Government Laws on Marriage

[WNxRogue]

Not correct if you wish to speak about the US form of government please at least read the the Constitution and the amendments.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not sure you understand what a direct democracy is. "Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy,comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials and conduct trials." In other words, someone petitioning the government for redress of grievances has nothing to do with whether it is or is not a direct democracy. Take a look here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) if you want more information. The US is defined as a Representative Democracy (also known as Liberal Democracy) as is most of Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

 

[Wallabies]

Do the majority of gay couples actually want a religous marriage?

There is that wonderful thing that makes our world go round, and that is the seperation of church and state. Same sex couples should have the same recognition that a straight couple are entitled to in the eyes of the state. In religion its current stand is against it and that is fine, because they have no influence over the state, right...?

 

[Padre]

Interestingly in the USA, whenever a court has ruled same sex couples can marry eg. California, when that issue has been put to the people in a ballot (referendum) the court ruling has been rejected by a significant majority of the people of that state - even a blue liberal state like California. The State, if by "the State" we mean the People, sometimes doesn't need the Church or churches, or social conservatives, to know and vote aginst something that doesn't quite smell right.

On a side issue, no one - and this may be an important factor in why even social liberals in California voted to uphold opposite-sex marriage, who supports same-sex marriage can oppose polygamy. If you support same sex marriage but oppose polygamy then you are a hypocrite.

If you support same sex marriage you can't oppose a human marrying an animal. If you do you are a hypocrite.

Those who want inter-species weddings and polygamy can argue - successfully - that if you oppose "discrimination" against same-sex couples wanting their relationship to be recognised as a marriage how on earth can you discriminate against other "alternative" relationships and not be deemed old fashioned, biased, prejudiced, bigoted, a slave to the Christian Right-Wing, etc, etc.

 

[TexasHighlander]

Im a christian, and for me, its just wrong and against the Bible.

 

[mmarsh]

Im a christian, and for me, its just wrong and against the Bible.

And you're entitled to that opinion, but America isn't a theocracy and your religious beliefs have absolute no weight on how OTHER people may chose to live their lives, especially when there is no impact on you directly. That is the point some of us are making...

Keep in mind their are LOTS of things the bible expressly forbiddens and that Christians simply ignore such as: getting divorced, premartial sex, getting drunk, eating meat on friday, working on Sunday, tatoos, shaving your head, wearing mixed fabrics, there are over 611 laws which christians freely ignore. So why get hung up on this one?

This is why the religious argument doesn't work. The bible isn't a salad bar where you can pick and choose which parts one will obey and which parts one can ignore. One cannot preach the no-homosexuality part and then proceed to ignore the rest of it. You can be sure that those that oppose gay marriage because its against the bible have broken it themselves somewhere else if they read through the entire passage.

Physican heal thyself. (Luke 4:23)

 

[Padre]

^^^

 

[Rob Henderson]

You know what they say... Always bring two Baptists when you go fishin... Cause one will drink all your beer... But if you bring two, neither will drink any.

 

[Chukpike]

My my my... Chukpike just agreed with me...


"Since marriage is more of a moral issue than a state-run institution THE STATE SHOULD HAVE STAYED OUT OF IT."

Yes I agree the state legislature should have stayed out of it.

The deference is when the legislature didn't stay out of it the people had the right to petition and vote the issue. They decided the legislature was wrong.

From your posts no one has the right to decide who can and can't marry, neither the people or the elected officials. Which from your view makes marriage meaningless. Since everyone will agree that marriage is between people.

 

[HokieMSG]

Actually it does, at least in the US perhaps not in other countries. The primary supporters of those wanting to ban Gay marriage are religious organizations and they are using a considerable amount of their influence to pressure politicans to pass laws that support their religious beliefs..

What about the vote in California?

When Religious organizations such as the Christian Coalition are passing laws on their theological intrpretation of scripture that is a violation of the separation of church and state. Christianity might take a hardline on homosexuality, but the 14th Amendment states clearly that everyone is equal under the law and that superceeds any religon.

The Separation of Church and State is not a law as far as I understand it.

 

[Chukpike]

Not correct if you wish to speak about the US form of government please at least read the the Constitution and the amendments.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not sure you understand what a direct democracy is. "Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy,comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials and conduct trials." In other words, someone petitioning the government for redress of grievances has nothing to do with whether it is or is not a direct democracy. Take a look here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) if you want more information. The US is defined as a Representative Democracy (also known as Liberal Democracy) as is most of Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, your interpretation is correct. But, the 1st amendment left the people with the ability to act as a direct democracy should the elected officials fail in their sworn duty to represent the will of the people.

If you would like a good example of how a state can subvert the right of the people; to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You only need to look up how the state legislature and courts of Massachusetts avoided allowing a petition to be brought before the people on the issue of gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

This is rather lengthy to read and understand the whole procedure but the bottom line is in Massachusetts it is very hard for a petition to go to the voters.

In 30 states were the people have had the ability to vote directly on the issue of Gay marriage all of them have voted against allowing Gay marriage.

Maybe in twenty years things could change but right now the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States do not approve of Gay marriage. This is reflected in the poll results of this topic.

There are those that think it is nobody's business who marrys. In that case what would be the point of marriage?

 

[Chukpike]

And you're entitled to that opinion, but America isn't a theocracy and your religious beliefs have absolute no weight on how OTHER people may chose to live their lives, especially when there is no impact on you directly. That is the point some of us are making...

Certainly a persons religious beliefs have weight just as much as someone who is not religious having weight to their beliefs.
How I voted on the Gay marriage ban was based on my moral values which are not particularly religious in nature. I doubt you believe that over 50% of the population of California is made up of Right Wing Religious Fanatics. How would you explain over 52% of Californians voting to ban Gay Marriage?

Keep in mind their are LOTS of things the bible expressly forbiddens and that Christians simply ignore such as: getting divorced, premartial sex, getting drunk, eating meat on friday, working on Sunday, tatoos, shaving your head, wearing mixed fabrics, there are over 611 laws which christians freely ignore. So why get hung up on this one?

I probably wouldn't have even responded to this post but it is just to funny;
tatoos, shaving your head, wearing mixed fabrics, there are over 611 laws.

Exactly 611 laws that Christians ignore? Did they have mixed fabrics when the Bible was written? Is this stuff really in the Bible? If I had known it was that entertaining I might have read it.
One great sense of humor!:smile:

This is why the religious argument doesn't work.

Religion is only one part of the equation. If you placed the far religious right at 10% of the population. Where did the other 42% of the majority in California come from?

 

[mmarsh]

Certainly a persons religious beliefs have weight just as much as someone who is not religious having weight to their beliefs.
How I voted on the Gay marriage ban was based on my moral values which are not particularly religious in nature. I doubt you believe that over 50% of the population of California is made up of Right Wing Religious Fanatics. How would you explain over 52% of Californians voting to ban Gay Marriage?



I probably wouldn't have even responded to this post but it is just to funny;
tatoos, shaving your head, wearing mixed fabrics, there are over 611 laws.

Exactly 611 laws that Christians ignore? Did they have mixed fabrics when the Bible was written? Is this stuff really in the Bible? If I had known it was that entertaining I might have read it.
One great sense of humor!:smile:

Religion is only one part of the equation. If you placed the far religious right at 10% of the population. Where did the other 42% of the majority in California come from?

1. Well therin lies a good question, I am still waiting for a single legitimate reason for why I should deny other people their civil rights. So far the ONLY one I keep hearing is "its a sin" which might be ok for Iran but not in the USA.

2. You may think its funny, but its also factual. I am referring to the 611 laws that are known as Mosaic law in the old testament (also known as the law of Moses). There are 611 rules in the laws. The Mixed fabrics law is in Deuteronomy 22:11. And I bet you if you read all 611 there would be SOMETHING you would be guilty of.

This is what I am referring to, if mixing fabrics is considered silly today then what does that say about homosexuality?

 

[HokieMSG]

The mixed fabrics refers to Linen and Wool woven together.

 

[Chukpike]

1. Well therin lies a good question, I am still waiting for a single legitimate reason for why I should deny other people their civil rights. So far the ONLY one I keep hearing is "its a sin" which might be ok for Iran but not in the USA.

It is not a civil right it is a sexual preference. I may have a preference to wear mixed fabrics, it is not an inalienable right.

Just because a couple of poop shoot poppers want to play house doesn't mean I have to agree with it. They wish to take their sexual habits out of the house and announce their habits in marriage. I do not wish to recognize their personal habits.

If they want to keep their personal habits private behind closed doors, no problem.

2. You may think its funny, but its also factual. I am referring to the 611 laws that are known as Mosaic law in the old testament (also known as the law of Moses). There are 611 rules in the laws. The Mixed fabrics law is in Deuteronomy 22:11. And I bet you if you read all 611 there would be SOMETHING you would be guilty of.

Like I said, "haven't read it", but you make it sound a lot more entertaining than I thought it was. Would not surprise me if I had broken one of the 611 rules. But I might not want to put it on public display and make everyone tell me it is OK.
I do have an aunt who makes eggshell Mosaics that are quite beutiful. Is that one of the rules?

This is what I am referring to, if mixing fabrics is considered silly today then what does that say about homosexuality

Don't know if it is considered silly to mix fabrics, don't care. (That is probably a "gay thing").
I always thought homosexuality was silly, but I tolerated it until they demanded I take them serious. Sex while pleasurable, is not the end all be all meaning of marriage.

Still did not answer my question as to who you think made up the majority of the vote in banning gay marriage. Or do you believe it was the ultra right wing, 611 rule breaking, religious coalition. I live in California and have not seen this "California Right Wing Religious Moral Majority" you seem to think exists.

 

[Rob Henderson]

It is not a civil right it is a sexual preference. I may have a preference to wear mixed fabrics, it is not an inalienable right.

Just because a couple of poop shoot poppers want to play house doesn't mean I have to agree with it. They wish to take their sexual habits out of the house and announce their habits in marriage. I do not wish to recognize their personal habits.

So you're selfish, is that the case?

Like I said, "haven't read it", but you make it sound a lot more entertaining than I thought it was. Would not surprise me if I had broken one of the 611 rules. But I might not want to put it on public display and make everyone tell me it is OK.
I do have an aunt who makes eggshell Mosaics that are quite beutiful. Is that one of the rules?

You have... I'm sure you have, because everyone has at one point or another... Tell me Chukpike, have you ever drank alcohol? If so, then Baptists would consider you a sinner. Have you ever had sex outside of wedlock? If so, then the majority of Christians would consider you a sinner. There are many more trivial things that you can break. That's not the point of what mmarsh is saying... He's saying that you cannot pick and choose which rules to follow. Either you follow them all, or you can't say anything to anyone else. It's called hypocrisy. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Unless you're perfect (and you're not) you have no right to criticize anyone else.

Don't know if it is considered silly to mix fabrics, don't care. (That is probably a "gay thing").
I always thought homosexuality was silly, but I tolerated it until they demanded I take them serious. Sex while pleasurable, is not the end all be all meaning of marriage.

HOORAY!!! He's starting to see the light. Riddle me this, if the only reason for their wanting to get married is sex, why would they be fighting for it? Couldn't they just have sex anyway? What's the point of getting married for sex? It can't be their religious beliefs... If that were the case, they wouldn't be homosexual. So the only viable alternative is that sex is NOT the reason.

Still did not answer my question as to who you think made up the majority of the vote in banning gay marriage. Or do you believe it was the ultra right wing, 611 rule breaking, religious coalition. I live in California and have not seen this "California Right Wing Religious Moral Majority" you seem to think exists.

Well there must be some there... At least enough to make up 52 percent of the population.

 

[senojekips]

Yes I agree the state legislature should have stayed out of it.

Why? Marriage is a legal state and as such must be overseen and administered by the state. Tell me one other physical thing that you can do, that is not regulated in some way by law and overseen by the State

In fact, sexual preference, love, morals race and religion, has nothing to do with whether one is allowed or not allowed to get married in the USA,... and most other places.
As pointed out earlier Marriage can be performed by any "Licensed" person. The license is issued subject to Law and therefore the process of marriage is a legal one, with legal obligations and responsibilities. You break the religious obligations, and no one gives a flying fid, but if you break the legal obligations, (like, have a second wife etc), you will be dealt with under the Law.

Marriage is a legal state,... end of story. This has already been done to death,... several times.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Why? Marriage is a legal state and as such must be overseen and administered by the state. Tell me one other physical thing that you can do, that is not regulated in some way by law and overseen by the State

In fact, sexual preference, love, morals race and religion, has nothing to do with whether one is allowed or not allowed to get married in the USA,... and most other places.
As pointed out earlier Marriage can be performed by any "Licensed" person. The license is issued subject to Law and therefore the process of marriage is a legal one, with legal obligations and responsibilities. You break the religious obligations, and no one gives a flying fid, but if you break the legal obligations, (like, have a second wife etc), you will be dealt with under the Law.

Marriage is a legal state,... end of story. This has already been done to death,... several times.

*Chuckle* There are several things I can think of that are not regulated or overseen by the state. But I think you know what I mean. Anyway, the concept of marriage is defined as a social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
AKA it is not simply a legal process. That is a lie. It is partly a legal process, but there are religious obligations as well. There are common law marriages etc. but since the majority is your be-all-end-all, the majority of the world still considered marriage to be a religious affair. No one can argue your points of the religion... Only pray that God should see fit to forgive you of your beliefs.


And if it's already been done, why are you STILL arguing it?

 

[Chukpike]

Why? Marriage is a legal state and as such must be overseen and administered by the state. Tell me one other physical thing that you can do, that is not regulated in some way by law and overseen by the State

In fact, sexual preference, love, morals race and religion, has nothing to do with whether one is allowed or not allowed to get married in the USA,... and most other places.
As pointed out earlier Marriage can be performed by any "Licensed" person. The license is issued subject to Law and therefore the process of marriage is a legal one, with legal obligations and responsibilities. You break the religious obligations, and no one gives a flying fid, but if you break the legal obligations, (like, have a second wife etc), you will be dealt with under the Law.

Marriage is a legal state,... end of story. This has already been done to death,... several times.

I am not saying the state governments can't keep the records and issue licenses but in the case of marriage the mass majority of the people do the regulating. It was understood who was the boss before the legislatures tried to take it from the people. The legislature and courts are in the process of having their hands slapped for ignoring the people.

As I laid out previously in the United States marriage, birth, death records were maintained by local governments (counties). With the advent of Social Security in the 1930s it became necessary to keep more centralized records. The state was required to keep these records. They were not required to do anything more. Marriage between a man and a women was understood before the state elected governments decided to try change things with out their constituents approval.

When the states started to legislate who could marry this was objected to by the majority of voters. That is why 30 states by the vote and will of the people took back the right to determine who could marry.

The people were saying to their legislative bodies "keep the records but we decide who can marry".

Not Church's and not the courts and not the legislatures. While the rules and ideas of marriage were a religious development excepted by the people it is not necessary for the church by itself to determine who can marry. Some religious organizations are not opposed to gay marriage, the the majority of the people are.
This is what makes separation of church and state a non issue. The majority of the people regardless of religion, political party or anything other than than own moral convictions have made their choice.

"In fact, sexual preference, love, morals race and religion, has nothing to do with whether one is allowed or not allowed to get married in the USA,... and most other places."

Of course these things all do and more. These are some of things that people use in making their decisions on who can marry.

 

[senojekips]

*Chuckle* There are several things I can think of that are not regulated or overseen by the state. But I think you know what I mean. Anyway, the concept of marriage is defined as a social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
AKA it is not simply a legal process. That is a lie. It is partly a legal process, but there are religious obligations as well. There are common law marriages etc. but since the majority is your be-all-end-all, the majority of the world still considered marriage to be a religious affair. No one can argue your points of the religion... Only pray that God should see fit to forgive you of your beliefs.


And if it's already been done, why are you STILL arguing it?

Simply because you still refuse to admit the truth. It is wholly a legal state, and religious and personal obligations are purely up to the individual and have no influence whatsoever except to those concerned. Even common law marriage is a LEGALLY recognised form of marriage, but not necessarily recognised by all religious organisations. Your statement is as ridiculous as your earlier one asking if a police officer etc., could marry two persons. What was it you said?

Can a mayor marry two people? Can a senator marry two people? Can a police officer people marry two people?

I didn't think so. It doesn't matter whether you're atheist, agnostic, anarchist, whatever, marriage IS IS IS a religious affair, get used to it.

Well you were wrong weren't you? ANY person "Licenced by the authorities" can perform a marriage, there are no other criteria it is decided by the state, and you are wrong again.

You can spout religious, moral and personal reasons until the cows come home, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with who administers the marriage Laws in the community.

Religion has no more to do with marriage than, the colour of your hair has to do with whether you are legally allowed to consume alcohol.

The only thing you have proven here is that there is at least one freedom that you can exercise without legal oversight.... but even that has it's limitations

 

[mmarsh]

Chupike

Thats where you are wrong. It is a civil right. One doesn't choose to be gay one is born gay in the same manner one is born black, asian, or with blue eyes and blond hair. If being gay were really a 'choice' who want to choose it? Nobody. Because nobody would volunteraly put themselves to be ostracized by the rest of society.

Science has proven time and again being gay is genetic. And as long as someone is born in a particular way you cannot deny them any right that is enjoyed by other members of society, no matter what your personal or religious views are.

I am getting married in May. I personally find homosexuality distasteful, but there is NOTHING that a man and a man getting married can do to negatively impact my relationship to my wife. Therefore I have absolutely no ground or reason to stop gays from getting married. As I said there is no argument other than religious or moral to banning gay marriage. And those who quote scripture as a justification ought to read a few more passages in the bible because I am sure we are all guilty of something.

Henderson

Thank you, you summed up what I said nicely (about the fact that the bible is a all or nothing affair, and that people should mind their own yard before criticizing others).