what is marrage

[GNJ]

what is spelling

Anyway, marriage is just a (legal) binding between two people.

...Created/designed by man, not God.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Why not, though? Why does religion have a monopoly on marriage, if the only common denominator is that of commitment?

For the same reason the State has no business defining who a nun is.

Why can't the State say, "OK, we consider X, Y, and Z to be Marriage™, and will confer rights and privilages thereto"?

Because in the United States, that would either support or deny some people's religious views on the topic. The problem with defining marriage as ONLY between one man and one woman isn't that it discriminates against gays, but rather that it clearly supports some religious views over the free exercise of others. It is a 1A violation. It is intolerable. My opposition isn't to gay marriage, but to the State either confirming or denying it.

I mean, if 'civil partnership' is equivalent to 'state-recognised marriage', why not just call it a 'marriage'? The State has legal descriptors for what constitutes a religion, but that doesn't mean an individual has to personally adopt that vernacular.

Never-the-less, a preacher can opt out of or contribute to social security . .. . it is the individual's choice not the State forbidding or compelling. Here is the critical difference. If the State forbids or compels a definition of marriage it MUST support some religions and deny others. "Fruit of the Poison Tree" is a legal concept that should apply here. Any ruling on what marriage is or isn't violates 1A concepts and should be tossed. Civil unions are free to be whatever they are and people within a civil union can call it marriage if their religion supports that. There will be no married gays in the Westboro church and as much as I may despise them, they should be free to forbid it . .. . Tom and Jerry at Rainbow Presbyterian should be able to call their civil union a marriage. I can declare myself a high priestess of Wood Elves, despite being a male human and it is and should be my religious right. Being a high priestess of Wood Elves does not confer on me a right to kill lumberjacks or violate any other civil law . . . this is as it should be. Civil laws and religious tenants are supposed to be kept separate according to the 1A for exactly this reason. This IS what separation of church and state is really about, this issue.

I'm all for civil and religious unions being disintangled; I think it would solve most, if not all, of the problems surrounding same-sex marriage today (except, of course, the anti-gay movements quite simple hatred of gays). However, a shift in terminology that would give religion the sole right to marriage seems... unnecessary.

Thanks. Why? If religions that support gay marriage were free to use that term, why would it be a bad thing? If religions that did not support polygamy limited their men to one wife, why would that be a bad thing? If an immigrant registered his third and fourth wives as parties in civil union . . . . why would it be different that Ellen registering Samantha as a partner in a civil union? It seems to me that disintangling civil and religious unions solves everybody's issues.

 

[KCfromNC]

It would be much safer to divorce (pardon the pun) legal unions and marriage . .. allowing EVERY religion their own definitions but defining civil unions . . . civilly.

Or keep the traditional definition of marriage - a legal union in the eyes of the state, and let religions have their own separate theistic unions as they see fit. No point in redefining traditional marriage just because a few religious activists aren't happy with the status quo.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Or keep the traditional definition of marriage - a legal union in the eyes of the state, and let religions have their own separate theistic unions as they see fit. No point in redefining traditional marriage just because a few religious activists aren't happy with the status quo.

Wouldn't that mean I'd still have to listen to homosexuals crying about not being able to be married? Wouldn't that maintain the injustice of immigrants leaving wives behind in destitution because they can only bring one into country as a wife? Status quo isn't working very well.