Skip to main content

View Diary: Justin Amash doesn't make any sense on his defense of DOMA (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're Right and I Wasn't Saying Otherwise (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, sfbob, skrekk

    What I'm saying is the Federal Government DOES recognize marriage, which Amash defines as a private religious institution.

    UNLESS

    It's a "certain type" of marriage performed by "certain religions" in which case they don't recognize it.  By doing so, they are declaring those religions less valid.

    •  It's nice when we can both be right. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TooFolkGR, kyril, Calamity Jean

      I see your point and agree.

      I wish we would separate the whole marriage thing from the sacrament of matrimony thing. Make everyone have a civil marriage which would legalize the contract between the parties as far as the gov't goes. Then if they want, they can have a religious ceremony-which is actually quite a different contract between the two.

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 06:52:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Everyone DOES have a civil marriage (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skrekk, katynka, Calamity Jean

        However members of the clergy are permitted to act as civil authorities when performing weddings...though not all weddings in all states. Hence the expression "By the power invested in me by the state of__..."

        Therein lies the confusion. Clergy perform weddings, which are religious ceremonies and which may or may not have any legal validity. They incidentally are permitted (in most states if not all) to perform marriages, which are civil arrangements and which are the statutes that are supposed to confer government recognition. Except where they don't because of DOMA.

        •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

          What I was meaning was have everyone have a civil union performed by a JP or judge or whatever and then if they want the sacrament of matrimony, have  that with a minister or priest or rabbi or imam or whatever.

          You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

          by sewaneepat on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 05:38:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Instead of that, I'd prefer that the couple (0+ / 0-)

            be able to designate any responsible adult as a solemnizer for their marriage. Thus those who want a church marriage would be able to designate their clergyperson as a solemnizer, but that status would not automatically accrue simply because of their clergy status. That would eliminate privileged status for clergy while not inconveniencing anybody and creating resentment.

            "We recommend, as a precautionary measure, that people with respiratory infections should be advised not to blow their vuvuzela in enclosed spaces and where there is a risk of infecting others."

            by ebohlman on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:45:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site