Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jun 2, 2015.
Fine. I'd rather see the government completely out of "marriage" than see people force their religious views of marriage on others.
Just get rid of the word "marriage" in all levels of government, and replace it with either "civil union" or "domestic partnership". Make it open to any two individuals capable of entering in to a legal contract. Leave the word "marriage" to religious institutions. If a pair of atheists want to call their civil union a marriage, fine, go ahead. If a pair of Catholics want to get married, fine, get the civil union certificate, then have a marriage ceremony performed in your local Parish.
Sour grapes, but the fact that you need a license to get married is pretty insane.
It's not about the license itself though, it's about whether the state recognizes a same sex "contract" the same way as an opposite sex "contract" (it just sounds so stupid when I say it) and if everything is equal in the eyes of the law.
I bloody hate living in this backwards state.
There's 49 other ones to choose from....
I've lived in a bunch of them, and some other countries. I'm too old to start moving again now.
Yeah, and after all Alabama desperately needs progressives at the polls so you're taking one for the team by living there. Just think of it that way!
That's impossible, marriage is a legal contract and you can't have anything relating to the legal system without gov involvement.
Marriage is not a word owned by religion, any religion. So anyone should be able to use that word.
Exactly - but it shouldn't be owned by the government, either, having to submit to the whims of biased government officials and voters, claiming the word is exclusive to their religion... That was my point - it should be available to everyone - independent of government.
As long as everyone of legal age and can give consent, then the gov's use in a legal term of that word is moot. The term the gov uses in no way changes the fact that the gov still HAS to be involved in the legal side of marriage or what ever anyone chooses to call it.
It really isn't that different aside from changing a definition and not the process. In Texas I had to take my marriage certificate from the Army Chaplain to the county clerk and register it so my "marriage" was legal.
The government needs to adopt civil union and respect religion. Marriage is a religious definition and civil union is for everyone. I see no problem there.
Well all a marriage license does in Alabama is forbid some dude from marrying his farm animal. Now with this gone they are free to have sex with and marry all the live stock they please.
Marriage itself predates any of the current religions, so exactly which religion's definition is it?
In what modern texts translated from the oldest texts? We only have so many old documents and books to go on. Every writing I have heard about or read is that it is based on a god of some sort.
And what about the religions that have absolutely no problem with gay marriage? The argument you're repeating is really saying that only certain people's beliefs should be respected.
Evidence of marriage goes as far back as 1000-4000 BCE to Mesopotamia. That's some of the oldest evidence of marriage but it could potentially go back much further. Marriage can also be found in cultures all over the world from Mesopotamia to Africa, Europe , the far East and even the Americas. In ancient times, marriage had very little if anything to do with love or even religion. While religion played it's part in many parts of the world, marriage itself was built more on the basis of protections of wealth, power and growth of one's family. Marriages were often agreements between families or elders, which is where we get arranged marriages from, which also exist today in parts of the world. In many cultures, wifes were nothing more then bought property.
Different cultures had different views on marriage. In many cultures, wifes had no rights at all, some of those views still exist today in some parts of the world. Some cultures, like the Egyptians, wifes had some rights. Religions, more specifically churches, played roles through their part in society. Churches played leading roles in their local areas, often having the power or at least support of the local gov regarding some legal matters. If someone contested a marriage that was officiated by the local church, that church's say that they married you was the legal standing. Which also supported and backed any agreement made by the parties involved. For example, if you offered X number of years of crops or goods for your neighbor's daughter, there had to be a legal support to back up that agreement. This is why gov is essentially married to marriage. Governments, no matter how small or large it was, backed those agreements and the church backed up that the marriage was legit.
God only comes into play when the churches officiated over the marriage. When it comes to the church there is no higher power then god, so when you agreed to marriage, you did so to or in front of god. Just do a little bit of reading up on the origins of marriage, you'ed find that religion and specifically god didn't play a role til later in history. Again marriage itself predates all current religions and even most current cultures. It's more complex then what I wrote out, I just tried to lay out some basics but the origins of marriage is worth the research, even if it's just for your own curiosity.
Some other references about ancient marriages.
I think of it every time I go to the polls or put up a sign, or post in a forum. <sigh>
those same-sex fools, they have no idea what they are getting into.
they should ban all 'marriage' instead
This bill does no such thing.
You have a nice long response. The first link with Mesopotamia links to Hammurabi. Their culture followed gods and all laws were deigned by the gods, which seems to follow in line with marriage and religions. The second link was babylonian which actually was the birth place of modern Jewish/Christian/Muslim religion with the Assyrians again their laws were deigned by god/gods.
The last link was some crazy math thing that had a single statement saying that marriage dates back some 5K years with no documents, cave drawings, tablets or anything to say it didn't have its roots in religion.
None of those links or any sub-links in each page had any reference to religion and modern acceptance of religion and gay "marriage".
Again, I am all for civil unions for everyone as it pertains to the governments views on partners.
Go get the certificate from your religion of choice... I don't care. But it should only be recognized by the government as a civil union... and not as a marriage.
So Lutheranism, Episcopal, Buddhism, Reform Judaism, and Quaker marriages don't count as marriages? Dang, I guess my (mixed-sex) marriage isn't legit then! Funny, the Lutheran minister called it a marriage. He signed a certificate that said marriage.
Just as he this past month presided over a same-sex marriage ceremony between two friends of mine. Using near-identical words to my and my wife's ceremony 13 years ago, using a near-identical certificate to the one I have framed in my living room.
It would be an infringement on my religion to say that what my religion and my state is perfectly willing to call a "marriage" isn't a marriage.
If you want to claim religion as a reason, then you have to accept others legitimate claims of religion as a reason to ALLOW things.
I don't think your post refutes or argues against anything tunerX has said.
If your religion is willing to marry same sex couples, more power to them. They can have a marriage from the church, and a civil union from the state.
That's my interpretation of tunerX's post.
As long as the government treats married couples equally, I could give a f**k about what our mythological friends want to call their personal union to be closer to their "god".