The answer to the church over Marriage

[dickthegrouch]

I finally heard it the other day: "Holy Matrimony"

Holy Matrimony is part of the "establishment of religion" about which "Congress shall make no law".

Marriage is an institution of the State, which guarantees us "Equal Protection" (if we can get it).

The two are quite separate and can remain so.

Which Supreme Court is going to be stupid enough to ignore the differences?

[LiberalArkie]

1. I have always wondered one thing about the gay marriage debate.

Before the big movement by several states and localities to have actual marriage ceremonies, there was a lot of effort to more or less have equal rights, just not marriage.
This would have been perfect in my eyes, legal status for insurance, adoption, death benefits, etc.
I did not ever hear of a fight about that from most of my conservative Christian friends.

But the big movement for recognized MARRIAGE blew all that away. There are now laws popping up everywhere to remove rights that have been granted before.

I am wondering who started the big movement at that particular point in time. It always seemed rather strange timing. I seemed like it was guaranteed to piss off a lot of people, and guaranteed to roll the clock back a little bit..

[Sapphocrat]

2. You have to understand something.

There was no "big movement" from the LGBT side; we were quite aware that full equality was a process of baby steps. The "big movement" was a RW attack tactic, and once they dropped it in our laps, what were we supposed to say? "Thanks, but no, we don't want to get married" - ?

I feel quite confident in stating that most of us would have been quite happy with "just" equal rights in housing, employment, hospital visitation, inheritance, and (my personal issue) immigration, et al., and then, ultimately, civil unions. To be honest, I never thought we'd get full-fledged marriage in the U.S. (and now, I know we never will, at least not in my lifetime), and I for one wasn't pushing for it when the whole anti-marriage movement came crashing down on our heads.

It wasn't strange timing at all. It was perfectly timed, by the anti-gay brigades.

[Tyo]

4. On the other hand

Marriage encompasses in one package all those rights that we are fighting for piecemeal. Why should we have to re-invent the wheel?

Where we’ve run into problems or where problems have been forced upon us is largely due to the fact that most people can’t or won’t separate marriage from religion. I don’t know why so many people have such a problem understanding the concept that marriage is first a civil institution with the role of religion being optional.

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

3. Family /GLH Marriage

I feel that the GLBT Community is being punished on the marriage issue. I feel we should take this institution out of the hands of the government and church. I am a bi-sexual female and I have a fiance and a girlfriend and a second husband and when I get married my fiance and I (who is also a member of the DU) are going to try to take the first step in making the first step in taking it out of their hands and putting it in the hands of the people, no matter what sex or how many may be in your family.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. We don't need terms like "GLH Marriage" or "gay marriage"

"Equal marriage" says it all.

It's all in how you frame the debate. :hi:

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

6. First, let me clarify one point:

   Post #3 {Oct-15-06 10:45 PM}, listed under my nym, was actually my fiancee’ {Valkyrie61172}, writing her first post... it appeared on my account because we didn’t log me out before she came in.
   Now, to the point of THIS post:
   First of all, “marriage” is indeed, historically, a sacrament of the Church, and has been so far longer than any current State has existed. For the State to recognize “marriage” is nothing less than to give both sanction and recognition to a religious sacrament.
   Second, I must take issue with the contention that the Repug RW is responsible for the "big movement" demanding marriage for the GLBT; while they certainly have taken full advantage of the controversy to score major and massive points with their fundamentalist supporters, the initial demands for Official State recognition of “gay marriage” did, in fact, come from radical elements of the GLBT community, scorning the efforts of many more moderate supporters to establish “Civil Unions” with full legal rights recognized and defended by the State!
   I know: I was ONE of those moderates consistently, vehemently and virulently condemned as a “sell-out” by those same extremists here in Seattle.
   Thirdly, “Why should we have to re-invent the wheel?” I’m not saying that we should. Rather, I propose that we dis-establish “marriage” as a State-sanctioned institution entirely, thus ending the unConstitutional involvement of the State in an institution of Religion, and, instead, adopt the “Civil Partnership”, investing it with the same full panoply of protections, rights and privileges currently granted to “Marriage”.
   This would allow those who require religious blessing of their unions to have it, but if they wish to have State sanction of, or protection for, their union, they would have to enter into the “Civil Partnership”, as well.
   Yes, the GLBT Community IS being punished on this issue... and so are all Americans who are forced to watch as our beloved Nation becomes increasingly devastated by this unHoly War.
   As stated in post #3, our family intends to move on this next summer, after our wedding. I expect to catch a lot of heat from the GLBT community on this (what else is new?) but I believe that this is the only Constitutionally acceptible solution.
   Comments? If there are enough I might even consider starting my own discussion thread.

[Tyo]

7. Sounds like we are dealing largely with semantics here

I still assert that the "sacrament" of marriage is simply optional window dressing for the civil construct.

But if you choose to define marriage as a religious institution only as opposed to non-religious "Civil Unions" that's fine with me. You're certainly not alone in this, and as long as we get equality under the law I'm happy.

I don't quite understand your reasoning though since straight couples get married every day without God being dragged into it. I don't see how the state is sanctioning religion by issuing a marriage license any more than it is sanctioning religion by issuing a death certificate.

[Valkyrie61172]

8. GBLT

Well , straight couples get married everyday without God getting dragged into it is because in many religions they see nothing wrong with these two getting married because they fill the "Adam and Eve" Bill . But for those who don't have all the hetero-sexual ways, we raise that question. So we need to take marriage out of the hands of the government and if hetero-sexual want religion, they can have it. But we want to be able to give marriage(union) for those in our community who want it.