Skip to main content

View Diary: Pure and Simple: Equal Rights (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Umm.. (none)
    I think you missed something. The point is, that if you replace "marriage" with "civil unions" in our code of laws then it doesn't matter who "owns" marriage, because there are no legal rights associated with it. This isn't about "owning" marriage, it's about freeing it for everyone to define for their own community, rather than establishing a legal definition of it.

    SW is explaining his personal opinion of marriage - that it is a religious sacrament. You're free to have your own definition of it. It doesn't matter, because it becomes a community decision rather than a legal one. This suggestion is completely reasonable.

    If you can read this, you're not the president.

    by Jer on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 02:43:05 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sure It's Reasonable (none)
      If other communities are free to perform gay marriages.

      But that didn't seem to be the suggestion.

      "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I find the puppet on the left more to my liking." "Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets... SMACK!"

      by Anton Sirius on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 03:18:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, But the Details ... (none)
      It really is a radical change.  A marriage license is required for civil recognition, but it isn't valid without a ceremony (religious or otherwise).  And, if the relationship is not consumated (a wonderfully silly anachronistic euphemism), annullment can be had easily.

      Would civil marriage require more than licensure?  How about civil unions?  

      In some states, but not others, commonlaw marriage is reconized, requiring neither license nor ceremony, rather only an established history.  In other jurisdictions that do not recognize commonlaw marriage, there are recent precedents concerning 'palimony' for unmarried but 'committed' partnerships.  

      Marriage, indeed, is the longtime fly in the ointment of separation of church and state.  That the state accepts performance of the ceremony by a religious leader itself as legitimate determinant for whether a partnership exists is prima facie. (I.e. license without ceremony = !marriage; license + religious ritual + consumation = marriage.)  There are no other legal constructs that I know of that deal require testimony before an official and allows that testimony to be given to a religious official (priest, rabbi, etc.).

      vote early - vote often

      by wystler on Fri Feb 13, 2004 at 03:22:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site