You forget that this country's laws were based on religious beliefs. As the years have gone by, we have gradually separated our laws from specific credit to religion. The problem is that it's nearly to the point where we MUST pass a specific law protecting religious organizations from discrimination because even under Obamacare, religious organizations are being forced to pay for medical insurance that requires abortion be included - obviously a very clear violation of morals to many religious organizations. I can see very easily that someone would be inclined to sue a Minister, Priest or Rabbie because he/she refuses to "marry" someone in a religious ceremony.

Abortion, huh? Google the Hyde Amendment.

That said, how silly is that? Religion oppresses. It is not oppressed anywhere.


The fact that tens of millions of American's are against gay marriage is based on their interpretation of religious edict. You can't argue away this belief by callnig them names or trying to equate the subject with racial discrimination. To them, it's a totally different train of thought. You might as well tell them Jesus didn't die on the cross.

This isn't a Christian nation. If they don't believe in gay marriage, they don't have to marry someone of the same gender.

But it's still separate, and there's little in American history that shows that "separate" ever provides for something truly equal.

You misunderstand - I meant civil unions for all.

You misunderstand - I meant civil unions for all.

Practically speaking, how's that work, the government no longer recognizes existing marriages and we move forward with all interested couples applying for a civil union? That will never fly. Nor will grandfathering existing marriages and setting new rules for everyone else. I expect the SCOTUS will decide it and will effectively give same sex marriage the same footing.

In the scheme of billions of years, I don't see how it is going to hurt anything. And since by allowing two men or women to get married doesn't limit my freedoms or rights, I don't see why we care this much about it.

Belief system or not, it just doesn't make sense this is a polarizing issue. Kiss and make up and if you want a paper that says you can share insurance, okay?

Live and let live a little?

Frankly, I pretty much believe in the last part of the quote.
However, regarding "the scheme of billions of years", and determining whether homosexuality is "natural" or not, why is it that:

XX + XY = XX or XY (sometimes with slight variations involving extra X's or Y's)
while
XX + XX = 0
XY + XY = 0

On the other hand, perhaps this is "nature's" solution to overpopulation. In which case it may be a good thing.
Too bad that many cultures around the globe that are in the 1xy + 1xx = 8 xy xx etc. mode are less enthusiatic about the concept.

LLrTPrp-fW8

Practically speaking, how's that work, the government no longer recognizes existing marriages and we move forward with all interested couples applying for a civil union? That will never fly. Nor will grandfathering existing marriages and setting new rules for everyone else. I expect the SCOTUS will decide it and will effectively give same sex marriage the same footing.

I agree DE . . . All of that would be more difficult to accomplish than requiring folks to present an ID in order to vote.

Practically speaking, how's that work, the government no longer recognizes existing marriages and we move forward with all interested couples applying for a civil union? That will never fly. Nor will grandfathering existing marriages and setting new rules for everyone else. I expect the SCOTUS will decide it and will effectively give same sex marriage the same footing.

I agree too.

Pre 1923, the whole idea of the government doing only civil unions may have made sense. But since the government became involved in issuing marriage licenses, marriage ceased to be a religious agreement, and became a civil/legal agreement. Only the government can legally license a couple for marrage. So, by any definition, marriage in the US IS a civil union. The religious ceremony involved by some folks is a seperate affair, and not required to be legally in a government recognized marrage.

So to take what PQ wants from another direction... why can't religious people stay out of it? Marriage for almost 100 years has been government controlled. You want something special for the religious side? Go for it. Get your civilly licensed and legal marriage certificate from the government, and then feel free to go get a special "religious" marriage certificate from your church.

I renewed my wedding vows earlier this year (15 years in) and did it in a traditional celtic handfasting ceremony. Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

It's because they're illegal.

--duh.

It's because they're illegal.

--duh.

There are quite a few legally married same sex couples in Oklahoma. It's legal in 5 states, and all states must recognize the marriages. Hasn't effected my marriage at all though. Maybe my marriage is a little more solid than those who are panicking about same sex marriages?

Of course, I haven't been divorced multiple times, which seems to be a requisite to be an expert on "family values".

I renewed my wedding vows earlier this year (15 years in) and did it in a traditional celtic handfasting ceremony. Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.


Hasn't effected my marriage at all though. Maybe my marriage is a little more solid than those who are panicking about same sex marriages?

Of course, I haven't been divorced multiple times, which seems to be a requisite to be an expert on "family values".

good points

It's legal in 5 states, and all states must recognize the marriages.

Pursuant to DOMA, states generally don't recognize homosexual marriages conducted in other states and there's no current precedent saying they have to. The issue is unresolved though.

Without the intervention of the techno-god Pyrex there would be no issue in connection with homosexual marriage.
(thinking long term, of course) . . .
And the non-issue would resolve itself.
(right?)

You want to see unresolved issues involving, "Why Can't I Marry the One I Love"?
Watch "Shakespeare in Love".

I agree too.

Pre 1923, the whole idea of the government doing only civil unions may have made sense. But since the government became involved in issuing marriage licenses, marriage ceased to be a religious agreement, and became a civil/legal agreement. Only the government can legally license a couple for marrage. So, by any definition, marriage in the US IS a civil union. The religious ceremony involved by some folks is a seperate affair, and not required to be legally in a government recognized marrage.

So to take what PQ wants from another direction... why can't religious people stay out of it? Marriage for almost 100 years has been government controlled. You want something special for the religious side? Go for it. Get your civilly licensed and legal marriage certificate from the government, and then feel free to go get a special "religious" marriage certificate from your church.


Spot on.



I renewed my wedding vows earlier this year (15 years in) and did it in a traditional celtic handfasting ceremony. Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

I participated in one of those once. Universal Life Church minister lead it and made it a legal marriage. It seemed more genuine to me than the traditional weddings I've attended too.

So to take what PQ wants from another direction... why can't religious people stay out of it? Marriage for almost 100 years has been government controlled. You want something special for the religious side? Go for it. Get your civilly licensed and legal marriage certificate from the government, and then feel free to go get a special "religious" marriage certificate from your church.

I renewed my wedding vows earlier this year (15 years in) and did it in a traditional celtic handfasting ceremony. Amazing how I didn't feel that same sex marriages interfered in my fairly religious ceremony.

Actually, this is exactly what I've been saying. And congratulations on your wedding vows renewal. Always brings a smile to see a happy couple.

Right, except as I said more likely than not it will eventually extend to same sex couples and will continue to be called "marriage" not something new like "civil union." The only thing new or different will be a SCOTUS decision.

You have to admit that this is funny no matter which side of the issue you are on.

Saturday Night Live - New Xanax - Video - NBC.com (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/new-xanax/n37070/)

Why is the government in the marriage business at all?

Why is the government in the marriage business at all?

Cause it be full of control freaks and busy bodies. Lots of folks want every ox gored except theirs.

Why is the government in the marriage business at all?

Because married couples own stuff together, pay taxes together and operate out of the same household. The government being able to tell folks who gets what when they split, at least some would argue, beats arm wrestling.