Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Another HYPOTHETICAL question

OT politics Partisanship State religion

  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#41 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:00 PM

Rockhound, on Nov 3 2004, 10:58 PM, said:

Absolutely no difference in the eyes of the law.  A marriage is a legal contract.  That's how the government can say who can marry who and how.  Either marriage has to have a marriage certificate, and that's all the government is worried about in the long run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


So couldn't a JotP doing a civil union be considered as State getting involved in religion? Afterall, isn't a marriage a religious cermony?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#42 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:02 PM

No because the church won't recognize the union.  It's a legal deal.  Or it's supposed to be anyways.

Lil
Posted Image

#43 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:14 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 3 2004, 10:58 PM, said:

I'm going to use my parents as an example.  They got married in the Church and as of that time, they were recognized by the Church as married and my Dad was not going to catch any grief for spending the night with my mother.;)  They were *legally* married several weeks before that.  The legal ceremony conferred some legal rights such as automatic inheritance if there was no will, community property, tax breaks.  Those things are not a result of the ceremony in the Church but of the legal ceremony.  It's the deprivation of these legal benefits that same sex couples who wish to formalize their relationship are talking about.
Lil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Really? That's interesting, and good to know. I was under the impression that if a couple got married in a church they also got those rights. I didn't realize that a couple would have to go through a civil union to get those rights. That clears up a lot of my confusion. Thanks for sharing.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#44 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:16 PM

You're welcome.:)

Lil
Posted Image

#45 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:32 PM

Hotspur Rovinski, on Nov 3 2004, 09:57 PM, said:

That's true. But separation of church and state doesn't mean that an idea which coincides with religion is forbidden; if it did, we wouldn't be able to make any of the ten commandments law. Last I checked, theft and murder were illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Shalamar, on Nov 3 2004, 10:37 PM, said:

Dax the thing is - just because some religous folk advocate no gay marriage, no abortions doesn't mean that laws pro or con are religious in nature - as Rov ( I think it was ) said - there are non religious people who believe in no gay marriages , no abortions.

and no Bush can not create a state religion- the constitution prevents this. It is - in the end - the most bedrock foundation of the Constitution. The people who were the heart and soul of the ideals that framed the Constitution were absolutley oppossed to any sort of 'state religion'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


What they said.  

The idea that people cannot attempt to legislate their moral conscience is bizarre.  When we attempt to illegalize some kinds of guns, or oppose or favor the death penalty, or legalize or make stricter penalties for drug use/sale, we are making moral and conscientious choices.  That some people adopt their morality wholesale from their religions or base their moral choices on their faith has nothing to do with it.  We all have freedom of conscience - including our elected officials.  If some of us don't like the moral conscience of the religious right, and/or the President, that's fine.  But that has nothing to do with a state religion.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#46 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,632 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:42 PM

What states perform for men and women are civil marriages--you go down to City Hall and get a marriage license.  However, once you have the license, a clergyman can perform a religious ceremony that simultaneously marries you in the eyes of the state.  (In Europe, this is not the case, and one is not legally married without going through formalities at the equivalent of City Hall.)  If you choose only to go to city hall, you are, however, still considered to be married.  Many rights, benefits and responsibilities accrue to people who are married.

Civil unions have thus far only been enacted or proposed for same-sex couples.  A given state may assign certain rights, benefits and responsibilities to a civil union that are the same or nearly so as those that come with a civil marriage.  However, entering into a civil union in a state that allows it will not automatically get you Federal benefits or qualify you for things like survivor benefits or guaranteed hospital visits, or be accepted in another state.  People who have had civil marriages automatically become entitled to all those.

If we called all civil ceremonies unions instead of marriages and left marriage to the realm of religion we could solve this problem, but I doubt that it would ever happen.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#47 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:44 PM

Cardie, on Nov 3 2004, 09:42 PM, said:

If we called all civil ceremonies unions instead of marriages and left marriage to the realm of religion we could solve this problem, but I doubt that it would ever happen.

Cardie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I doubt it too.
Posted Image

#48 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,033 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 01:58 AM

darthsikle, on Nov 3 2004, 09:30 PM, said:

Shoshana, on Nov 4 2004, 02:26 AM, said:

It would violate the whole church vs state thing. It would shatter one of the basic tenants of the Constitution, Freedom of Religion.

'shana

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


There is no "vs." in there.  Seperation of I think you meant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Actually, yup. You're correct. Fingers are typing faster than brain is moving!

Thanks for the catch.

'shana

#49 darthsikle

darthsikle
  • Dead account
  • 2,139 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 08:54 AM

Anastashia, on Nov 4 2004, 03:41 AM, said:

darthsikle, on Nov 3 2004, 10:30 PM, said:

Shoshana, on Nov 4 2004, 02:26 AM, said:

It would violate the whole church vs state thing. It would shatter one of the basic tenants of the Constitution, Freedom of Religion.

'shana

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


There is no "vs." in there.  Seperation of I think you meant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Actually darthsikle separation of church and state is ia misconception when applied to the constitution. What is spoken of is the establishment of a state religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


OK...agreed.  My point was to mean that there is no vs.  It is not a fight between the church and state
Goodbye.

#50 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 09:04 AM

Actually - I was really surprised at how strict the wording of some of the ballot initiatives was.  Some of them precluded the possibility of civil unions as well.  For instance, according to CNN:

Arkansas Ballot Proposal said:

Amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman; Arkansas would not recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships from another state; would recognize common-law marriages from other states; the Arkansas Legislature would determine rights of married couples.

Ohio Ballot Proposal said:

Amend the Ohio Constitution to recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman; neither the state nor counties can give legal status to unmarried individuals whose relationships are intended to approximate the design or effect of marriage.

Utah Ballot Proposal said:

Amend the Utah Constitution to recognize that marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; no other domestic union would be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect; amendment would take effect on January 1, 2005.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/E...allot.measures/

HM07

Edited by Handmaiden07, 04 November 2004 - 09:05 AM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#51 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 04:27 PM

It's very sad how closed minded some people can be :(
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#52 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 05:07 PM

Handmaiden07, on Nov 4 2004, 04:32 AM, said:

Hotspur Rovinski, on Nov 3 2004, 09:57 PM, said:

That's true. But separation of church and state doesn't mean that an idea which coincides with religion is forbidden; if it did, we wouldn't be able to make any of the ten commandments law. Last I checked, theft and murder were illegal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Shalamar, on Nov 3 2004, 10:37 PM, said:

Dax the thing is - just because some religous folk advocate no gay marriage, no abortions doesn't mean that laws pro or con are religious in nature - as Rov ( I think it was ) said - there are non religious people who believe in no gay marriages , no abortions.

and no Bush can not create a state religion- the constitution prevents this. It is - in the end - the most bedrock foundation of the Constitution. The people who were the heart and soul of the ideals that framed the Constitution were absolutley oppossed to any sort of 'state religion'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


What they said.  

The idea that people cannot attempt to legislate their moral conscience is bizarre.  When we attempt to illegalize some kinds of guns, or oppose or favor the death penalty, or legalize or make stricter penalties for drug use/sale, we are making moral and conscientious choices.  That some people adopt their morality wholesale from their religions or base their moral choices on their faith has nothing to do with it.  We all have freedom of conscience - including our elected officials.  If some of us don't like the moral conscience of the religious right, and/or the President, that's fine.  But that has nothing to do with a state religion.

HM07

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Well said, Handmaiden07!

And what I find so absolutely hilarious -- and frustrating -- is that those who are so loud and vociferous in claiming that *you* shouldn't be allowed to create and enforce laws based on your moral view are the most loud and vociferous in trying to enforce their moral view on you.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#53 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 05:08 PM

Yes, it is sad how many people/states voted for gay marriage bans - if it had been to vote for bans on black marriages or jews marrying christians the whole country would have been up in arms, but I guess it's ok to hate q*eers and stuff, after all they don't really matter right? just a bunch of f*gs, right?! :angry: :angry:  :glare:  

I'm disgusted by it. Every person who voted for banning gay marriage deserves to die a horrible death alone and unwanted, sick and chained to the wall of a dank cell. :angry:
:glare:  :angry:
I am VERY PROUD of my brother, a Gay man, who has been with his lover for 15 years (I've not had a relationship last that long!). Anyone who says they do not deserve the same legal protections my wife and I have is evil and deserves to die. Anyone who thinks their relationship is worth less than a hetero just because they are both men is ignorant, superstitious and vile. The two of them are better people than 99% of anyone I've ever met and this was the lowest blow of them all. They are better Christians, Better Parents and Better humans than almost everyone I know!!!!!!!!!!:angry:  :glare:  :glare:  :angry:


:D On the bright side, now I don't have to ignore half the place anymore..... :hehe:

Edited by Gefiltefishmon, 04 November 2004 - 05:10 PM.

"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#54 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 05:21 PM

Gefiltefishmon, on Nov 4 2004, 10:08 PM, said:

... Anyone who says they [Gefiltefishmon gay brother and his companion] do not deserve the same legal protections my wife and I have is evil and deserves to die. Anyone who thinks their relationship is worth less than a hetero just because they are both men is ignorant, superstitious and vile....

Well, as long as your including the one-third to one-half of all Kerry supporters who also supported defense-of-marriage acts ...
:rolleyes:
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#55 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 05:21 PM

Now that's not fair, Gefiltefishmon. People voted against gay marriage for any number of reasons, and none of those people deserve to die. They're just expressing their opinion! Even if you don't agree with that opinion (as I don't) saying things like that seems incredibly harsh and unwarranted.

#56 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 06:54 PM

I may be wrong, but when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the gay couple in Lawrence v Texas, they in essence affirmed that homosexuality is protected under the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution. In effect, their ruling--to which Antonin Scalia wrote a furious dissent--amounted to a declaration that homosexual sex between consenting adults is not to be treated differently than heterosexual sex. So, a homosexual relationship between consenting adults is not illegal. Texas law said it was. The Supreme Court ruled that Texas law (and therefore other state anti-sodomy laws) is unconstitutional, citing the Fourth Amendment.

So, homosexuality is not illegal. Why, then, are homosexual marriages/civil unions legally prohibited?

And study after study finds that gays and lesbians are...like other people. Most are healthy, well-adjusted people who happen to fall in love with the same sex. Some are screwed up, yeah, and so are some straight people, in roughly the same proportions.

So there is no legal or empirical basis on which to object to gay unions. Why do people then get so riled up? Evangelicals have made the "gay agenda" a bread and butter issue for them. (Not all Christians interpret the Scripture as instructing believers to be really, really grossed out by homosexuality.) And it goes well with the homophobia that too many straight people, evangelical or not, still have.

If there is no law against homosexuality, no empirical evidence that it is a disorder, then on what grounds do States erect those laws? An evangelical interpretation of Scripture and plain old homophobia.

It seems to me that laws should not be written to impose a sect's interpretation of Scripture on society nor should they simply be written to make bigots more comfortable; after all, that's why we finally got rid of segregation laws in the South (which, believe it or not, some racists managed to find Scriptural support of).

Edited by Spectacles, 04 November 2004 - 06:55 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#57 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 06:58 PM

By the way, just so everyone is clear, legalizing gay marriages would not force any church to perform them. Civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate things. Churches that want to can still rail against homosexuality as a sin.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#58 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:02 PM

Ah But Kevin. The left must demonize anyone who does not agree with them.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#59 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:02 PM

Kevin

You are right it IS harsh. I'm sorry for being harsh, but you didn't have to sit and watch them, sitting on the couch, silently watching the returns with tears rolling down their faces, knowing that so much of their country hates them and denigrates them and denies their relationship has any merit because one of them does not have a uterus.

My brother is  - literally - one of the best human beings I have ever met, and I would trust him with my life, my children, every last cent I own. 11 states demonstrated that the populations of those states are, IMHO evil, vile, self-deluded and horrible. I just wish those who voted for these bans understand how evil they are and how they are feeding the hate and devision. I know THAT's harsh too, but I'm very pained about this!

I'm trying to get them to move to Holland, where the enlightened, 21st century population has mad legal gay marriages for years and - WOW, hell has NOT swallowed them up and their society has NOT crumbled away - I would sell everything I own to make it possible for him, but he's a "Log Cabin Republican" and say's he loves America too much to leave, even if America hates him.

THAT is sad sad sad sad :glare:  :angry:  :glare:  :angry:

Heck, I'm not even busted up that W won, that Daschle didn't get re-elected or anything. The 11 states Gay Marriage bans, that was so eye-opening to the bigotry and hatred this country seems to thrive on - Soul-less, sad, primitive and plain old evil, IMHO. :glare:  :glare:  :glare:
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#60 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 November 2004 - 07:07 PM

^  I feel you gefilt, I do.  But wishing death on anyone who voted for these measures is no better than people who wish death on people because of their sexual identity.

Lil
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: OT, politics, Partisanship, State religion

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users