Federal Marriage Amendment by State

[Je Suis La Vie]

garra_eyes

WickedRentSpringAwakening

Captain_Shinzo

WickedRentSpringAwakening

Je Suis La Vie

Yeah, religion is totally involved... I think we should ban all marriages and just give Civil unions to any union so long as long as its between persons who can give consent. I was soo mad when Prop 8 passed in california... mainly cause I live there... its totally not constitutional... stressed

Marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution therefore, under the 10th Amendment, making it a state issue. The federal government has no control over marriage, except in DC because DC is run by the federal government, unless they pass laws that every state has to follow. Unfortunately for now, it is Constitutional. sad

It is morally wrong to limit someone's rights and privileges, but it isn't un-Constitutional.

(Sorry, I'm sort of a Civics junkie razz )

It actually goes against the first amendment since it limits the rights of religion. =P

Actually, marriage involves government rights, soooo, it doesn't technically have to do with religion, therefore still making it constitutional.

I think he was saying that banning marriage would be against the first amendment (though I'm not sure why he quoted your post instead of Je Suis La Vie's). And if he wasn't, I'm putting it forward now.

Though marriage is not solely limited to religion, it is a religious institution in many different religions. Therefore, to ban marriage would be a ban on certain religious practices. The free exercise clause makes such a proposition unconstitutional.


However, one could simply separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage, saying that "marriage" can only be granted by a religious institution, and "civil unions" can only be granted by the government. By doing this, the state could offer equal rights to same sex couples as opposite sex couples with (hopefully) less bitching about "ruining the sanctity of marriage." Those who wish to be married in a religious sense would see to that on their own, but the state would not recognize it in any way. In order to receive the privileges granted by the state, they would also need to secure a civil union.


Of course, what gives religions sole rights to the word "marriage"?
(I'm honestly asking this. If anyone has any information on the origin of the word "marriage" of non-religious examples of marriage in earlier history, I think it would make a great discussion point.)

This is exactly what I meant...  

[LexiFemme]

I think the biggest misunderstanding surrounding same-sex marriage bans is that the word "marriage" is inextricably tied to religion. In reality, there is religious marriage, which is the matter of each church or congregation (etc.) as individual religious entities, and there is civil marriage, which is a matter of government.

The frustration over Proposition 8 in California has been, from the start, that it was so heavily lobbied for and majorly funded by a strictly religious organization, the Mormon Church, which constitutionally (separation of church and state anyone?) has no place becoming involved in a government matter. While legally they might not have actually crossed that line, it's a fine line to tread and many feel that it's a religious fight that was being fought throughout the course of the Prop. 8 war, as opposed to the legal/governmental battle it should have been. Not only that, but the Mormon Church is predominantly based in Utah, so we were having California government legislature lobbied for by a religious organization transacting money from a completely different state! If something doesn't cry afoul in that, I don't know what would.

The ironic proof that this legislature has nothing to do with religious institutions is that the local Unitarian Church where I live has continued to perform gay marriages in spite of that being technically "illegal" by government standards. Why? Because the government has no control over what takes place within a religious organization's private quarters. Again, it all comes down to separation of church and state, and when a piece of government legislature has been primarily or heavily backed by an institution of religion, I think that component of the Constitution has been adequately breached to necessitate retraction. Why Proposition 8 still stands is a mystery to me.  

[chessiejo]

One of the Republican state legislators who pushed for Prop 8 and other anti gay legislation has recently revealed that he himself is gay.

rolleyes

it seems like we hear news like this every week, yet people never wise up to the games being played with their minds and their votes

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2010/03/california-republican-i-am-gay.html  

[LexiFemme]

chessiejo

One of the Republican state legislators who pushed for Prop 8 and other anti gay legislation has recently revealed that he himself is gay.

rolleyes

it seems like we hear news like this every week, yet people never wise up to the games being played with their minds and their votes

http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2010/03/california-republican-i-am-gay.html

And the bittersweet irony of it is that all the Fundie right-wingers who thought him a proud representative of their ideals and beliefs are going to turn table and start calling him a sinner and a traitor because he's come to be at peace with himself. Either that or they'll glorify him as proof that even an abomination can rise above their own self-detriment given the willpower and stand for the "right" side- completely ignoring the fact that he obviously can't deny who he is on the deepest levels, no matter how hard he tries.

Ahh, the fickle thing that is this political game. rolleyes  

[Starlock]

Hmmph. Methinks that to balance this, there is a need for inclusion of states which have passed strong legal precedents ALLOWING for homosexual marriage. Disputes over these sorts of things are often uphill battles, and I think the animation paints an unnecessarily pessimistic image of what's going on. I'm pretty confident that in time, it will become apparent that bans on homosexual unions is unconstitutional. Unless states dissolve all benefits from marriage; in which case they homosexuals wouldn't be missing out on legal rights from this discrimination and nobody should care.  

[garra_eyes]

WickedRentSpringAwakening

garra_eyes

WickedRentSpringAwakening

Captain_Shinzo

WickedRentSpringAwakening

Je Suis La Vie

Yeah, religion is totally involved... I think we should ban all marriages and just give Civil unions to any union so long as long as its between persons who can give consent. I was soo mad when Prop 8 passed in california... mainly cause I live there... its totally not constitutional... stressed

Marriage is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution therefore, under the 10th Amendment, making it a state issue. The federal government has no control over marriage, except in DC because DC is run by the federal government, unless they pass laws that every state has to follow. Unfortunately for now, it is Constitutional. sad

It is morally wrong to limit someone's rights and privileges, but it isn't un-Constitutional.

(Sorry, I'm sort of a Civics junkie razz )

It actually goes against the first amendment since it limits the rights of religion. =P

Actually, marriage involves government rights, soooo, it doesn't technically have to do with religion, therefore still making it constitutional.

I think he was saying that banning marriage would be against the first amendment (though I'm not sure why he quoted your post instead of Je Suis La Vie's). And if he wasn't, I'm putting it forward now.

Though marriage is not solely limited to religion, it is a religious institution in many different religions. Therefore, to ban marriage would be a ban on certain religious practices. The free exercise clause makes such a proposition unconstitutional.


However, one could simply separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage, saying that "marriage" can only be granted by a religious institution, and "civil unions" can only be granted by the government. By doing this, the state could offer equal rights to same sex couples as opposite sex couples with (hopefully) less bitching about "ruining the sanctity of marriage." Those who wish to be married in a religious sense would see to that on their own, but the state would not recognize it in any way. In order to receive the privileges granted by the state, they would also need to secure a civil union.


Of course, what gives religions sole rights to the word "marriage"?
(I'm honestly asking this. If anyone has any information on the origin of the word "marriage" of non-religious examples of marriage in earlier history, I think it would make a great discussion point.)

Marriage, at this point, can be administered by a religious official or by a government official (justice of the peace) or by a commander of an army or navy or air force battalion. Marriage has many rights that go with it that a civil union does not, therefore, it isn't a religious issue. We are talking here about the marriage rights of government such as visiting a spouse in the hospital, having life insurance on said spouse, you get the idea.

I understand that marriage is NOW being performed by non-religious institutions, but I would like to know the history of that specific word. Was it always performed by non-religious institutions?

And, as I said, if "marriage" and "civil union" (whether you called them those names or not), were established as two separate and distinct things, you could have a set up where a "civil union" bestows all rights on a couple that marriage grants now, and "marriage" would simply be a religious ceremony/recognition of a union between two people in their religious community's (and possibly deity's) eyes.

But again, the problem comes in as to what to call it. Despite the fact that marriage is used to refer to a wide variety of ceremonies today (with certain defining requirements, of course), if it has been historically linked with religion, I see no problem with severing the meaning of the word from non-religious folk. Civil union is tricky too, as it has traditionally been used to refer to something that's not quite marriage in a governmental sense.

Perhaps the best option would be to call them both by different names. I believe I saw someone on this thread use the terms "religious marriage" and "civil marriage," which would work as well as anything. I still think it would be easier to get those rights for gay and lesbian couples if we didn't call it marriage (as some religious people can be fickle like that), but again, I don't know the history of the word "marriage."  

[WickedRentSpringAwakening]

garra_eyes

WickedRentSpringAwakening

garra_eyes

WickedRentSpringAwakening

Captain_Shinzo

It actually goes against the first amendment since it limits the rights of religion. =P

Actually, marriage involves government rights, soooo, it doesn't technically have to do with religion, therefore still making it constitutional.

I think he was saying that banning marriage would be against the first amendment (though I'm not sure why he quoted your post instead of Je Suis La Vie's). And if he wasn't, I'm putting it forward now.

Though marriage is not solely limited to religion, it is a religious institution in many different religions. Therefore, to ban marriage would be a ban on certain religious practices. The free exercise clause makes such a proposition unconstitutional.


However, one could simply separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage, saying that "marriage" can only be granted by a religious institution, and "civil unions" can only be granted by the government. By doing this, the state could offer equal rights to same sex couples as opposite sex couples with (hopefully) less bitching about "ruining the sanctity of marriage." Those who wish to be married in a religious sense would see to that on their own, but the state would not recognize it in any way. In order to receive the privileges granted by the state, they would also need to secure a civil union.


Of course, what gives religions sole rights to the word "marriage"?
(I'm honestly asking this. If anyone has any information on the origin of the word "marriage" of non-religious examples of marriage in earlier history, I think it would make a great discussion point.)

Marriage, at this point, can be administered by a religious official or by a government official (justice of the peace) or by a commander of an army or navy or air force battalion. Marriage has many rights that go with it that a civil union does not, therefore, it isn't a religious issue. We are talking here about the marriage rights of government such as visiting a spouse in the hospital, having life insurance on said spouse, you get the idea.

I understand that marriage is NOW being performed by non-religious institutions, but I would like to know the history of that specific word. Was it always performed by non-religious institutions?

And, as I said, if "marriage" and "civil union" (whether you called them those names or not), were established as two separate and distinct things, you could have a set up where a "civil union" bestows all rights on a couple that marriage grants now, and "marriage" would simply be a religious ceremony/recognition of a union between two people in their religious community's (and possibly deity's) eyes.

But again, the problem comes in as to what to call it. Despite the fact that marriage is used to refer to a wide variety of ceremonies today (with certain defining requirements, of course), if it has been historically linked with religion, I see no problem with severing the meaning of the word from non-religious folk. Civil union is tricky too, as it has traditionally been used to refer to something that's not quite marriage in a governmental sense.

Perhaps the best option would be to call them both by different names. I believe I saw someone on this thread use the terms "religious marriage" and "civil marriage," which would work as well as anything. I still think it would be easier to get those rights for gay and lesbian couples if we didn't call it marriage (as some religious people can be fickle like that), but again, I don't know the history of the word "marriage."

That is a lovely idea and I would be all for it except for the fact that that is a "separate but equal" case which has already been proven unconstitutional. Think about it. Do you really think that there wouldn't be any "I'm better than you because I'm married and you just have a civil union." going on?

Marriage is not a religious institution. It has been around for far longer than religion itself and definitely predates the Judeo-Christian faiths. It's just another thing that religion has tried to hijack like pagan holidays.  

[garra_eyes]

WickedRentSpringAwakening

That is a lovely idea and I would be all for it except for the fact that that is a "separate but equal" case which has already been proven unconstitutional. Think about it. Do you really think that there wouldn't be any "I'm better than you because I'm married and you just have a civil union." going on?

Yes, separate is inherently unequal, but the difference here is that I'm not claiming they're equal. They're two completely different ceremonies with different meanings and intentions. One is a religious ceremony, differing from religion to religion in what is meant by it (for example, a Catholic marriage, it is a sign of a couple's commitment to each other to God and the community, and a sacrament that is a visible sign of God's invisible grace he is bestowing on the couple). A civil marriage is a ceremony that endows a couple with legal rights and privileges based on their commitment to remain a couple.

There probably would be people claiming superiority because they have a religious marriage in addition to a civil marriage, but it's not like those sorts of people aren't already claiming superiority because they're religious. Claiming superiority doesn't mean actually being superior.

WickedRentSpringAwakening

Marriage is not a religious institution. It has been around for far longer than religion itself and definitely predates the Judeo-Christian faiths. It's just another thing that religion has tried to hijack like pagan holidays.

Yes. I understand. But that still doesn't answer my question about the word "marriage." Where does it come from? What was it's original use? What words were used for non-religious forms of marriage? What words were used for different religions?  

[chessiejo]

New York State's assembly has just passed the GENDA Act, for gender self expression rights, and now it is before the state senate.

i have called my local senator in support of it; we all have high hopes here.

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/genda.pdf  

[WickedRentSpringAwakening]

garra_eyes

WickedRentSpringAwakening

Marriage is not a religious institution. It has been around for far longer than religion itself and definitely predates the Judeo-Christian faiths. It's just another thing that religion has tried to hijack like pagan holidays.

Yes. I understand. But that still doesn't answer my question about the word "marriage." Where does it come from? What was it's original use? What words were used for non-religious forms of marriage? What words were used for different religions?

Well the word "marriage" is an English word isn't it? The English language didn't evolve as we know it today until the middle ages. Obviously the word marriage would have been hijacked by the church of the time. The church was pretty much the supreme ruler of the world at the time.

However the institution of marriage has been around for far longer than the word "marriage." And the words used for different cultures would depend on the language spoken. It sounds like there is some English language chauvinism here. It really doesn't matter what words were used because it's all the same institution.  

[Captain_Shinzo]

chessiejo

New York State's assembly has just passed the GENDA Act, for gender self expression rights, and now it is before the state senate.

i have called my local senator in support of it; we all have high hopes here.

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/genda.pdf

Awesome...  

[Aakosir]

Call Me Apple

Aakosir

Whatever happened to "land of the free"?

No country has absolute freedom.
That statement is about as outdated as our constitution.

True. And I definitly agree that religion is involved.  

[WickedRentSpringAwakening]

Aakosir

Call Me Apple

Aakosir

Whatever happened to "land of the free"?

No country has absolute freedom.
That statement is about as outdated as our constitution.

True. And I definitly agree that religion is involved.

Awww, but I love our US Constitution. I'm a big fan of it, and I'm a big fan of the concept of "land of the free." That's why I'll work hard for it and not be so pessimistic.  

[Renkon Root]

Captain_Shinzo

Marriage is technically religion related. Ergo, it IS involved. I always thought the US was becoming a Theocracy anyway, it isn't surprising. Scary, though.

This. ^  

[Semiremis]

Call Me Apple

Aakosir

Whatever happened to "land of the free"?

No country has absolute freedom.
That statement is about as outdated as our constitution.

Why do you think the constitution is outdated?