Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[creekster]

Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

That's a fairly common sentiment, but if you think about it, what does that really mean? Marriage is a contract that brings with it certain rights and priviledges and those rights are recognized and enforced by the government. So how do you remove the government from the marriage business? What system would replace it?

Seems like one of those things that sound good in theory, but the devil is in the details.

I disagree it is easy. Marriage is religious. Let churches do it. To the extent the state wants to confer benefits on couples, they can do so but they call it something else And confer it on all couples. It's easy.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I disagree it is easy. Marriage is religious. Let churches do it. To the extent the state wants to confer benefits on couples, they can do so but they call it something else And confer it on all couples. It's easy.

But why?

[creekster]

But why?

Religions can do whatever they want. The state can treat everyone equally.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I disagree it is easy. Marriage is religious. Let churches do it. To the extent the state wants to confer benefits on couples, they can do so but they call it something else And confer it on all couples. It's easy.

If it is the same thing (preserving the same rights) but you are just calling it something else, you haven't changed anything. Just a simple relabeling.

[creekster]

If it is the same thing (preserving the same rights) but you are just calling it something else, you haven't changed anything. Just a simple relabeling.

See above

[Jeff Lebowski]

See above

So is that all this really is at the end of the day? A big fight over a label? Heaven help us.

[creekster]

So is that all this really is at the end of the day? A big fight over a label? Heaven help us.

If that's all you get out of this then heaven does need to help us.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If that's all you get out of this then heaven does need to help us.

Huh?

[creekster]

Huh?

That's sort of how I feel.

[New Mexican Disaster]

That's sort of how I feel.

The state would still need to divide property and so forth, so why would you need to go to relabeling because some people get scandalized by homosexuals?

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's sort of how I feel.

I am puzzled by your defensiveness. I am just interested in exploring the issue a little bit. Not trying to pick a fight at all.

In reference to this:

I disagree it is easy. Marriage is religious. Let churches do it. To the extent the state wants to confer benefits on couples, they can do so but they call it something else And confer it on all couples. It's easy.

I understand the logic. In fact, I have probably posted this myself a few times. But the more I think about it, the more untenable it seems. From the government's perspective, marriage is a contract that brings some very significant rights and privileges. Both the government and churches have the right to perform marriages. Church have always been free to perform the ceremony however they want and to layer whatever extra meaning and rituals on top of the marriage. All the government cares about is that marriage license and marriage certificate. And churches are currently free to perform marriage-like ceremonies (think LDS sealings for couples already married civily) independent of the government. So when you say,

Marriage is religious. Let churches do it. To the extent the state wants to confer benefits on couples, they can do so but they call it something else And confer it on all couples.

What would change? Churches are already free to do religious ceremonies. Also, it seems like you are saying that we should stop recognizing religious marriages as legally binding and make everyone who wants the legal benefits of marriage get a government-approved non-religious civil union that carries all the benefits of marriage but is simply called something else. Would that lead to more civil unions/marriages or less? Would it lead to fewer and fewer people bothering with the religious side of marriage? It certainly might.

But at the end of the day, what is the point? Churches are already exempt from having to perform gay marriages. Are religious conservatives so distraught that gays are allowed to marry that they want churches to get completely out of the legally-binding part of the marriage ceremony, and deal with all of the ramifications that may cause? And aren't these the same people that have been telling us all along that "marriage is the bedrock of our society"? If so, why would we want to restrict "marriage" to be something exclusive to religion?

And again, doesn't this boil down to a fight over a label? If, as you say, we should extend all of the rights and benefits of marriage to all couples through the government, but call it something else, what is the point? If I recall correctly, this was the legal argument used in California to overturn Prop 8. If we are willing to give all of the rights of marriage to gays, but not allow them to call it "marriage" like straight couples do, that is the very definition of discrimination.

In the end, I think this is all a moot point. The majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage. There is simply no way that that this same majority would vote to relabel legally-binding marriage as "civil union" and toss over exclusive rights to "marriage" to religious groups as has been proposed in OK. And I can't imagine that such a law would pass constitutional review.

But I could be wrong. Feel free to enlighten me.

[Moliere]

JL, you aren't thinking like a lawyer. If the govt got out of the marriage business, relationships would be set up based on something other than the state created contract. But that doesn't mean contracts couldn't be drafted and rights granted through the contracts. The contracts would also have specific dissolution terms.

It's certainly not impossible to do and would frankly be a lawyers dream in terms of billables.

[Jeff Lebowski]

JL, you aren't thinking like a lawyer. If the govt got out of the marriage business, relationships would be set up based on something other than the state created contract. But that doesn't mean contracts couldn't be drafted and rights granted through the contracts. The contracts would also have specific dissolution terms.

It's certainly not impossible to do and would frankly be a lawyers dream in terms of billables.

But what's the point? We already have a working system. Why tear it down?

[Northwestcoug]

But what's the point? We already have a working system. Why tear it down?

Because gay marriage is icky.

[HBCoug]

Because gay marriage is icky.

That shit is gross!