End marriage?

[Anima]

When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing altogether in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role at all for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse, and no federal tax benefits attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred.

Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. Two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage in a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors — one of who voted for and one against Prop 8, which successfully ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether. (See pictures of the busiest wedding day in history.)

Instead, give gay and straight couples alike the same license — a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a "civil union" — anything, really, other than "marriage." For those for whom the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they could want. The Church itself would lose nothing of its role in sanctioning the kinds of unions that it finds in keeping with its tenets. And for non-believers or those for whom the word marriage is less important, the civil union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states, and in federal law, for "married" couples.

"While new terminology for all may at first seem awkward — mostly in greeting-card shops — [it] dovetails with the court's important responsibility to reaffirm the unfettered freedom of all faiths to extend the nomenclature of marriage as their traditions allow," wrote professors Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer. Kmiec voted for Prop 8 because of the teachings of his Catholic Church and his notion of religious liberty, but has since said he believes the Court should not allow one group of Californians to marry while denying the privilege to others.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html?xid=rss-fullnation-yahoo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

sounds good to me.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

OK, a new angle at passing a gay marriage law. Why do they bother trying to make it seem like something else? That's the disturbing part to me. It's called lying.

 

[hasoos]

You know the question is, why should you even give a shit if anybody is married or not. Part of living free is to have the freedom to live how you want to, even if that is a way that somebody else would not live their lives. Otherwise, how is it freedom? Ok so you don't want to live as a Hells Angel biker gang member would. Are you going to outlaw that too? What about S&M? It's a "deviant" sex behavior. Are you going to outlaw that too? What about role playing? Are you going to outlaw that people play roles while having sex?

Marriages should not be regulated by the government. All it has created is conflict between groups. Christian or other religious groups who are against gay people in general want to make it so their "definition of marriage" applies to all. The other groups who want to be recognized by the government due to laws in place that keep them from getting their full rights due to the definition of marriage. Should those righte even have to be "granted" in the first place?

Some folks might argue that having a law in place helps stop "deviant behavior". It stops nothing. Do you honestly think that before somebody has a gay relationship, they stop and think "Hey you know there is that marriage law in place. I better not do that." Are you really so ridiculously shallow you think that would work?


What should be in place?

The tax laws should be revamped so you can write off dependants, not spouse/children. They may or may not be your dependants anyhow.

The marriage laws put into place should be similar to a business merger.

 

[crandc]

On the surface it looks reasonable. The state issues civil union licenses for all. The state in doing so certifies the parties are of age, not currently married to others, and dispenses certain rights and responsibilities to the couple. The state licenses are issued equally to same sex and opposite sex couples. Those who wish a religious blessing may obtain one from the institution of their choice. No religious body would have to perform marriages they oppose (that last is already the case, of course, and is true in states/countries with marriage equality).

But, and it's a big but. Would heterosexuals consent to give up state marriage? Would they be satisfied with civil unions?

Or is that just something demanded of gays & lesbians?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

You know the question is, why should you even give a shit if anybody is married or not. Part of living free is to have the freedom to live how you want to, even if that is a way that somebody else would not live their lives.

The "reason" is called "alimony" and "property split".

 

[crandc]

By the way, Jewish girls have a Bat Mitzvah. It's not just boys.

 

[mook]

It's a very reasonable compromise, but I don't really see organized religions going for it.

The fastest growing religious segment in America is the non-religious. Organized religions knows this. They know that one way they can remain relevant is in performing marriages, even for people who don't really care that much about their religion.

I was married in an Anglican church 8 years ago. (That church made $600 off of me for the service.) It was the last time either me or my wife set foot in a church. If "civil union" supplants "marriage" in common language, it would make it that much less likely that people like me would bother with the church wedding at all.

 

[RR7]

Were you church goers before your wedding? if not, why even bother with the church. The majority of the weddings I have attended recently of friends and family members were outside of a church, often with a friend ordained through the ULC performing the ceremony.

 

[Minstrel]

My preferred solution for a long time has been to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Everyone gets a civil union, heterosexual or homosexual, and that is what is used for everything, legally, that marriage currently is.

Beyond that, anyone can have a private marriage done by any church they like. And, of course, the churches can enforce their own rules for who they'll marry.

 

[mook]

Were you church goers before your wedding? if not, why even bother with the church. The majority of the weddings I have attended recently of friends and family members were outside of a church, often with a friend ordained through the ULC performing the ceremony.

Well, mine was pretty peculiar circumstances. We went back to England to my wife's hometown. The church there was built in the 14th century. So it was pretty cool to get hitched in a place that old.

But we were actually married twice. The first time was in Las Vegas at the Viva Las Vegas Wedding Chapel. We had to get hitched or she would've been deported. It was slightly more, er, secular, in that an Elvis impersonator swiped my credit card 10 minutes before a "ceremony" performed by a priestess from The Aquarian Center of Light.

Each was pretty special in its own right. The English one has far more photographs that we display prominently in our house. The Vegas one, though, was significantly cheaper, easier, and had a far better wedding night.

 

[rocketeer]

By the way, Jewish girls have a Bat Mitzvah. It's not just boys.

and confirmation isn't just for girls. who cares? why do you always have to act as if females are somehow being slighted?

 

[rocketeer]

I was married in an Anglican church 8 years ago. (That church made $600 off of me for the service.) It was the last time either me or my wife set foot in a church. If "civil union" supplants "marriage" in common language, it would make it that much less likely that people like me would bother with the church wedding at all.

well, i'd consider you lucky that you didn't go to a nonchurch facility to get married as you would have likely paid a much larger amount than $600.

 

[maxiep]

My preferred solution for a long time has been to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Everyone gets a civil union, heterosexual or homosexual, and that is what is used for everything, legally, that marriage currently is.

Beyond that, anyone can have a private marriage done by any church they like. And, of course, the churches can enforce their own rules for who they'll marry.

Get outta my head, Minstrel! You wrote my position much better than I could have.

 

[blazerboy30]

Get outta my head, Minstrel! You wrote my position much better than I could have.

You can't have that position. You are a Republican. I've seen members of this forum say so.

 

[mook]

well, i'd consider you lucky that you didn't go to a nonchurch facility to get married as you would have likely paid a much larger amount than $600.

heh, I was astounded how cheap it was. $600 to get married in a church that was older than Christopher Fucking Columbus? Sign me up.

Granted, it wasn't exactly extravagant--it was the Dikembe Mutomobo of churches. You marveled that it was still standing, not that it was anything great to look at.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Why not just call it a marriage? Then let the church decide who they'll let get married in the church, under God, etc....

Seems the most logical thing to me.

 

[rocketeer]

Why not just call it a marriage? Then let the church decide who they'll let get married in the church, under God, etc....

Seems the most logical thing to me.

because based on how votes on gay marriage have gone, the majority of people haven't seemed interested in that idea.

 

[rocketeer]

heh, I was astounded how cheap it was. $600 to get married in a church that was older than Christopher Fucking Columbus? Sign me up.

Granted, it wasn't exactly extravagant--it was the Dikembe Mutomobo of churches. You marveled that it was still standing, not that it was anything great to look at.

ah, i misunderstood your statement to mean that you felt it was too expensive. i really feel like getting married in a church is the way to go because i assume the costs are much less especially if it's a church that either of you regularly attended at one point.

 

[MARIS61]

The premise here, a false premise, is that marriage is strictly a religious ceremony for religious people.

Utter nonsense.

It's a very personal pact between 2 people that, like many other human relationships and celebrations, was eventually "claimed" by religions as a rite of their own so they could "control" it's use and distort it's purpose to serve their own ends.

My wife and I are both atheists, were married outdoors by a Reverend because he is a close family friend who we know cares about us and also married my siblings.

We have been together 33 years, married 31, and have known each other since infancy.

No law or religious rite, or lack of either, could have prevented our fantastic life together or how we feel about it, as we don't acknowledge that law or religion has any power over us. When you live by The Golden Rule, there's no reason to pay much attention to the control freaks.

You come into this world in command of your destiny.

You lose only those rights you concede, and are governed only by those whom you choose to obey.

 

[Minstrel]

Get outta my head, Minstrel! You wrote my position much better than I could have.

 

[Denny Crane]

The premise here, a false premise, is that marriage is strictly a religious ceremony for religious people.

Utter nonsense.

It's a very personal pact between 2 people that, like many other human relationships and celebrations, was eventually "claimed" by religions as a rite of their own so they could "control" it's use and distort it's purpose to serve their own ends.

My wife and I are both atheists, were married outdoors by a Reverend because he is a close family friend who we know cares about us and also married my siblings.

We have been together 33 years, married 31, and have known each other since infancy.

No law or religious rite, or lack of either, could have prevented our fantastic life together or how we feel about it, as we don't acknowledge that law or religion has any power over us. When you live by The Golden Rule, there's no reason to pay much attention to the control freaks.

You come into this world in command of your destiny.

You lose only those rights you concede, and are governed only by those whom you choose to obey.

Seems like govt. uses marriage to control people too. The tax code would be an obvious example, as would family law courts.

 

[crandc]

and confirmation isn't just for girls. who cares? why do you always have to act as if females are somehow being slighted?

Because the original post said Jewish boys undergo a major ceremony called a Bar Mitzvah. By not mentioning girls, the females were slighted. Very simple.

Why do you always have to be so defensive about the existence of females?

 

[MARIS61]

Seems like govt. uses marriage to control people too. The tax code would be an obvious example, as would family law courts.

Controlling people is the singular purpose of government.

 

[maxiep]

Because the original post said Jewish boys undergo a major ceremony called a Bar Mitzvah. By not mentioning girls, the females were slighted. Very simple.

Why do you always have to be so defensive about the existence of females?

And was it slighting males when the next sentence was...?

When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition.

There's being defensive and there's being clear. The writer clearly intended to use a male in one example and a female in another. I would suggest lowering your sensitivity a bit. No one was being slighted.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

And was it slighting males when the next sentence was...?



There's being defensive and there's being clear. The writer clearly intended to use a male in one example and a female in another. I would suggest lowering your sensitivity a bit. No one was being slighted.

+1.

 

[crandc]

And was it slighting males when the next sentence was...?
.

I have no idea. I am not Catholic, I do not know what Catholic tradition is. If the tradition only applies to girls, then obviously the article did not slight boys by not mentioning them. But if a ritual applies to boys and girls, and an article only mentions the boys, as though the girls had no part in it, obviously the girls have been slighted.

I mean, why is simple English so hard to comprehend?

 

[The Sebastian Express]

But Catholic boys do go under confirmation and the article made no mention of it. It wasn't slighting either boys or girls - they simply used a Jewish reference for the boys, and a Catholic reference for the girls.

 

[rocketeer]

I have no idea. I am not Catholic, I do not know what Catholic tradition is. If the tradition only applies to girls, then obviously the article did not slight boys by not mentioning them. But if a ritual applies to boys and girls, and an article only mentions the boys, as though the girls had no part in it, obviously the girls have been slighted.

I mean, why is simple English so hard to comprehend?

if you had read my post that you quoted and responded to you would know that both boys and girls get confirmed.

the article mentions only the boys and then only the girls. seems like something very strange to get all upset about.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

marriage is fucking retarded. we're meant to fuck around on everyone. can't fuck one vagina for the rest of your life...that's crazy!