Defense of Marriage Acts

[Scott]

We have one of these dumb "Defense of Marriage" state constitution amendments on the ballot here in Michigan. Unfortunately it looks like it passed. This is a backlash to the activist court decisions in Mass where the court dictated to the legislature what laws it has to pass.


There's wide spread fear, I hope FUD, that it will ban state funded institutions, like Universities, from offering SSDP benefits.

I think I heard there at 11 states with this issue on the ballot? They are all passing.

[madmax559]

keep the govt out of religion & marriage

i'd much rather see a defense of education bill
than rubbish laws being passed

[talksense101]

Originally posted by madmax559
keep the govt out of religion & marriage

i'd much rather see a defense of education bill
than rubbish laws being passed

Well said.

[groverat]

In my opinion, it was these that secured Bush's victory. Nothing (and I mean *nothing*) will attract the evangelical Christians like a vote on gay marriage.

[Ra]

Defense of Marriage Acts, huh? So they're outlawing divorce? ;)

[Placebo]

Here goes my gay marriage thesis again:

Okay, we have this thing in t he United States called separation of church and state.


So why is marriage an exception?


You will find that perhaps every single opposer of gay marriage is opposed for religious reasons.

Yet, getting married in the United States provides the two participants with tax benefits and various other rights that singles do not have, benefits that are tied to the government.

Therefore, as it stands, law-abiding citizens of the US are not getting marital benefits because of religious reasons, dictated by the church.

Government = Church?

I don't think so. :no:

[timmy o'tool]

Here goes my gay marriage thesis again:

Okay, we have this thing in t he United States called separation of church and state.


So why is marriage an exception?


You will find that perhaps every single opposer of gay marriage is opposed for religious reasons.

Yet, getting married in the United States provides the two participants with tax benefits and various other rights that singles do not have.

Therefore, as it stands, law-abiding citizens of the US are not getting marital benefits because of religious reasons.


Is this right? I don't think so. :
Captain obvious strike again:lol:

[rok]

Originally posted by Placebo
Okay, we have this thing in t he United States called separation of church and state.

damn it. in the words of the talking heads, STOP MAKING SENSE!

that just does not belong here.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by rok
STOP MAKING SENSE!

RIGHT AWAY, CAP'N! 8)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Scott
This is a backlash to the activist court decisions in Mass where the court dictated to the legislature what laws it has to pass. How do unpopular minorities obtain equal civil rights then? Isn't that exactly what the courts are for?

[dmz]

Originally posted by Placebo
Okay, we have this thing in t he United States called separation of church and state.


So why is marriage an exception?



From what sources are Americans allowed to take the principles that govern our lives together -- on what grounds are religious principles allowed or excluded?

Do tell.

[THT]

Originally posted by BRussell
How do unpopular minorities obtain equal civil rights then? Isn't that exactly what the courts are for?

My Christian Conservative Evangelical friend doesn't seem to understand the concept of inalienable rights, and the principle that the majority can't encroach on them. Logical arguments do not work on the faithful. It's very depressing that there are huge numbers like him out there.

Well, at least homosexuals can get elected, and have some semblence of power. Myself and like-minded athiest cohorts have zero chance at elected office.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by dmz
From what sources are Americans allowed to take the principles that govern our lives together -- on what grounds are religious principles allowed or excluded?

Do tell.
I'm saying that if gays don't get these benefits, why should straights?

My proposed solution to this whole dillemma is to have two levels of marriage: a religious level and a legal level. For example, in Judaism, having your Bar Mitzvah signifies your entry into manhood. But legally you have to be 18 to be considered not a minor.

The same should apply to marriage: your religion can choose to accept gays or not, but this wouldn't interfere with the legal component of marriage that endows the couple with the benefits.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Placebo
I'm saying that if gays don't get these benefits, why should straights?

My proposed solution to this whole dillemma is to have two levels of marriage: a religious level and a legal level. For example, in Judaism, having your Bar Mitzvah signifies your entry into manhood. But legally you have to be 18 to be considered not a minor.

The same should apply to marriage: your religion can choose to accept gays or not, but this wouldn't interfere with the legal component of marriage that endows the couple with the benefits.


You can't do that -- you are trying to wedge a "higher standard" above someone's principles/presupositions when you try to deferentiate legal/religious levels. They really are the same.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by THT
My Christian Conservative Evangelical friend doesn't seem to understand the concept of inalienable rights, and the principle that the majority can't encroach on them. Logical arguments do not work on the faithful. It's very depressing that there are huge numbers like him out there.

Well, at least homosexuals can get elected, and have some semblence of power. Myself and like-minded athiest cohorts have zero chance at elected office. What's odd is that conservatives more often than liberals are likely to talk about how our rights are inherent and God-given rather than given to us by the government. But then they talk about how they want strict constructionism, which means fewer fundamental rights.

[Gene Clean]

When it comes to elections and laws, they all support anti-gay acts (disguised as "man and woman marriage acts"), but in their churches while professing their love to Jesus, they rape little male kids.

Now that's called 'having values'.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
When it comes to elections and laws, they all support anti-gay acts (disguised as "man and woman marriage acts"), but in their churches while professing their love to Jesus, they rape little male kids.

Now that's called 'having values'.

That's a cheap shot. That's one church and not even the post popular sect.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Scott
That's a cheap shot. That's one church and not even the post popular sect.

if its one church, it must have a lot of priests in it, because I've heard of at least 30 cases of this.

keep defending the man and woman marriage act. kill them gays... they don't deserve to be equal, in marriage and life.

[Gene Clean]

* mistake *

[Towel]

Originally posted by dmz
You can't do that -- you are trying to wedge a "higher standard" above someone's principles/presupositions when you try to deferentiate legal/religious levels. They really are the same. Higher standard my ass. We already have a clear separation bewteen religious marriage and civil marriage. All they have in common, unfortunately, is the same name. The government will happily recognize a Catholic's fourth marriage, while the Church will consider him (sans annulment) still married to his first wife. Why is it such a mental stretch to accept that the government can afford the same rights to gay couples without in any way infringing on the right of churches to religiously marry whomever they see fit? The problem is purely one of semantics: that the IRS calls it "marriage", instead of "civil union" or "government-recognized partnership".

[dmz]

Originally posted by Towel
Higher standard my ass. We already have a clear separation bewteen religious marriage and civil marriage. All they have in common, unfortunately, is the same name. The government will happily recognize a Catholic's fourth marriage, while the Church will consider him (sans annulment) still married to his first wife. Why is it such a mental stretch to accept that the government can afford the same rights to gay couples without in any way infringing on the right of churches to religiously marry whomever they see fit? The problem is purely one of semantics: that the IRS calls it "marriage", instead of "civil union" or "government-recognized partnership".


Your not being consistent in your application of presuppositions as they relate to culture.