Keep Govt. out of my religion - Take Marriage away from The Civil servants

[erik_blank]

With the California State Supreme Court saying that it is not equal treatment for straight couples to be allowed to be married and not gay couples, and now the New York Governor saying that he will insist that NY accept MARRIAGE from other states and countries, I say that it is time for the government to get OUT of the marriage business altogether.

If the government insists that it needs to create some sort of legal form for "Committed Couples" to be recognized by Health Insurance and legal documents, then let all persons be given a civil union form. But as for Marriage... Let us defend this in the strongest method possible and leave it where it belongs. In the hands of our religious leaders and God. Let us as a nation proclaim loudly and from the roof tops that marriage is a holy union blessed by our god and should not be sullied by the base mechanizations of the political structures of mankind!

Legal standing for committed couples? Sure, what the heck. I could care less. But let us all as a nation ensure that MARRIAGE is kept in the realm of the religious servants of God. That the tenants of those churches are adhered to by their followers.

[Nolano]

Keep Religion out of my government, first.

Fine, if your sect says gay couples can't marry, I'm sure they'll be happy to marry in another religion or sect.

As far as "legal standing for committed couples", that's what a marriage has become. If you're so worried about it being a holy union that adheres to the tenants of your religion, shouldn't you start with the atheists, agnostics, and non christians who are already married?
The fact that you can be married in a completely non religious way, with no priest/reverend/pastor present I think already provides enough proof that marriage is no longer a strictly religious establishment.

[Elendae]

Keep Religion out of my government, first.

Fine, if your sect says gay couples can't marry, I'm sure they'll be happy to marry in another religion or sect.

As far as "legal standing for committed couples", that's what a marriage has become. If you're so worried about it being a holy union that adheres to the tenants of your religion, shouldn't you start with the atheists, agnostics, and non christians who are already married?
The fact that you can be married in a completely non religious way, with no priest/reverend/pastor present I think already provides enough proof that marriage is no longer a strictly religious establishment.

My thoughts exactly.

[magic_moose]

To build on your point a bit, EB (which, BTW, is not particularly well reflected in your poll choices)

Government is not in any way defining religious marriage via recent court decisions or legislation. They are only defining civil marriage. Nothing says any religion has to adhere to more liberal civil rules, they only have to adhere to more restrictive civil rules.

For instance, a religion cannot effectively endorse polygamy because civil rules restrict it, but could require marriage within the religion because civil rules do not restrict that.

A good analogy to this whole marriage thing would be divorce. Civilly, anyone can get divorced and re-marry without any particular restrictions. Some religious groups have their own, more stringent, criteria for this; such as Roman Catholics prohibiting divorce and remarriage without going through a complex process within the church to declare the first marriage null and void. No one (any more) is seriously complaining that current divorce law is destroying the sanctity of Roman Catholic annulment.

I am old enough to remember when divorce law liberalization was considered to be destroying marriage and interfering with religion, which was certainly an easier, if no more valid, case to make than the current gay marriage foo-fraw

This whole befuddlement would be eliminated if we reserved the term marriage for religious rites and ceremonies but referred to the all civil requirements as civil unions.

What is needed here is the widest possible interpretation of “unions” in civil law; whatever restrictions please the members of whatever religion, religious sect, cult, or personal morality set you happen to belong to; and a terminology change so that people won’t engage in long fruitless arguments over a word with two similar but different meanings

As we in the in the IT field would say, “'Marriage' is an overloaded operator".

[jeff]

Darn, another thread started by somebody who Knows What God Wants, and thinks everybody else should be bound by that. I wait for the next edition where divorce is made illegal, and all loans are banned because they are "usury". Or pork is outlawed, since that's in the Old Testament, too.

magic_moose expressed it well: government isn't doing anything to EB's religion or that of anyone else. Mind you, what NY's governor is doing is actually consistent with long-held law that states observe the marriages made in other states.

BTW, guys: the word is "tenet" ("T-E-N-E-T"). A "tenet" is a belief, opinion, or dogma, "tenant" is somebody who rents real estate. Please write that down for later reference.

[Grimaldi]

Realistically, polygamists are the only religious group that are actively discriminated against by the government (major group...I'm sure there are some NAMBLA-types out there, too). Everyone else can still be married in a religious ceremony, at least, they just might not qualify for automatic benefits granted by the government.

Government has a hand in marriage because it is beneficial for is to do so. Most people get married, many get divorced, some die eventually, etc. so standardized things like property distribution, medical decisions, etc save a lot of hassle in the long run as far as legal issues go.

Most people believe a stable, two-parent family is beneficial for children, so the government attempts to support that by creating special tax incentives. More people is beneficial for the government (for a variety of reasons), and if children raised in two-parent homes require less social funding than single parent children, it's in the government's interest to try and promote that.

Overall, I think the idea of making marriage completely church oriented and removing the government isn't bad from a theoretical standpoint, but realistically, the execution would cause all sorts of issues.

[jeff]

Grimaldi, "some die eventually" ? I want to hear about the exceptions who manage to avoid that part! Sign me up for that option!

If there was a "replace all" editing function for laws, where you could change every instance of "marriage" to "civil union", then it might be workable. But amending each of thousands of statutes to do so (and probably having litigation each time to force it, and counter-litigation by those don't want such changes) would make it extremely expensive and take roughly forever.

[magic_moose]

Overall, I think the idea of making marriage completely church oriented and removing the government isn't bad from a theoretical standpoint, but realistically, the execution would cause all sorts of issues.

You're right about there being multiple needs for legal unions, but what is this about "completely church oriented"? I'm confused.

Do you really want to replace legal standards with religious standards? Does "church" include sun worshipers, animal sacrifice, yard maintenance, and one-member adherent based religions? This is insane even from a theoretical standpoint.

This all works just fine if you have legal standards for unions and religious standards for marriage, but I don't think that is what you are saying in the rest of your post.

[fencerchica]

The amount of rancor that revolves around the word "marriage" is fascinating.

I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, as opposed to mere civil unions, only because experience has shown that there is a tendency for civil unions to carry less weight than marriage, in terms of how readily or grudgingly the couple in question is granted its rights. As for the word used though, I couldn't care less if only the benefits were really the same. In fact, I agree with the commenters above that all else being equal (which it's not), it probably would be more sensible for the government end of the deal (for all unions gay and straight alike) to be called "civil unions" or suchlike.

Now, given the fact that the concept of marriage has mutated constantly throughout human civilization, I laugh until my beer comes out my nose every time the Right alleges that same-sex marriage is going to be the first-ever re-definition of some granite, immutable concept of marriage. In reality, it'll just be one more innovation added upon a history of constant change.

The other thing that I find darkly amusing is that the Right can't come up with a single solid and material-interest reason for opposing civil marriage equality aside from that wet sensation they get in their britches when they think about it. The few tries they've made to claim that gay marriage mysteriously unravels society have been pretty lame.

[jeff]

Great post, fencerchica. The answer is homophobia, just as prior decades' religious opposition to mixed race marriage (of course, I don't mean all religion: many in the religious side were brave leaders against racism) on the basis that it too was "unnatural" and "against the laws of God" was rooted in racism.

[magic_moose]

That’s all true, but to put on my Anthropologist hat for a minute here, religions are intended to help deal with stuff that is “in-the-cracks”, “bad to think about”, or part of several worlds. Mary Douglas referred to this as “liminality”.

Birth, death, marriage, sex, non-standard sexual identity, effluvia, animals that do not fit established categories (pigs, snakes, bats, shrimp, etc) are all things that are distressing to people in various ways.

People obviously need to have coping mechanisms for these things since every society does. Some would appear to us to work better than others. For instance, some societies deal with homosexuality by having defined womanly roles for certain men who want to adopt them; others deal with the birth of twins by defining them as “hippos” (since hippos almost always have two babies at once) and since they are hippos, they promptly go down and put them in the river where they belong.

Now, to us, with our set of rules for dealing with oddity, we would condemn some and not others, which is fine, some ought to be condemned as being truly destructive to people. But keep in mind that other societies’ and groups’ rules have been developing for the same length of time ours have and fill a societal need. One must have a good reason for overturning them besides “we don’t like how you do it” or “my way is better because I grew up with it” or “my way is better because I have thought about this a lot and am really enlightened”.

Given that every culture and society has developed its own religious, symbolic, and mythological ways to deal with this stuff, it is important in a country as diverse as the US that government give as much scope as possible to individuals to follow their own consciences and adhere to their own rules.

This does not lead to balkanization and divisiveness any more than not having a state religion leads to armed religious conflict in the US. It simply gives space for a healthy discussion to take place.

It is the restriction of peoples’ ability to choose that causes strife.

[Grimaldi]

The other thing that I find darkly amusing is that the Right can't come up with a single solid and material-interest reason for opposing civil marriage equality aside from that wet sensation they get in their britches when they think about it.

Well, there would be reduced tax income for the government as married gay couples filed jointly instead of serparately, and higher health insurance costs for business and the insurance industry as married gay couples were given "family" insurance rates instead of paying as two separate individuals.

Let me check....nope, pants are still dry.

The answer is homophobia, just as prior decades' religious opposition to mixed race marriage (of course, I don't mean all religion: many in the religious side were brave leaders against racism) on the basis that it too was "unnatural" and "against the laws of God" was rooted in racism.

Come on...you're saying the majority of Americans, who would vote for laws restricting marriage to a single heterosexual couple, are homophobes? That's nonsense. Sure, it's a factor for some, but some just don't see the need for government intervention in this area. As I stated earlier, the government has a vested interest in helping heterosexual couples...most of them reproduce, and adding to the population is critical. Sure, some homosexual couples artificially inseminate, but the rates are much lower, both in number of couples with children and number of children per couple. What's the government's benefit in return for reducing tax revenue?

You're right about there being multiple needs for legal unions, but what is this about "completely church oriented"? I'm confused.

Do you really want to replace legal standards with religious standards? Does "church" include sun worshipers, animal sacrifice, yard maintenance, and one-member adherent based religions? This is insane even from a theoretical standpoint.

This all works just fine if you have legal standards for unions and religious standards for marriage, but I don't think that is what you are saying in the rest of your post.

No, I think you got my original, theoretical, intent. Ideally, the government would have no part in marriage...how and when people choose to couple and form families is fairly irrelevant. Sure, when religious edicts conflict with basic rights and principles (honor killings, torture, rape, child molestation), then the government is obligated to step in, but if you live in a free-love hippe commune worshipping Gaia or a sun-worshpping cult, that's your business as long as you follow the basic rules of the land.

As I stated above, though, issues with divorce, especially revolving around property and children, would cause some major issues. Religious law on this topic could certainly be followed if both parties agreed, but usually that system is a bit skewed, which is where the government starts getting involved....to make sure all parties are treated fairly and equally.

[fencerchica]

Well, there would be reduced tax income for the government as married gay couples filed jointly instead of serparately, and higher health insurance costs for business and the insurance industry as married gay couples were given "family" insurance rates instead of paying as two separate individuals.

By your line of reasoning, no one should have any civil rights at all which do not result in a net financial benefit to the government or coporate interests. Furthermore, there's nothing about these arguments that could be construed to apply uniquely to same-sex couples. Why not apply the same reasoning to say that we should roll the clock back to 1967, and not allow interracial couples to get married, because we don't want to reduce tax income for the government or drive up insurance costs?

Sure, it's a factor for some, but some just don't see the need for government intervention in this area.

You have it backwards. Discrimination is inherently intervention. Marriage is effectively a good dispensed by the government, but you want it to be preferentially granted to one group and not another. Whether you happen to think that's a positive or a negative, this still constitutes intervention.

As I stated earlier, the government has a vested interest in helping heterosexual couples...most of them reproduce, and adding to the population is critical.

Ridiculous. The US population is expected to increase by one third by 2050, and you're worried about the impact of 5 to 10 percent of the population being allegedly less likely to reproduce. Well, it's fun to watch you grasping at straws. Incidentally, you overlook the role of gay parents in adopting children (which would be an even greater role if not for restrictive policies in some states banning adoption by gay couples).

Sure, some homosexual couples artificially inseminate, but the rates are much lower, both in number of couples with children and number of children per couple. What's the government's benefit in return for reducing tax revenue?

First and foremost, this is a civil rights issue. In addition, however, encouraging stable and healthy unions leads to lower crime and disease rates, and higher productivity and contribution to society. Ultimately this can all be traced to an economic impact (since that's all you seem to care about).

As I stated above, though, issues with divorce, especially revolving around property and children, would cause some major issues. Religious law on this topic could certainly be followed if both parties agreed, but usually that system is a bit skewed, which is where the government starts getting involved....to make sure all parties are treated fairly and equally.

You're overlooking a few inconvenient matters such as:

• hospital visitation rights
• medical decision-making rights
• adoption and guardianship rights
• financial liabilities of married couples for one another
• property rights

And the rest of the 1,049 rights, benefits and privileges that are routinely given to married couples by the federal government alone.

[Philistine]

Well, there would be reduced tax income for the government as married gay couples filed jointly instead of serparately,

Actually, a 2004 CBO Study came to the conclusion: "In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO's usual estimating period)."

(My emphasis).

This was only with respect to the Federal Budget, not individual States.

--Philistine

[jeff]

fencerchica and Philistine did a far superior job of refuting you than I would have (big props to both), so I'll just answer one remaining part for myself: motivation.

Come on...you're saying the majority of Americans, who would vote for laws restricting marriage to a single heterosexual couple, are homophobes? That's nonsense. Sure, it's a factor for some, but some just don't see the need for government intervention in this area.

Of course it is. What else to you call it when one part of the population wants to prevent another part of the population from enjoying the same civil rights they do? Of course it's homophobia, just as comparable behavior against race-based minorities is racism. That's the only thing that motivates this. fencerchica nails it right on the head: this isn't intervention - this is removal of a discriminatory intervention that excludes it from a part of the population.

[Grimaldi]

By your line of reasoning, no one should have any civil rights at all which do not result in a net financial benefit to the government or coporate interests. Furthermore, there's nothing about these arguments that could be construed to apply uniquely to same-sex couples. Why not apply the same reasoning to say that we should roll the clock back to 1967, and not allow interracial couples to get married, because we don't want to reduce tax income for the government or drive up insurance costs?

You have it backwards. Discrimination is inherently intervention. Marriage is effectively a good dispensed by the government, but you want it to be preferentially granted to one group and not another. Whether you happen to think that's a positive or a negative, this still constitutes intervention.

Perhaps we're arguing at cross-purposes here, but as I originally stated, ideally the government would have nothing to do with marriage and people could form whatever unions they want. For convenience's sake, the government simplified the process and standardized things because it affected a large part of the population and addressed common needs. If you want to argue that, because enough homosexual couples exist to warrant government intervention, that's fairly valid.

You're approaching this, however, from the angle that this is a guarenteed right and homosexual couples are being denied. That's not true. The constitution allows for the free practice of religion, and homosexual couples are still allowed to marry. Governments routinely have to draw the line on issues, for a variety of reasons. Why are we limiting the debate to married "couples", as polygamous relationships are common the world over? What's the upper limit on a polygamous relationship? What about bigamy?

If you're going to argue along straight-up lines of equality and principle, there's no way you can't give equal rights to all of the above. If you do, then anything is open to the benefits of married status, so why bother having them?

As I mentioned earlier, the only group I really feel sorry for is legitimate polygimists...their rights are definately being denied, as they aren't allowed to marry within their religious beliefs for no better reason than discrimination (and no, I'm not Mormon )

Ridiculous. The US population is expected to increase by one third by 2050, and you're worried about the impact of 5 to 10 percent of the population being allegedly less likely to reproduce. Well, it's fun to watch you grasping at straws. Incidentally, you overlook the role of gay parents in adopting children (which would be an even greater role if not for restrictive policies in some states banning adoption by gay couples).

Yes...we all know how accurate predictions for 45 years in the future are. You'll note most social security-type programs were built on projected population increases, and they continue to fall further and further behind every year. As countries mature, the birth rate drops (see Europe/Japan for this, and the severe ramifications).

I'm not worried about homosexual couples not reproducing at the same rate as heterosexual couples, merely observing that's it's a major reason for government intervention in traditional marriage and is not as applicable to homosexual marriage.

Adoption isn't quite the same issue, and there's no reason homosexual couples shouldn't be able to adopt. I'm not an expert on the process, although I know it is lengthy, expensive and complicated. I'd assume all adopting families meet certain criteria regarding finances, length of relationship, criminal record...as long as they passed, there should be no problem.

In addition, however, encouraging stable and healthy unions leads to lower crime and disease rates, and higher productivity and contribution to society. Ultimately this can all be traced to an economic impact (since that's all you seem to care about).

Right, but does a government stamp certifying a marriage make it suddenly much more likely to lead to the above than a couple getting married without government recognition? The government certification isn't what keeps me with my wife and family. I've yet to see the study that shows a difference in the above mentioned areas for couples married only under religious ceremonies compared to those married in ceremonies with state certification.

[Fencergrl]

Every time this issue comes up, I can't believe your country doesn't accept gay marriages. The argument is just silly. If marriage is so sacred why are people not protesting the concept of drive thru chapels, Hollywood marriages etc... ?

[magic_moose]

Deary me! You were expecting logic in a debate that is in many ways a surrogate for other things?

[mrbiggs]

But let us all as a nation ensure that MARRIAGE is kept in the realm of the religious servants of God. That the tenants of those churches are adhered to by their followers.

So you have to be religious to get married? I don't think that's true OR makes sense. I don't care what your church's stance is on marriage, not even a little bit. But I don't think it should affect whether or not I'm allowed to get married, or whether or not the fact that I don't do it in a church makes it not a marriage all of a sudden.

Every time this issue comes up, I can't believe your country doesn't accept gay marriages. The argument is just silly. If marriage is so sacred why are people not protesting the concept of drive thru chapels, Hollywood marriages etc... ?

The argument here would be that those are already established, and they're protesting further changes to marriage. I don't think many people protesting gay marriage support the drive through chapels, hollywood marriages, high divorce rate, etc.

[jeff]

You're approaching this, however, from the angle that this is a guarenteed right and homosexual couples are being denied. That's not true. The constitution allows for the free practice of religion, and homosexual couples are still allowed to marry

Eh, really? How long has this been going on? Are you saying that homosexuals are in fact allowed to marry throughout the US, and have their marriages recognized throughout the US?

Cue Janis Ian "Married In London"

(Now, to your point: if the government did not offer benefits for being married and wasn't "in the marriage business", then it would be different. But it does, and it is, and that's not going to change.)