|
Whole country goes forwards and California goes backwards... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by verndogs
Having the word "marriage" defined that way makes as much sense as having one water fountain for white people and one water fountain for "colored" people. |
Whoa there cowboy, I didn't say I supported the position; I was seeking clarification of Arbiter's position. |
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Whoa there cowboy, I didn't say I supported the position; I was seeking clarification of Arbiter's position. |
Oops. I meant to add onto your point. Not to go against you :o |
|
|
| bas |
At least we're not Alaska.
They're probably going to re-elect Ted Stevens as senator. Ted "Internet Tubes" Stevens....the one that just got convicted of several felonies. |
|
|
| Direct |
| HAHAHA prop 8 failed. Thats AWESOME. This calls for a celebration. Im going to get a hooker pregnant tonight. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
At least we're not Alaska.
They're probably going to re-elect Ted Stevens as senator. Ted "Internet Tubes" Stevens....the one that just got convicted of several felonies. |
And Sarah Palin voted for him. |
|
|
| bas |
| quote: | Originally posted by Direct
HAHAHA prop 8 failed. Thats AWESOME. This calls for a celebration. Im going to get a hooker pregnant tonight. |
It passed you scrote. |
|
|
| Direct |
| Either way im getting a prostitute tonight. |
|
|
| bas |
| You don't care about prop 8 one bit...no no no, something doesn't add up here at all! |
|
|
| Direct |
| I feel like getting freaky tonight...maybe ill have her put a few ice cubes up my ass. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| I want equal rights for my husband and wife. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Just to be sure I'm following you correctly... you mean have the word marriage reserved for the religious sacrament and term secular unions something different... civil unions or something of the same ilk? |
Basically, the idea is to separate the religious/cultural concept of marriage from the legal/contractual concept. People could hold whatever sort of ceremony they wish, call themselves "married," and so on -- all in accordance with whatever faith (or the lack thereof) to which they adhere, and none of it would have any legal recognition, nor would anyone else be compelled to recognize the legitimacy of anyone's claim of "marriage." Ideally the word "marriage" would nowhere appear in the entire legal doctrine.
And those who wanted the legal status currently associated with marriage (e.g. to be considered "family" for legal purposes) would have to separately apply for that status (calling it a civil union is fine with me.)
This would doubtless require some adjustments to areas of law that currently include or relate to marriage (particularly family law, but also some issues in tax and wills/estates, among others.) But I think it is better than trying to extend what has (in our culture at least) traditionally been a religious matter into law. This is problematic because of the diversity of religious views: it is difficult to legislate matters of marriage without appearing to favor some of those views over others (which seems to me to be a 1st amendment issue.) Better to avoid it entirely by keeping the spiritual and legal as separate as possible... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by verndogs
Oops. I meant to add onto your point. Not to go against you :o |
no worries.
If Arbiter's position is what I believe it to be then it's really a non-starter. Of course all the applicable statute law could be changed so that civil unions would have the same legal status as marriage; however, this really wouldn't satisfy either side of this debate. Those who oppose same-sex marriage generally do so because they refuse to accept that homosexual relationships have the same validity and are of the same value as heterosexual relationships, which is why they don't want homosexual unions to be termed marriage. Essentially, they believe that if you give homosexual unions the same name as heterosexual unions you are degrading heterosexual unions. Those in favour of same-sex marriage believe that homosexual relationships are of equal value and validity; therefore, they wouldn't accept homosexual unions termed anything other then marriage because doing so carries the connotation that they are not the same therefore not of equal value and validity. The same will hold true if you were to term state recognized unions as something other then marriage and church recognized unions as marriage... persons not married in a religious ceremony would feel that their union was being devalued. There really is no middle ground between the cleavages in this debate, one side has to "lose." |
|
|
|
|
