MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Lek]

I'm not talking "separate but equal".  I'm talking about one civil union that applies to anyone who wishes to be recognized by the government and to receive the legal benefits of such.

We have that. It's called marriage. If it bothers Christians, you can call their marriage something else. 'Holy Matrimony,' as your cohort PiousPaladin suggested. It'll be even more exclusive. No Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, or even us evil atheists don't qualify.

That's the problem. We don't already have that. Since this country began, the government has only recognized marriage as between a man and a woman. Now we're creating something else. Why do we have to redefine an institution that means so much to so many Americans in order to grant equal rights to everyone? Nobody has answered my question as to whether colleges should redefine sororities or fraternities to include members of both sexes or is it okay to leave it as it is where each enjoys equal status. If there are students who want to have mixed sex brotherhoods (or whatever) then allow them to create them and give them equal status. Why the need to force a change to an institution?

[SteelCurtain]

Here are the verses that were used to 'define' marriage in the segregated south:

It is also worthwhile to remember that most white people, when these laws were written, literally thought of blacks as a different, lower breed of human who would lead whites into depravity and away from God.

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people. And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin. Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?” ...

(this one was also used to promote segregation.)

Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.”

[Minimalist]

Why do we have to redefine an institution that means so much to so many Americans in order to grant equal rights to everyone?

Because it is time that jesus freaks grew up.

[SteelCurtain]

That's the problem. We don't already have that. Since this country began, the government has only recognized marriage as between a man and a woman. Now we're creating something else. Why do we have to redefine an institution that means so much to so many Americans in order to grant equal rights to everyone? Nobody has answered my question as to whether colleges should redefine sororities or fraternities to include members of both sexes or is it okay to leave it as it is where each enjoys equal status. If there are students who want to have mixed sex brotherhoods (or whatever) then allow them to create them and give them equal status. Why the need to force a change to an institution?

We're not creating something else. It is the same institution, with expanded rights to include 10-15% of the population who were excluded. The bottom line is, as the SCOTUS opined, that at its basest level marriage is an intimate contract freely entered by two parties who wish to elevate that intimacy. Excluding anybody who is legally able to consent to that is ludicrous, and a violation of the 14th Amendment. Nothing about your marriage or any other marriage has changed as of yesterday. You've been told it has, but you'll go on just like you did before. If you can tell me one thing about this institution that means so much to you that has changed in regards to your marriage, please feel free to do so.

The sorority analogy isn't apt because fraternal orders were already expanded to include sororities. No one is being denied entry into a fraternal order, because Title IX makes it clear that for every organization for males, there must also be one for females. If you meet the criteria for getting into a fraternal order (Selected Major, referral, etc.) then you will get in provided you pass some draconian test or another. Also, to compare a club to a legal right (one affirmed multiple times by the SCOTUS as a right) is a little misleading. You don't have the right to join a fraternity just because you want to, but you do have the right to get married if you want to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No. It wasn't. That's why it took a Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia, 1967,) redefining marriage to the behest of white Christians everywhere who used the same arguments then, and behaved the very same way Christians are now.

Those who tried to deny inter-racial marriage were re-defining marriage.

So do you agree that polygamy should be permissible? That was a definition of marriage two thousand years ago.

You Christians have changed the definition of marriage already. Why are you complaining about that now, if not to defend your bigotry?

[Lek]

Here are the verses that were used to 'define' marriage in the segregated south:

It is also worthwhile to remember that most white people, when these laws were written, literally thought of blacks as a different, lower breed of human who would lead whites into depravity and away from God.

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people. And I confronted them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin. Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?” ...

(this one was also used to promote segregation.)

Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.”

They misinterpreted scripture, as these warning were given because of the depravity of the spouses they were taking. It had nothing to do with their genetic make-up, but rather to do with their immorality and their worship of other gods. The bible does caution against christians marrying non-christian spouses as Paul spoke of being "unequally yoked", but christians still recognized those marriages and we're commanded to remain in them unless the non-believing spouse were to abandon the other. I'm one of those by the way. "Unequally yoked" referred to their spiritual status. I agree that people were using verses such as these to justify banning inter-racial marriages, but the bible was not speaking against interracial marriage. In fact, foreigners could convert to judaism and as fellow believers be considered morally acceptable. Even at that, the Jews still recognized marriages to non-believing foreigners to be valid marriages. It happened quite regularly, by the way

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why the need to force a change to an institution?

Because the rights of living, breathing humans are more important than ensuring the outmoded conception of an abstraction. In the abstract, it's better to broaden the meaning of marriage than it is to deny American citizens equal rights.

It's stunning how you're unable to a gross injustice right in front of your eyes.

[Aractus]

This was the expected result. I am on two minds about this issue - mainly because it doesn't address inequality, as addressed here. As others have argued, equal civil rights is of far more importance - and that wasn't delivered by the UK ruling. It falls well short. For example, newly wed same sex couples in the UK do not have the same pension rights as opposite sex couples that have been together for the same length of time - despite the fact that the same sex couple may have been together for the same period. The UK already had civil partnerships legislation, and those arguing for equality strongly argued for the rights of couples registered under the legislation to have the same legal rights as those registered under Marriage. This still hasn't happened in the UK. They might say that same-sex couples that get married have near-identical rights, but what they fail to mention is the rights were never made retrospective. And as far as I know about, the rights weren't carried over to the civil partnerships legislation either.

The other thing I hate hearing is that "priests won't be forced to marry same sex couples". WHAT? If it's a constitutional right - as it is now in the USA - then on what possible grounds would a priest have to refuse to marry same-sex couples? Is the Taxi driver allowed to refuse his service to same-sex couples? Is a doctor allowed to refuse his service to same-sex couples? Is a lawyer allowed to? I don't think anyone's allowed to, once you have anti-discrimination legislation in place. You can refuse service to someone who happens to be in a same-sex relationship for a different, reasonable, reason. for example, the Taxi driver might not allow his service to someone heavily intoxicated.

Donald and Evelyn Knapp in Idaho were told last year by city officials they must perform same-sex ceremonies in their chapel. Both are reported to be ordained ministers, however it should be noted that their business is not a church. They quickly re-branded their business and re-filed as a Christian Corporation, and apparently it seems they can exempt themselves from the anti-discrimination legislation so long as they operate as both religious and non-profit.

I just want to make the point that if Marriage is a constitutional right then I don't think anyone should be allowed to deny that constitutional right to someone on the basis of "faith". That's incompatible with secular values, and it's incompatible with Marriage being a service provided by the State that clearly has value and meaning to the people. Since when do you allow people to perform a government service for you and let those people discriminate when performing the service?

[Brakeman]

Since this country began, the government has only recognized marriage as between a man and a woman.  Now we're creating something else.  Why do we have to redefine an institution that means so much to so many Americans in order to grant equal rights to everyone?  Nobody has answered my question as to whether colleges should redefine sororities or fraternities to include members of both sexes or is it okay to leave it as it is where each enjoys equal status.  If there are students who want to have mixed sex brotherhoods (or whatever) then allow them to create them and give them equal status.  Why the need to force a change to an institution?

I dunno what planet you came from but I've been married to my wife for 20 years and not once have I ever had to worry about its "institution". My wife and my marriage would not be affected at all if everyone else married whomever they wanted. Our marriage ceremony was a one time thing in the past. My marriage is my relationship with my best friend and partner, my marital rights are assumed and mostly affect taxes and hospital visits, none of which would affect me if the 5% gays of our country also mimicked my heterosexual marriage rights.

If jesus were really so great, why do you have to spend so much time lying to cover up for him?

[Easy Guns]

It makes me sad that this even needs to be a debate.