Why Has Nobody Thought Of This? (SSM debate)

Post Reply New Topic

Greetings,

I have what I believe is a common sense solution to the same sex marriage debate that is ongoing in the US. In the spirit of full disclosure, I will tell you that I am a conservative evangelical Christian.

First, I believe the government needs to get out of the business of "marriage". I believe the government has no authority to grant marriage licenses as we know them. The definition of license is to give permission for an action that would otherwise not be permitted. I believe that the right to marry comes from God, not the government.

I believe that any couple should have the right to go to a religious institution of which they are a member and be married under the precepts of that group. For example, a SS couple could go to a unitarian church and have their marriage recognized by the members of that group. Churches that do not accept SSM would not be forced to perform such ceremonies. For couples that are atheist/agnostic etc. they could simply recognize themselves as married in their own hearts, or have a non-religious ceremony.

As for the legal aspect, I believe any couple, whether married by a church/organization or not should have the right to go to the government and sign a contract stating that their finances/insurance benefits/etc. shall be merged. There should be no "application" process, it would be a simple civil right. This would be entirely optional. For example, Christian straight couple could choose to be married by their Baptist church, but choose not to register it with the government. An atheist gay or straight couple could choose to register with the government and have no ceremony.

In summary, government has no business requiring people to seek its approval to marry. Couples whether religious or not and regardless of orientation should be able to enter into a contract regarding finances and benefits. Marriage as we know it should be administered by religious institutions, or by the individual couples. Anybody will have the right to call themselves "married" but nobody will be forced to see them as married.

Just my two cents

here here would Sikhs have the right to kill adulterers?

The only overlap between the State and marriage institutions should be the protection of young children from abusive or negligent parents.

ruveyn

Certainly not, nobody has the right to take anybodys life.

What does this have to do with the matter at hand?

Each of us owns his own life and body. The right to suicide is as basic as the right to self defense.

ruveyn

Religious rights.

Actually, that IS what gay marriage entails in most jurisdictions - simply the right of religious organizations to perform marriage as they see fit and have the government recognize the unions as they do the 'traditional' union.

The opponents are actually fighting against a religious freedom - since in none of the legalization proposals that I'm aware of are religious organizations forced to perform gay marriages. They are simply allowed to, as opposed to the current system, in which the government recognizes only certain kinds of unions and is basically in the role of being an arbiter of religion.

I disagree...marriage does more than the role it plays spiritually. It provides legal protections to children if one parent dies, it protects assets if the other partner dies, it allows people who are in a LTR to visit each other in critical care. There are a number of other protections and rights marriage provides.
Check out this link about all the rights and benefits that are granted through marriage

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding ... enefit.htm

I, on the other hand, wish religion would get out of the legal aspects of marriage.

As far as your idea being a noble new idea...it is not. This is the center of the debate against marriage equality, and it is wrong.

Jesus in the bible was recorded hanging out with the outcasts of society and shunning the religious folks for being judgemental. If Jesus came to America in this day in time...he would probably hang out with goths and homosexuals and shun the church...and would be hung again by the same people who think they are so much better than the pharisees.



Jojo

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is essentially a social ceremony.

It is interesting that the state has progressively enforced some kind of monopoly over marriage, in the same way that religion had from the 11th century onward. Especially interesting since, in the same way that the society in the 11th-18th centuries could be coined the "society of Christianity", we live in the "society of the state".

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 06 Aug 2012, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

no one would hang out with goths on purpose.
(they still have those I thought it was all juggalos now)

I have already complained on that posting and, in light of yesterday's events, I may also contact law-enforcement authorities. (I have done it before on an Autistic email list.)

People have thought of that. For years I've heard libertarians suggest it's "time to get gov't out of the marriage business".

Plus, this guy's advocated for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kormos#Views

Religious rights can't supersede individual rights. The whole point of religious rights is to defend an individual's religious freedom.

About what? It has never been a problem in the U.S. But has been one in Canada and the U.K.
Partly I think because American Sikhs are more integrated into American society.

I think this is the paradox of american society not only are we dumb enough to think that the average Muslims poses a threat we are to dumb to know Sikhs are not Muslims.

As the facts on the ground show the American far-right is far more likely to perpetrate terror than american Muslims, From whom if I am not mistaken only the fort hood shooting can be blamed on a Muslim individual.

The far white right on the other hate has a string of Sikh murders starting in Tempe to this one,
as well as the Okahoma city bombing, the 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats on women's health clinics.

It is easy to see who the real threat is. (hint: white xtian folks)


But if your ego is still damaged from my lack of respect for you go ahead make a complaint.
I hope the feds have a higher literacy level than you do or I am sunk.

tldr: Religious Freedoms have to be curtailed at some level I for one am against killing I hope we can agree on that.

So two or more people could get married without getting the legal contract?

Two people can get the legal contract without being married?

Interesting concept, but sort of defeats the purpose. From the state's perspective, marriage is not about love, or god, or Adam and Eve. You may disagree with that, but whenever people say things like "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" OR "We're gay, but we love each other just as much as heterosexuals," they actually miss the fundamental principle of legally-sanctioned state marriage.

By the way, many churches/religions perform all sorts of marriage (straight/gay/polygamous) which are not recognized legally by the state.

I would advise you against contacting the authorities. We here in America have the first amendment, which protects speech we don't like in addition to all others. Not to mention there's not even a hint that anyone was actually advocating that killing people would be good or advisable.