Skip to main content

View Diary: Tough times for the bigots (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know why a compromise (0+ / 0-)

    couldn't be reached that would keep everybody happy.

    Let the governnment just offer 'civil marriages'  to everybody that confer the same civil right, laws, financial benefits to couples.  This would be the area of where prenuptual, or nuptual agreements would be initiated. Basically a signing of legal documents.  Like taking out a mining claim (I was born under a wondering star) , or buying a house or buying a car, or long term investments or business partnership.

    Then, the couple can go for a 'religious' or 'social' wedding of their choice where all the spiritual and cultural and traditional  significance of marriage is honored -- ceremonies joining the souls of the couple, acknowledgements to friends and family, celebrations of their union.  Bigots need not be invited.

    Complete separation of Church and State.

    •  the problem is that marriage is a dual entity (9+ / 0-)

      It exists as a religious sacrament and as a civil contract.  The antigays have been successful in obfuscating the issue by confusing the two aspects of marriage with absurd charges such as ministers would be required to marry gay couples in their churches by law.

      Marriage equality has nothing to do with marriage as a sacrament and everything to do with it as a civil contract.  Whenever someone starts quoting the Bible to me regarding marriage equality, I ask them if they would accept biblical authority in a civil suit or rely upon a civil court.  Whenever they say civil court, I reply their quoting the Bible on the issue is as germane as trying to institute biblical law into any other civil matter

      •  The marriage equality decision in Iowa (0+ / 0-)

        by the Iowa Supreme Court in 2009 made that distinction very clear. Churches are free to sanctify same sex marriages or not according to their beliefs. In fact, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage may be infringing the First Amendment rights of those churches that do want to marry same-sex couples.

    •  That's basically the way it is now. (6+ / 0-)

      The statutes I know of basically think of some sort of formal ceremony in front of witnesses and you sign a piece of paper.

      If you want to do it in a church, fine.  If not, go to city hall or the courthouse on Friday afternoons.  

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:26:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's also really messy/hard getting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Marti, LilithGardener

      all 50 states in the union to recognize that "civil marriage"

      In fact, the occasional victory for the GOP cannot hide the fact that this country is fast heading into another era, not of two-party democracy, but a party-and-a-half system. And the GOP is the half a party- Larry Sabato

      by lordpet8 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:31:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  All government marriage is 'civil marriage' (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassandra Waites, skrekk, cocinero

      When I got married, the preacher forgot to sign (and have us sign) the marriage license, so that didn't get taken care of until after we got back from our honeymoon. We didn't really care; we still considered ourselves married. The government paper didn't really matter.

      After we got back, we got the paper filled out and filed. From that point, the government considered us married. To the government, our religious ceremony didn't really matter.

      The church is entitled to define who can receive religious sacraments, such as marriage; if you want a religious ceremony, you have to find a preacher who will marry you. The church should have no say whatsoever in civil marriage, which simply formalizes our legal rights and responsibilities.

    •  "Let the governnment just offer 'civil marriages" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You've confused marriage with holy matrimony.    Just ask a divorced and remarried Catholic to explain the difference to you.

    •  The two-fold problem with this is... (0+ / 0-)

      1) "Marriage" is the term of art in a big mess of statutory law and precedent.

      2) The anti-gay-marriage amendments had nothing to do with same-sex marriage. They were passed in states where marriage had not been proposed, explicitly designed to prevent legal recognition of piecemeal rights and policies, and used to bully institutions and municipalities into dropping non-discrimination policies and insurance benefits.

      The claim that it's about defending marriage as an institution, or the sanctity of religious marriage is bullshit. It's always been about having a legal pretext to justify challenges against more modest benefits and civil rights progress.

    •  that's actually what we want (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      they don't want us to have even that.

      [insert pithy sig line here]

      by terrypinder on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:02:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (144)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (64)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Elections (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • Media (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Environment (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site