Comments on: Maine’s vote

By: Nana

Nana — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:14:23 +0000

Why should marriage be “an extra thing religious people do” in order to satisfy male and female homosexuals who want to change a long-established moral culture?

Report comment to moderator

By: buddyglass

buddyglass — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:15:24 +0000

#78:

How so?

When I started thinking about this issue, I asked myself, “What does it mean to be married?” And I came up with two answers. First, its a secular pseudo-contractual designation that confers certain rights and legal consequences. Second, and more importantly, it is a mystical union between between man and woman entered into before God.

According to the second definition it is utterly impossible for a same-sex couple to ever “marry” since God does not bless such unions. So I’m not worried on that count. Regardless of what a state government says, same-sex couples are not “married” in the most important sense of the word.

Given this second meaning, who in their right mind thinks the secular govt. should have a say in approving the “mystical union before God” of two believers? It grossly perverts the function of the state. All the state should care about, from a legal standpoint, is whether two individuals have entered into a civil union (either explicitly or implicitly by common law).

In the system I support, everyone (same or opposite sex) is able enter into a civil union. Similarly, everyone (same or opposite sex) is able to be “married”, assuming they can find someone willing to perform the ceremony.

Report comment to moderator

By: DJ

DJ — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:08:26 +0000

I still don’t see the point in legally overturning the traditional definition of marriage. And just because a few people demand it, doesn’t mean there’s a good reason to do it. And civil unions are just an excuse to sue for marriage rights. Traditional marriage provides the framework for naturally occurring families. This has worked well for many centuries, and I would oppose changing that arrangement just because a few people don’t like it.

Report comment to moderator

By: Nana

Nana — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:47:57 +0000

Buddy, that sounds a little like reverse discrimination against religious people.

Report comment to moderator

By: buddyglass

buddyglass — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:42:23 +0000

I think negative unintended consequences would be very detrimental to those who choose to marry in the church and not the state.

There would need to be a provision that automatically assigns the rights and responsibilities of civil union on those who get “married” without actually filing the paperwork with the state. This already exists in the form of common law marriage. For instance, in Texas, if I cohabit with a woman and we both refer to ourselves as “married” (even if there was never a religious ceremony) then we’re considered “married”. If we separate, my common law spouse is entitled to a share of whatever we jointly own. I would be required to pay child support. Etc.

Most evangelicals and other supporters of “traditional marriage” would do the state thing (similar to how they get marriage “certificates” now) and then do a church wedding.

I think you are mistaken in your assumption that homosexual activists will be satisfied with civil unions that give them the rights and responsibilities of marriage—without the name.

I agree, so long as the state continues to recognize “marriage” for opposite-sex couples and not for same-sex couples. Hence my suggestion that the state recognize “marriage” for nobody and instead deal solely in terms of civil unions.

“Marriage” would be an extra thing religious people do, divorced from the secular state, and would be open to same and opposite sex couples alike. (Assuming the same-sex couple could find a church willing to “marry” them, though that’s not much of a challenge.)

Report comment to moderator

By: DJ

DJ — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:52:17 +0000

BuddyGlass,
Your proposition has a certain appeal to it. However, I think negative unintended consequences would be very detrimental to those who choose to marry in the church and not the state. It is not for nothing that marriage is traditional. We have built up laws and customs and ways to doing things that would cause much chaos if overturned one day by law. I don’t think there is much to be gained by doing it.

Also, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that homosexual activists will be satisfied with civil unions that give them the rights and responsibilities of marriage—without the name. In Connecticut, the ink was barely dry on the signed legislation legalizing civil unions, when the gay activists brought suit in court alleging that civil unions are intrinsically unfair, and that they must be called marriage. The court agreed, so now we have gay marriage.

Report comment to moderator

By: buddyglass

buddyglass — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:30:44 +0000

IMO there are good reasons to allow same-sex couples to take upon themselves the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. Conferring these rights and responsibilities on them doesn’t make them “married”, because “marriage” is in essence a spiritual designation. Currently it is used to refer to both parts, though. The spiritual and the secular/legal. That’s what I object to. I’d prefer the state deal in terms of a designation that has no spiritual or religious connotation, e.g. “civil union”.

Individuals (same or opposite sex) wishing to take upon themselves the rights and responsibilities of civil union would express that commitment to the state, which would then treat them accordingly from a legal point of view. If they also wish to be “married”, then they would need to find a church willing to “marry” them.

For my part, I would oppose it if my church ever considered marrying same-sex couples. (It wouldn’t.) But, at the same time, I see no compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the legal, secular status of civil union. Which, under my system, would be the exact same thing offered by the state to opposite-sex couples. “Marriage” would be the exclusive purview of religious organizations.

Report comment to moderator

By: DJ

DJ — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:06:46 +0000

BuddyGlass,
If it were just a matter of what people choose to call themselves, I would agree. And if I had no obligation or responsibility for ‘the state’ proclamations regarding marriage, I would, again, agree with you. In other words, if I lived in a kingdom, I would have no responsibility for the king’s ruling on marriage laws, because I have no power over a king. But in a democracy, the power of the government is vested in its citizenry, who are free to elect the officials to make these laws. And contained in that freedom is the responsibility to try to see that our laws are as good as we can influence them to be. But I’m no activist, and I even believe that deliberate abstention from voting can be an acceptable, principled act if done thoughtfully.

All that being said, I do think there is merit to a discussion of how much, and to what extent, the state should be involved in marriage at all. Personally, I strongly favor leaving things the way they are; traditional marriage. But the persistence of activists in many states (including mine) to redefine marriage, may make that position untenable eventually and may force the necessity of a constitutional amendment in the end.

Report comment to moderator

By: buddyglass

buddyglass — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:37:29 +0000

Err, that was a typo. “Not personally” should be “personally”.

Report comment to moderator

By: buddyglass

buddyglass — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:37:02 +0000

#71:

Personally I agree about not “redefining” marriage. At least, not personally. If others in same-sex relationships choose to define themselves as “married” then that’s their prerogative, but its no real concern of mine.

However, what irritates me is that many people take the above attitude and translate it into, “We must prevent the state from recognizing assigning the traditional legal rights and responsibilities of ‘marriage’ to same-sex couples.”

Report comment to moderator