|
04 May 04 - 10:09 PM (#1178047) Subject: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Ebbie Some people say that gay 'marriage' denigrates the institution of marriage (I'm not certain just how) and others say that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to all the benefits that are extended to straight couples. A friend proposes a solution: Get the state entirely out of the marriage business. Let the state require civil unions for everyone who wants to couple and wants the benefits that pertain. And everyone who wants marriage has to go to the church of their choice for that service. Gays and lesbians are free to contract marriage in any church or by any pastor who offers the service. What say you? |
|
04 May 04 - 10:11 PM (#1178051) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Once Famous A reformed rabbi will perform a gay marriage. |
|
04 May 04 - 10:17 PM (#1178056) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Ebbie So should they all, in my opinion. Love isn't easy to come by, and love should be the operative concept. |
|
04 May 04 - 10:20 PM (#1178058) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: beardedbruce Much too reasonable and fair. Freedom of religion is really the freedom to inflict one's own religous principles on others, you know. Of course, the problem is that, having gone into the Bill of Rights and "interpreted" it to their own benefit, the Left can hardly complain when the Right does the same. BTW, I do agree with Ebbie. That would be the only reasonable way to deal with it. Why does the State recognize a religious ceremony, anyway? Will they allow those who have had Bar Mitzvahs to vote, since they are "adults"? Or will Catholics who remarry outside the church not get the same standing? |
|
04 May 04 - 10:23 PM (#1178063) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Ebbie bb, my thought exactly. When it comes down to it, a marriage ceremony is a religious ceremony. How does the state figure in that? |
|
04 May 04 - 10:25 PM (#1178065) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Strick "Let the state require civil unions for everyone who wants to couple and wants the benefits that pertain." I think you'll find that both Kerry and Bush agree to that if in a little bit different terms. It'll be common within a few years even in conservative states. |
|
04 May 04 - 10:44 PM (#1178079) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Blackcatter The French sort of accidentally stumbled onto that to some extent. They created a civil union ceremony for Gays. It is more of a simple contract that allowed for "near marriage." I don't recall all the facts, but the upshot is that a whole lot of straight couples are opting for it as well. By the way Ebbie - plenty of people have suggested the same thing - why is the state involved in the marriage thing at all? If you and I went into a business partnership, we would draw up a contract, fill out the papers, pay the fees and be up and running - if we wanted to disolve that, we would simply follow the contract and walk away, depending on the finnancial issues. The legal marriage is the same thing, except there is no negotiating the contract, which is why all non-amicable divorces are a freakin' mess. Besides, people should be able to enter into a union type contract regardless of "love." Two (or hell, more than two people who have a strong personal connection, whether or not it's "amore" should be able to have certain rights if they wish. A very close friend of mine tried to kill herself a couple years ago, I had to lie to the hospital and tell her I was her brother in order to see her in the ICU. Her dad was around, but since he's part of the reason she's crazy, she needed someone like me to be there to hold her, etc. If there was a possibility of a cotract some way that would be a BIG improvement, yet the only thing that I'm aware of like that is being able to list someone to handle your finances, etc., after your death or in case of insanity, etc. Sorry, didn't mean to go on that long. |
|
04 May 04 - 10:50 PM (#1178081) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Bobert As per usual, this all comes down to money and corporations don't want to include same sex spouses in benefit packages. Maybe marriage isn't the first step but "reciprocal beneficiories"... Once Boss Hog figgures out that he can't screw folks out of takin' car eof their loved ones tyhen maybe he'll just give in... Nah.... Bobert |
|
04 May 04 - 11:12 PM (#1178093) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Ebbie bobert, in Juneau a year or so ago there was a brouhaha when the city gave in and included homosexual couples as eligible for insurance plans. A number of people were up in arms about it - including a couple of friends of mine - because of the increased payout. Even though they admitted that in transient relationships there is only one beneficiary at a time, even though it took nothing away from straight signatories and even though if the city has to pay out more frequently, it also means that the city is taking in a great deal more. If insurance companies weren't making a profit, they would change the contract. They're not in it for their health. |
|
04 May 04 - 11:14 PM (#1178094) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: GUEST,Rama Llama Screw same sex marriage!! I am so sick and tired of hearing about these poor gay people who cannot legally marry their lovers! What about my needs? What about those of us who wish to marry outside the species?! You people are racist! Go burn your crosses on some one's lawn! You sit there and talk and talk and talk about same sex marriage or bushes while the love of my life, Kendall Morse, and father of my young children is off gallivanting on the other side of the world and flirting with sheep and pigs and Humans! My heart breaks to know he has left us behind to fend for ourselves while playing in the barn with Mary Ewe, rolling in the mud with that fat ass Daisy Sow or massaging the teats of that fleabag Clarabelle Cow. I am so angry at him and his philandering ways! |
|
04 May 04 - 11:19 PM (#1178096) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Amergin Uh oh.....some one's in trouble.... |
|
05 May 04 - 01:35 AM (#1178163) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: LadyJean I had to lie to the airline and tell them my cousin was my aunt, to get a mourner's discount. I didn't have aunts and uncles, growing up. I had mother's first cousins. But the airline doesn't work that way. 15 years ago, I went to a wedding where the bride was 46 and twice divorced. Her groom was 23 and never married. The Catholic church wouldn't marry them. The Episcopal church was willing, and they had a high church ceremony, with all the trimmings. I didn't approve. But the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Episcopal church gave their consent, and the couple are still married. (I wouldn't call it a good marriage. But they're still married.) Incidentally, in Pennsylvania, if you want to, you can get a license and marry yourselves. Just find two witnesses to sign it, and stand up in front of them and say you're married. When they sign the license, you're married. No judge, no minister required. |
|
05 May 04 - 02:40 AM (#1178191) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Mudlark An apt New Yorker cartoon...a woman saying to her husband, "Gay marriages! Haven't they suffered enough???" |
|
05 May 04 - 04:53 AM (#1178261) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Ellenpoly I remember while living in Greece, I wanted a Civil ceremony and was told that they weren't performed there, and that if I had one anywhere else, it would have been considered illegal in Greece. My husband and I were forced to have a religious ceremony, and even more complicated since we were of different religions, I had to convert to his, at least going so far as to be baptized in it. I resented the whole thing, and still do. Civil Ceremonies are surely the answer, at least in countries not supposedly ruled by theocracies. The problem is that god has never been totally out of the picture in the United States from it's inception. So religion is part of our way of life, every time someone says "So help me God" (yes, I know one can affirm rather than swear in court) or pledges alliegence "Under God", or uses money that states "In God We Trust". I continue to follow what will happen with the law on this, because it'll go a long way in convincing me there is still a chance for us to begin acting like a Human Community. Then again, as El Greko says in another post...Whoops! There flies another pig!..xx..e |
|
05 May 04 - 09:22 AM (#1178425) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Rapparee I heard this proposed some time ago, and I think it's a great idea. Should be implemented and, I think, eventually will be. LadyJean, the Catholic church probably wouldn't marry 'em because of her divorces, which the RC church doesn't recognize (you gotta get an annulment, which means that the marriage never existed -- so I guess your virginity is restored and any children no longer exist). In every marriage those involved marry themselves. They are the ones who say "Yup, shore do!" -- the judge, priest, minister, rabbi, preacher, captain, or whoever is there to conduct the ceremony and tie up the legal red tape. But the marriage contract is made between the groom and the bride, supposedly freely and without coercion. Legally there is offer ("Hey, wanna get hitched?"), acceptance ("Oh, hell, why not?) and consideration ("You git my bod and I git all all yer worldly goods -- such a deal!"). |
|
05 May 04 - 09:38 AM (#1178444) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Allan C. So far as what you call it and how it is done, so much of it comes down to taxes, wouldn't you say? Why else is documentation necessary at all? I think that if the tax incentives were removed then all the other claptrap would fall by the wayside. Then and only then would it become purely a matter of an agreement between the partners involved - entered into by them and dissolved by them, if need be. Think of all the lawyers that would put out of business! |
|
05 May 04 - 10:32 AM (#1178484) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Jim Dixon Ebbie, I've had exactly the same thoughts. Marriage should be considered a religious rite, like baptism. Therefore the state has no more right to say who can be married than to say who can be baptized. Churches should regard any state regulation of marriage to be an encroachment on their freedom of religion. I think there still is a need for the state to recognize domestic partnerships, but they should be exactly that: partnerships, no different from business partnerships. As far as I know, there is no regulation of who may form a business partnership. There can be any number of members in a partnership, and a person can be a member of any number of partnerships. (Think of a band, where the band may have certain shared assets, like sound equipment, and shared responsibilities, such as a contractual obligation to perform at a certain gig.) The state might need to get involved, but only if someone is sued; for example, someone wants to get out of a partnership and the partners can't agree on how to divide the partnership's assets, or who is responsible for the partnership's debts or obligations. Both the state and employers should quit offering special benefits to married couples. They are unfair to unmarried people, and an inefficient, incomplete way to provide "benefits" that everyone should be entitled to. We need universal health coverage that does not depend on marriage or employment of one of the partners. |
|
05 May 04 - 11:16 AM (#1178528) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Amos I think there are reasons for tracking marriages in civil records. Legally it involves civic issues including property, legal identitiy and rights of heirs, and sometimes public health. The religious aspects of marriage are much harder to fathom; the various burdens imposed by aspirants by Catholicism, and the mass mandated marriages of the Moon outfit, are equally bewildering and do nothing but mess up the lives of those concerned. Perhaps there should be a seperation of church and marital state!! A |
|
05 May 04 - 09:07 PM (#1179005) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: JohnInKansas So far as secular law is, or should be, concerned, the marriage license is the license for two parties to form a contract of a specific kind. This contract allows either party to the contract to engage obligations to which both are bound. In other words, each person who is a party to the contract grants the other an unlimited power of attorney. In most states it gives the parties to the contract joint ownership of all property and joint responsibility for all debts, although we still have those jurisdictions where there are rather complex rules about property. It establishes rules of inheritance for property of the partners to the contract which are significantly affected by the existence of the contract. Few other forms of contract require a license, but many "contracts of association," such as some kinds of business partnerships or incorporations, do require registration with civil authhorities in order to be recognized, which amounts to about the same as a license. Most contracts of association do ultimately result in a license to do business as a partnership or corporation, and when legally formed do subject the parties to more or less intense scrutiny by civil authority. The civil interest here is that there are significant opportunities for abuse of the agreement (think abandonment, as just one example) that could leave substantial burdens and damages to the community as a whole. If one party is left with a debt that was contracted jointly, it frequently ends up that the debt cannot be paid. A relatively minor corollary of the marriage contract is that children may be produced, or by other means "integrated" into the communal property; and by being a party to the civil contract of marriage the burden of raising and caring for any such children is, by their agreement, the joint responsibility of the parties to the contract. The existence and documenting that a contractual agreement exists enables the intervention of civil authority should either partner to the contract attempt to abandon this responsibility. In the technical sense of the law in many jurisdictions, the children are a property of the marriage, and are little different than any other property. Whether this is a "barbaric" attitude, it is an implied "sense of the meaning" for many states. It must be noted that there is NO civil requirement that the parties to a civil marriage contract MUST have children. It does get a little complicated, but historically the civil marriage license is a result of changes made fairly early in US history that were meant to prevent bonded slavery. In general, it is unlawful for a "person" to make a "perpetual contract" that bonds the person to the "service of another" without some provision for an "expiration" (for a specific period) or inclusion of "conditions of release." (pay off the debt, e.g.) Since the marriage contract is a contract of perpetual servitude it required the creation of a "new class of contract" to make the civil marriage agreement "legal." This didn't exactly happen as a conscious step, but has evolved in civil law in the various jurisdictions. For any other purpose, the civil marriage contract would be illegal in most jurisdictions. (One of the reasons that corporate law has dominated US Supreme Court actions is that it was a little fuzzy how to distinguish a "corporate person" from an "individual person." Different rules do apply, and have been mostly defined by Supreme Court decisions.) Most religions have their own "sacraments of marriage," and until fairly recently were all that was required. You registered your intent to marry with the church, and they kept the records. The "vows of sacrament" typically are much broader in their lists of "shalls" and "shalt nots," but from the legal standpoint are something entirely separate from the civil concern. The recent attempts in several US states to rewrite their state constitutions to define marriage is an attempt to "legitimize" the sacraments of marriage in the civil law. If successful, it legitimizes the civil control of sacraments in general, and would, as an example, be a precedent for requiring a license to perform other sacraments. You perform a public service, you need a license. You need a license, the civil authority defines what you must do to get it, and how you may perform your "service." Scary? To make a civil contract, it is necessary that the parties to the contract be "real persons," of sound mind, entering without duress, and all other such requirements as may be found in the law. To make certain persons ineligible to enter any contract requires that the persons be defined as "not real persons" in the context of the laws regulating that form of contract. Students of history will recognize this as one of the same pretexts commonly used to justify slavery not long ago. It is quite clear, from recent local rhetoric, that this is the intent of some in my area. Several of the states have proposed that their "new constitution" should prohibit recognizing "civil unions" that are legal in "any other jurisdiction." This clearly violates the US Constitution's prohibition against any state law that hinders interstate commerce or the free travel of citizens in all the states. (But this one has so many violations, it's probably already trashed.) There has been much talk about how recognizing "civil unions" would require businesses to offer "family and dependents insurance" and other benefits, and it would certainly bankrupt all the businesses. In most cases there is no legal requirement for a business to offer insurance for dependents of any marriage. That is done simply because it's "necessary" in order to get people to work for them. About the only statutory benefit of being married is the option of filing a joint income tax return. Asking for a law to enforce a sacrament amounts to an admission that members of a religion cannot exert the necessary influence to enforce it for their own members. (i.e. their faith has failed, and their church has failed in its ministry.) Asking for a law to enforce a sacrament admits that the civil authority has the power, authority, and ability to regulate all sacraments. (Very dangerous?) Asking for a law to force those not of ones own faith to follow the sacraments of any religion is just plain bigotry. Other than that, I have no opinion. John |
|
05 May 04 - 09:44 PM (#1179037) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: beardedbruce can a "corporate person" eneter into a civil union? If Microsoft and IBM got together, could they file taxes jointly? |
|
05 May 04 - 10:06 PM (#1179050) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: GUEST,freda CXVI Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove: O no, it is an ever-fixed mark, That looks on tempest and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come; Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error, and upon me proved, I never writ, nor man ever loved. these thoughts in Shakespeare's sonnet CXVI talk about the commitment and depth of love over time. it's clear that anyone who can make such a commitment, whoever to, is to be respected. |
|
05 May 04 - 11:32 PM (#1179079) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Stilly River Sage Jumping ahead from the first post: |
|
06 May 04 - 10:33 PM (#1179950) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Scoville So, the inequities need to me remedied. Our Quaker meeting recognizes gay marriages (once they go through the oversight process, which is required for all marriages under the care of the meeting, whether homo- or heterosexual). I personally would be much more likely to go through a civil union than a religious ceremony if I were getting married since I'm unlikely to marry within my own religion (for various reasons) and since I imagine I'd balk at a lot of the ceremonies performed by other religions, just as a non-Quaker might balk at the ceremonies performed (or not performed) by us. A civil union would make things much easier. Of course, as someone who walks the line between agnostic and atheist, I have always been offended by the idea that marriage is less valid when God is not a central force. My parents are two of the least religious people I know but probably one of the best examples of a stable, productive, successful marriage (and not just in a bare-bones legal partnership sense). |
|
07 May 04 - 05:17 AM (#1180100) Subject: RE: BS: A Proposal, Regarding Marriage From: Dave the Gnome Has anyone ever heard Jeremy Taylors soliloquy on a vicar performing a same sex marriage - Hilarious. I'm intrigued by a comment Martin made. What is a reformed rabbi? Used to be a rabbi but is now a catholic priest? A criminal rabbi who is now on the strait and narrow? A rabbi made from reformed meat? :D |