Should the Federal Gov't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages?

Post Reply New Topic

Well duh, people should marry who they want. It's not harming anyone. And where do hermaphrodites fit in this?

If the Defense of Marriage Act proves unconstitutional, and homosexual marriage becomes the law of the nation, then what would stop the Edmunds Act from also being declared unconstitutional? At present, none of the states permit polygamous marriages. But, if Utah were to go in for polygamy once again, would the other states (and the federal government) be obliged to recognize polygamous marriages from Utah?

One of the conditions for Utah being admitted into the Union was that they forever illegalize polygamy. If this condition were not imposed then every other State would have had to recognize polygamous marriages in Utah has legal in their State.

ruveyn

I agree. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals that is recognized by the courts and may be performed by either clergy or a government official. Baptism is a ceremony performed by clergy with ritual and symbolism that is intended to transcend the physical realm.

moved from Politics, Philosophy, and Religion to LGBT Discussion

Polygamy was America's big moral issue of the 19th century. It wasn't so long ago that the idea of homosexual marriage would have seemed absurd to most people. Perhaps polygamy will eventually crop up again as an issue.

I think that the Immigration Department frowns upon people in polygamous marriages (in countries where polygamy is legal) migrating to the USA.

The president of South Africa, and the King of Swaziland, are both polygamists.

Traditionally, polygamy was synonymous with polygyny (except for a small number of cultures that practiced polyandry, or group marriages between two men and two women). I can understand why people would object to these male-dominated harem structures. But polyamory in a modern, gender-equal society is very different, imho. I don't think that anything speaks against allowing polyamorous people to marry all their lovers. I mean, polyamorists are living in group relationships anyway, with or without marital status. We might as well allow them to make it official.

It is my assertion that marriage should not be recognized by the courts, and that weddings should not be officiated by government officials. Not in a country that intends to seperate Church from State, at any rate.

What makes you think that marriage is a church matter? There are countries where up to 85% of the population is non-religious, and yet couples still get married in those countries. It is clearly not a religious institution, no matter how desperately the Christian churches are trying to make it one (which is very insulting to cultures with non-Christian majority religions, which have practiced marriage long before the rise of Christianity, and even before the rise of Judaism).

So what, then, is the government to do about the hundreds of issues that the law treats differently when they concern spouses?

-If government is not in the business of marriage, then neither is government in the business of divorce. What, then, is the interest of a divorced spouse in the matrimonial home?
-Is government also to abandon its parens patriae jurisdiction and allow religious institutions to decide matters of child custody and guardianship?
-Are spouses no longer privileged from being compelled to testify against each other in criminal matters?
-Upon intestacy, a surviving spouse is entitled to an interest in the estate of the deceased spouse?
-What is the tax treatment of amounts provided by one spouse into the retirement savings of the other?
-Who is competent to provide medical instruction on behalf of an unconcious or an incapacitated patient?

Those who utter the siren call for government to get out of the marriage business do so in ignorance of the mischief that their proposals would create.

The proper remedy is not to get government out of the marriage business--it is to get religious institutions out of the marriage business.

Civil Unions. Not just for gay people, for everyone.
If some couples also choose to get married, then that will be nobody's business but their own. No license, no paperwork, no government record-keeping involved.

Personally I like the proposal of the Green Party of England and Whales: to extend the right to a marriage to same sex couples and to extend the right to a civil union to opposite sex couples. That way if people don't like the religious connotations of marriage they can opt for the civil union. I don't know if it's really all that necessary a thing to do, but I can't imagine it would cost too much, so why not. I know that John Barrowman refuses to refer to his civil union as a marriage because of the religious background, so obviously some people would still have a preference.

For myself, I'm somewhat of a romantic, so if I'm ever lucky enough to find a boyfriend (some days I wonder) I'd like to get married some day. Although I'm an atheist, so if I'd prefer that no priest was involved.

So it's simply a matter of semantics. I think it's a little too late for Christian churches to try and trademark the word "marriage". This word, and its equivalent in other languages, has been in use for quite some time in almost all human cultures. People aren't going to start saying "will you civil-unionize me".

Everyone should have the right to marry another adult person. If a couple wants some special divine blessing on top of a legal, state-recognized marriage, they can have a church or temple ceremony and call that marriage too. The churches can make the latter exclusive to opposite-sex couples, same-race couples or blue-eyed and blond people for all I care, but the secular and legally recognized form of marriage should be available to all couples.

That would work too. But in many cases, the "different names for the same thing" approach is used to keep marriage exlusive to opposite-sex couples and restrict the rights of same-sex couples. Such as in Germany, where gays and lesbians can only join in so-called registered partnerships that don't have the same legal benefits as traditional marriage (such as tax benefits and joint adoption rights). That's why I'm opposed to calling marriage anything but marriage.

I agree with you in that I think same sex couples should absolutely be allowed to marry and that the government should call it a marriage. I just think that some people, regardless of sexual orientation, would prefer to have a civil union.

In America we have an ideal called "separation of Church and State". It means that the government (State) shall not involve itself in religious matters. The word "Church" in this usage does not refer specifically to Christian churches, but to ANY religious organization. Synagogues, temples, even an individual's personal spiritual beliefs would fall under the category of "Church".
So, when I refer to the separation of Church and State, I am NOT talking about Christianity. I am NOT saying Christians hold a monopoly on the concept of marriage. That would be an absurd thing to say.