic partner clause, they have to get married but male/male can live together in a domestic partner relationship and they can be on eachother health insurance, you can get rid of guy one and replace with another guy... all you have to do is update your form.

I think it’s rather funny because they actually have more rights than non homosexuals

They don't have more rights. You can divorce your husband and replace him with another one if you are willing to do the paperwork. Your marriage however is transportable to every State in the Union, civil unions are not. And not all of the rights reserved for married people are available to people in civil unions either. Many of those rights can be gotten with a ton of paperwork and legal fees, but as soon as you move to another State it all has to be done over again.

 

[Pandora]

They don't have more rights. You can divorce your husband and replace him with another one if you are willing to do the paperwork. Your marriage however is transportable to every State in the Union, civil unions are not. And not all of the rights reserved for married people are available to people in civil unions either. Many of those rights can be gotten with a ton of paperwork and legal fees, but as soon as you move to another State it all has to be done over again.

In Oregon male/female couples can not have domestic partnerships. A domestic partnership is a paper you fill out with the name and info of your domestic partner, the following month you can have another domestic partner.

Male/females must pay for a license they must wait a certain period of time then again pay for another decree to dissolve that first relationship, and only after those papers have been paid for, filed, read by a judge exc. Can you start over and pay again for the new marriage license and wait for the period of time to get make it legal then you can add them to your health insurance.

So sure you can’t take your domestic partnership to another state but I can not be in a domestic partnership period!