[blutrane]

Since it got missed from my giant post: a sacramental marriage is "recognized" to be of the same standing as legal 'marriage' (two people married by a judge, jp, mayor, whatever, namely a secular authority). Two different things. Conversely, it is very possible that the gov't could refuse to recognize a sacramental marriage because its of the same standing but not the same as a legal marriage


Religions are private organizations. the gov't can't tell a private organization whom it can or cannot accept (case in point country clubs)

This post has been edited by blutrane: 04 November 2010 - 10:46 AM

[supersloth]

i guess before 1967 a black woman who wanted to marry a white man should have just been ok with it and married a black dude just because. totally cool right? it applies across the board so no worries.

[dorknexus]

What about these two groups?:

Men who want to marry men.
Women who want to marry women.

Based on your explanation, not all groups are being accounted for.

Quote

Since it got missed from my giant post: a sacramental marriage is "recognized" to be of the same standing as legal 'marriage'

But civil unions are not always the same as legal marriage so clearly there is a difference.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 04 November 2010 - 10:47 AM

[supersloth]

Quote

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

• joint parenting;
  
• joint adoption;
  
• joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
  
• status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
  
• joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
  
• dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
  
• immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
  
• inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
  
• joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
  
• inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
  
• benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
  
• spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
  
• veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
  
• joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
  
• wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
  
• bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
  
• decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
  
• crime victims' recovery benefits;
  
• loss of consortium tort benefits;
  
• domestic violence protection orders;
  
• judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
  
• and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

This post has been edited by supersloth: 04 November 2010 - 10:45 AM

[dorknexus]

We are really just beating around the bush here.

Why do we not allow homosexual couples to engage in legal marriage? I am not talking about marriage-like legal bindings (i.e. civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) I am talking about the marriage in which all heterosexual couple in our society are offered, but homosexual couples are denied. Why is that ok?

How is the sexual segregation of marriage any different/better than the racial segregation of marriage?

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 04 November 2010 - 10:52 AM

[baavgai]

Saying that civil union is equal to marriage, legally, just don't call it that, always strikes me as odd. If you're going to make the argument it's the same thing, then calling it all marriage is a reasonable choice. If you then argue there's a difference, well...

Separate but equal. No, not a civil rights thing at all.

[blutrane]

supersloth, on 04 November 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

i guess before 1967 a black woman who wanted to marry a white man should have just been ok with it and married a black dude just because. totally cool right? it applies across the board so no worries.

find a church in over half the states in pre-1967 America that did not have anti-miscegenation laws.

all those rights you listed are legal rights enjoyed by a legal marriage. if a couple didn't file the magic piece of paper after getting married in a church, they too would be denied those rights. that's the difference from a legal marriage and sacramental marriage. Again, I point to the end of the massive post. Eliminate all legal benefits/penalties for marriage.

What's the point of marriage? loving your spouse, yes? who's gonna stop you from loving that person. Do the police bust into gay couple's homes and throw them in jail for living as couple?

[KYA]

Dark_Nexus, on 04 November 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

Men who want to marry men.
Women who want to marry women.

Then that is discrimination against all men and women regardless of sexual orientation, but discrimination to all is hardly discrimination now is it? By definition it is not.

[blutrane]

so...I'm just gonna clarify here. No one here has a problem legislating what a private institution does?

civil union falls under government (certificate of marriage)

sacramental marriage falls under religion (sans certificate of marriage)

This post has been edited by blutrane: 04 November 2010 - 11:14 AM

[roessnakhan]

KYA, on 04 November 2010 - 09:41 AM, said:

Gay men have the right to marry a woman. Straight men have the right to marry a woman. Gay women have the right to marry a man. Straight women have the right to marry a man.


Every group has the exact same set of rights. So rather then argue discrimination, you should be arguing for a change in the rule set (which you are, but aren't doing very well).

You use a lot of ridiculous reasoning. You suggest that gays aren't discriminated because of the fact that they have the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite gender, but doesn't take into account the fact that it isn't who they want to to marry. And before you bring up the idea "well a guy can want to marry a goat but we don't afford that to him", understand that these are relationships between two consenting adults.

[KYA]

It's not discrimination if everyone has the same opportunity. Usually that's what progressives want, an equal playing field.

[supersloth]

blutrane, on 04 November 2010 - 10:03 AM, said:

so...I'm just gonna clarify here. No one here has a problem legislating what a private institution does?

civil union falls under government (certificate of marriage)

sacramental marriage falls under religion (sans certificate of marriage)

marriages are not civil unions, they are MARRIAGES. you get a certificate of marriage. i have no problem with government being of the marriage game completely and leaving it up to magical institutions of pretend things. but they aren't now, they are in the MARRIAGE game, and therefore they have to give those rights to everyone.

KYA, on 04 November 2010 - 10:14 AM, said:

It's not discrimination if everyone has the same opportunity. Usually that's what progressives want, an equal playing field.

saying it's the same opportunity and it being the same opportunity are two very different things.

[Sethro117]

People who argue the marriage thing is a religious or spiritual thing and has to do with God and all that, I wonder why no one has campaigns trying to stop Atheists from marrying...

[supersloth]

because you don't KNOW if atheists are having butt sex. it's just a possibility.

[roessnakhan]

KYA, on 04 November 2010 - 10:14 AM, said:

It's not discrimination if everyone has the same opportunity. Usually that's what progressives want, an equal playing field.

Well what would you call it when something is afforded to others based off their want and desires (marriage between a man and woman) and the same thing is not afforded to a man and man, woman and woman? Your idea that discrimination is not taking place because any man can marry any woman and vise versa, you have missed the entire point of getting married to someone in the first place.

Do you honestly suggest that if a man was allowed to marry a man, and woman marry a woman, that they would have a superior position? The playing field wouldn't change and would still be equal. Because you too KYA, would be allowed to marry a man.