BS. Marriage is a religious sacrament. If you choose not to involve God, that's your call, and I have absolutely zero problem with it. You can go to a Justice of the Peace. States have allowed JP (heterosexual) unions to be called "marriages", and the next slide on the slope is to allow homosexual unions to be called "marriages". That's why "lowly religious bible thumpers" generally try make their stand here. Some will say it's semantic. Fine. Why is it that a gay person wants it called "marriage"? Is there something wrong with "civil union"? They aren't discriminated against for having a civil union. Health insurance benefits, etc (as I recall) are exactly the same. If they aren't I'm happy to be educated on that, for I do not think it is right for that to happen.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is a form of discrimination. Marriage has not been a religious sacrament ever since it became a legal entity with legal rights. Since then, marriage has been primarily a civil arrangement, with religious aspects for those who are religious. Homosexuals should also be allowed to enter into the civil arrangement of marriage. Churches can still decide for whom they will provide the religious ceremonies.
I have strong libertarian tendencies myself, but an issue here is that the state will necessarily impose requirements on businesses and other entities to support homosexual lifestyles by making marriage more open. Personally, I'd vote for gay marriage. I have no problem with it at all. I understand, though, and don't feel it's illegal or immoral for people to believe, that treating homosexual relationships at the same level with heterosexual ones is morally repugnant to some people, and I think that until/unless the issue is resolved democratically it won't be resolved at all. Ed O.
But isn't it separate? I'm trying to understand Minstrel...really I am. I have no animosity toward people who can choose to do whatever they like in their bedrooms at night. Marriage is defined (these are all Wester's...I don't have legal dictionaries): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law Common-law: 1 : a marriage recognized in some jurisdictions and based on the parties' agreement to consider themselves married and sometimes also on their cohabitation So what they're doing is not "marriage". It probably fits closer to the definition of "common law" marriage, but it seems they are trying to have it "recognized" as marriage, which seems like it's "separate". Again, I'm not trying to discriminate against what they can do, but to redefine something in your own words (to use barfo's great line), and then attempt to make it national, makes it difficult for people to agree. Poor analogy, I'm sure: my aunt doesn't have children. She dotes on her dog more than many parents dote on their children. There is a real bond and dependency there, and the dogs seem to love her right back, but of course they aren't "able to consent". Should she be able to petition the government to have dogs recognized as "children below the age of consent", so that she can claim dependency credit for hers on her taxes, and have it added to her health insurance? By the way, she lives with my grandmother, and they both care for and love each other very much. My aunt cannot carry my grandmother on her health insurance, or (though I'm quoting her here, I have no idea of the rules myself) have even basic common-law rights as two women living in the same home in Portland.
I still don't see the problem. We're asking of businesses and other entities nothing more than we do to support any other form of marriage. Everyone has their own slightly variant form of moral standards. It's a significant Natural Right that nobody else imposes their standards on me.
As you can see by "contractual relationship recognized by law," the dictionary definition is relating the legal/civil entity of marriage that I was talking about. Therefore, its definition is not illustrating some deep, objective Truth, simply reflecting what is legally considered marrage: being united to a person of the opposite sex. The whole point of this discussion is that the legal definition of marriage should be changed...so relating the current legal concept of marriage isn't that useful. What is useful about the definition you provided is that it is clearly defined as primarily a legal/civil thing, not as primarily a religious sacrament. Therefore, changing its legal definition isn't impinging on religion at all. Marriage should be thought of as having two aspects: a civil aspect and a religious one. The civil aspect should include homosexuals and heterosexuals. Any adults who want to willingly join themselves in marriage should be allowed to, in the eyes of the law. The religious aspect should be up to each church. As long as homosexual couples are viewed as married by the state, it's not a problem if they are not viewed as married by any or all churches.
The history of Western civilization tells a different story? With the fall of Rome and the breakdown of civil society the Christian church moved in to fill a void vacated by the preexisting legal authority. If anything the Church inserted itself into the mix by becoming the arbiter of contracts and disputes until such time as secular government began to re-emerge at the end of the Feudal era and with the dawning of the Enlightenment period. Put it this way, if you get married in a church but don't apply for a marriage license are you legally married? The answer is no, because pastors and churches don't have the legal authority to complete that contract. This issue is as fundamental to the founders notion "of the people, by the people and for the people," as you can get and forms a clear break from the notion that states receive authority from the church.
States don't receive authority from the church -- I agree. I agree that that would be contradictory to the founders' intent. I guess I lose this round. I won't attempt to impose my moral/spiritual views on anyone, yet I don't think that you can understand where I am coming from without understanding why I believe in it. So I'll sit down.
