Skip to main content

View Diary: Judge Walker Destroys Bigoted Arguments, Sets Up Equality For All (303 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe this is a silly question, but how is it (4+ / 0-)

    that all those straight couples have a union they believe to be superior to a civil union?  If you're not deeply religious and believe in your soul that God has joined you, then what you have is a civil union, right? Maybe I just don't get why they think what they have is so superior..do non-religious couples have the same rate of prejudice against gay marriage?

    •  According to the Evidence at Trial... (10+ / 0-)

      Apparently not.  People who went to church weekly voted 82% in favor of Prop 8.  I forget the other numbers precisely, but I think 54% attending once a month voted "no", and support among non-churchgoers was down in the thirties.

      I guess I am in the minority then, because my attitude as a practicing Christian is that a person's sexuality is between him and G*d.  If the Almighty really DOES have a problem with homosexuals, He can deal with it in the afterlife.  In the meantime, I am going to hold myself to the standard of Matthew 25.

    •  I'd get government out of the marriage business (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle

      Personally, I feel like people should have the right to get married in a church... if one's doesn't accept same-sex marriages, then people should force their church to change or dump it for a church that is more in keeping with a message of Christ's love.  

      But make civil commitment the gold standard for benefits and status in civil society - and have it open, exactly equal and without any discrimination at all - for any two consenting adults regardless of orientation.  

      But as long as the relgious types want to dump on same-sex couples, and as long as they really want this fight, then I'm fine with either a legislative or a judicial fix to force marriage equality.  

      "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

      by ivorybill on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:21:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What about tax law? (0+ / 0-)

        joint ownership of houses, etc.? Child custody? Inheritance? Medical decisions for an incapacitated partner?
        Who is authorized to pick up the children from school if there's a blizzard?

        Marriage is a fact of life and has to be taken into account by all reality-based people, including the government. It's religion (if any) that's none of government's business.

        •  none of that requires a religious ceremony (0+ / 0-)

          Sure, grant all those benefits and responsibilities equally without regard to sexual orientation.  I've got no problem with that.  But if the fundies want to claim marriage as their own, and prevent everyone else from living their lives, then expand civil commitment to include all benefits available currently under marriages, and then require everyone who wants those benefits, including straight people, to obtain a civil commitment document, without discrimination.  Then if people want to get married in a church, let them - but the actual benefits derive solely and equally from documents and status provided by government.

          "Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)

          by ivorybill on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:21:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why does a word have such huge power? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle

      You're entirely right; if you leave religious beliefs out of the question (gay or straight, they are private, not public or legal concerns)"married" straight couples are actually (in the eyes of the Law) only "civil unionized".

      Suppose we waved a magic wand and changed "married" to "civil unionized" everywhere ("civil unionized, filing jointly"). Then, at least in theory, all unions would be equal. But can you imagine the uproar?

      "You've defiled the Holy Word!!! I am bereft!"

      •  But You've Got It BACKWARDS (7+ / 0-)

        The concept of "marriage" is CIVIL and predates religious involvement by CENTURIES.

        Religions have control only over WHO can enter into their church and go through a wedding ceremony.

        The reason church weddings are valid in the eyes of the State is simple: Officiants have applied for, and obtained, temporary notary powers from the State allowing them to faithfully process the signed marriage license. Without the State bestowing upon them those temporary notary powers, the church wedding is simply a Princess Perfect-themed ceremony-- nice, but meaningless.

        After all: You CANNOT get divorced through a church or synagogue or mosque. You MUST go to the courts. Marriage is actually controlled by the STATE.

        We are one couple of the CA 18,000. We are delighted to be able to welcome MORE into our family. FULL EQUALITY FOR LGBTQ CITIZENS. NOW.

        by CajunBoyLgb on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:06:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought I said that. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sherlyle

          The whole debate is about civil "marriage". Religious questions are moot*.

          *The word, by the way, doesn' mean "irrelevant" or "unimportant". It means "we could argue about it from now to Doomsday, and no one would change their opinion."

      •  That isn't the case (5+ / 0-)

        A couple is only legally married if the state says they are.

        I'm an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, I've signed marriage licenses in Massachusetts and Washington -- and from my time in Massachusetts you can guess I've signed them for same-gender couples. (I can't do that here in Washington, although because our church believes in marriage equality I still provide a Certificate of Marriage from the church)

        I am the person who officiates the wedding, solemnizes the marriage -- but let me be clear, it is the state that authorizes marriage. Speaking as clergy, I really wish people would stop saying that marriage is religious -- it's not. Frankly, if it was, then same-gender marriages would already be legal since the UCC, Unitarians, MCC, Reform Judaism, and others, believe in equal marriage.

        Couples may choose to marry in a church for their own reasons, but that doesn't mean a wedding where no clergy is involved is somehow a civil union or something else. Not all clergy do this, but I always include the part about how I can only declare a couple legally married because the state allows me to ("by the power vested in me by the state of ____" ) ...

        And you can guess what I'm preaching about this Sunday. :-)

        •  What part of "leave out religious beliefs" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sherlyle

          confuses people?

          You and Cajunboy have got me 180 degrees wrong.

          All I said is that marriage is a civil, legal matter. It's not rational to invest the word "marriage" with some magical power.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site