Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Moliere]

But since we already have a fully-functional system, what are the odds that a majority of Americans would vote to scrap it because we are disturbed that gays now have access to it? Zero.

Apparently most of Oklahoma

It'll never happen at the federal level but it's fun to watch some of these loony states try to do it.

[byu71]

Apparently most of Oklahoma

It'll never happen at the federal level but it's fun to watch some of these loony states try to do it.

How can that State be so religiously conservative and yet allow their Universities to play on the Sabbath?

[San Juan Sun]

I have a son born around then. You are still in the "HUH" stage of life.

I read that, and thought about how I don't know my real father... and got to thinking: Dad, is that you?

[San Juan Sun]

SJS' humor is greatly under appreciated sometimes.

[creekster]

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 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,



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.

I am being defensive? Hmmm. I'm not the one spilling so many pixels on this.

Let me try to explain what I thought was obvious but maybe isn't and what is also maybe not a good idea, even though I like it:

The entire discussion has long been one of definition. What is marriage? It is an institution of religious and moral import to many, of commitment to some, and is a social contract promoted and encouraged by government through financial and legal incentives presumably because it enhances stability in society and provides a more productive platform for child rearing. So government has its interest but that interest is social and should not be affiliated with or based on religion. Religion has its spiritual goals which may overlap with social goals for any given group of adherents, but which are not necessary for all persons nor do they apply to all persons. In fact, the religious goals for marriage of any given sect can often be inconsistent with the social goals of government. So, in my mind, the obvious answer is government provides for civil unions and religion provides for marriage. God can do what he does, and Caesar can do what he does. But Caesar has to treat people equally. Religions don't. So if a church wants to marry only certain types of people, so be it. But that choice will not affect the benefits and rights that Caesar chooses to bestow on unions. The disadvantage is that it underscores and encourages the secularization of american society, although not everyone would think that is a bad thing. The advanatge is it takes religious bias/thought/feeling out of tax deductions, inheritance, etc.

This was not what happened in Ca, btw. The benefits offered civil unions were more limited than marriages.

[Pelado]

I actually find marriage between fat people to be grosser


tic

Not as bad as inter-lipid marriage.

Don't know, I was born in 1978.

You owe your life to the SexRev.

[San Juan Sun]

You owe your life to the SexRev.

I need the number to a child support case worker. Just need BYU71's real name and DOB.

[New Mexican Disaster]

How can that State be so religiously conservative and yet allow their Universities to play on the Sabbath?

Because they don't interpret keeping the sabbath day holy as refraining from sporting events, or not eating at restaurants or shopping.

[imanihonjin]

State sanctioned same-sex marriage isn't really anything that is debatable anymore. This summer, the Supreme Court is going to recognize it as a fundamental right and all states will be forced to adjust. I believe that, initially, churches who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages will only perform religious ceremonies. However, more and more shaming will be done towards religions who don't recognize same-sex marriage until it is almost universally accepted (see blacks and the priesthood) and those who don't will be shunned (think FLDS).

Fundamentally, I don't have any issue with it playing out like this from a moral perspective. I will state (as I have in the past), however, that I do have a problem with the Supreme Court mandating this course of action. They don't need to as it would naturally happen anyway, and I don't believe that it is constitutionally appropriate for them to do so.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am being defensive? Hmmm. I'm not the one spilling so many pixels on this.

Let me try to explain what I thought was obvious but maybe isn't and what is also maybe not a good idea, even though I like it:

The entire discussion has long been one of definition. What is marriage? It is an institution of religious and moral import to many, of commitment to some, and is a social contract promoted and encouraged by government through financial and legal incentives presumably because it enhances stability in society and provides a more productive platform for child rearing. So government has its interest but that interest is social and should not be affiliated with or based on religion. Religion has its spiritual goals which may overlap with social goals for any given group of adherents, but which are not necessary for all persons nor do they apply to all persons. In fact, the religious goals for marriage of any given sect can often be inconsistent with the social goals of government. So, in my mind, the obvious answer is government provides for civil unions and religion provides for marriage. God can do what he does, and Caesar can do what he does. But Caesar has to treat people equally. Religions don't. So if a church wants to marry only certain types of people, so be it. But that choice will not affect the benefits and rights that Caesar chooses to bestow on unions. The disadvantage is that it underscores and encourages the secularization of american society, although not everyone would think that is a bad thing. The advanatge is it takes religious bias/thought/feeling out of tax deductions, inheritance, etc.

This was not what happened in Ca, btw. The benefits offered civil unions were more limited than marriages.

Thanks. Very helpful post.

As for CA, I saw an extended interview with the lead attorney for Prop 8 opponents and that is how he explained the core of their (successful) argument. Maybe I misunderstood him.

It occurred to me that there is a simple way to approach this from a different direction. What if, instead of saying,

"Let's separate government from marriage"

we said,

"Let's separate religious institutions from marriage"?

In other words, you want a legally enforceable marriage? Come down to the courthouse, fill out the forms, and swear a simple oath. Done. Religions are then free to do whatever ordinances and ceremonies they want, and they can call it whatever they want (including "marriage"), but those ordinances are not legally binding. The church/state separation inherent in this approach would ensure that churches would never be required to perform a gay marriage and they would have complete freedom to define religious marriage any way they want. Similar end result, but much simpler and cleaner from a legal viewpoint. Procedurally, it would be a small change from the way things are done now.

I think this also has zero chance of happening, but it would be a more direct means to the end being proposed.

[old_gregg]

Thanks. Very helpful post.

As for CA, I saw an extended interview with the lead attorney for Prop 8 opponents and that is how he explained the core of their (successful) argument. Maybe I misunderstood him.

It occurred to me that there is a simple way to approach this from a different direction. What if, instead of saying,

"Let's separate government from marriage"

we said,

"Let's separate religious institutions from marriage"?

In other words, you want a legally enforceable marriage? Come down to the courthouse, fill out the forms, and swear a simple oath. Done. Religions are then free to do whatever ordinances and ceremonies they want, and they can call it whatever they want (including "marriage"), but those ordinances are not legally binding. The church/state separation inherent in this approach would ensure that churches would never be required to perform a gay marriage and they would have complete freedom to define religious marriage any way they want. Similar end result, but much simpler and cleaner from a legal viewpoint. Procedurally, it would be a small change from the way things are done now.

I think this also has zero chance of happening, but it would be a more direct means to the end being proposed.

well then the perverts would be taking goats and children to the courthouse to marry them. qed.

[LVAllen]

Churches are not threatened to perform gay marriages. Churches are already free to perform "spiritual marriages" all they want.

But spiritual wifery is still looked down upon.

[SoCalCoug]

Oklahoma state legislature responds to gay marriage development by abolishing marriage licenses and having all marriages approved by clergy only.

http://newsok.com/article/5400240

What a crazy state.

I like the move, although marriage by clergy shouldn't result in transfer of government benefits. Get the state out of the marriage business.

The point for people that want this to happen is that it allows a way for churches to not be threatened to perform gay marriages and also allows everyone to have access to the same rights. Marriages become a truly spiritual rite, similar to how temple sealings are today.

I don't think it's the best way to go about this, but it's certainly possible. Chances are that after a certain period of time most of the contracts would be so standard that we'd probably end up back in a similar position we are today. However, the govt would have little power to discriminate based on marriage status since it wouldn't recognize marriage.

It's an idiotic bill sponsored and supported by complete dumbasses.

First of all, they should get their history right. Marriage has historically been a government/societal right. Where a lot of people are confused is where the government is seen as essentially the same thing as religion (like the Old Testament). But it's only been in the last few hundred years that the church has claimed authority over marriage. Its primary purpose has been for property rights and inheritance rights, and if you take it away from the government, you have a huge void there.

Second, this is highly discriminatory against non-religious people. I'm surprised I haven't seen more of this argument here. Making non-religious people go to a church or religious organization to get married is absolutely ridiculous.

This is nothing but moronic religious right government officials taking their ball and going home because they don't like being told they have to legally allow homos to marry. It's pure homophobia and complete idiocy.

[byu71]

I read that, and thought about how I don't know my real father... and got to thinking: Dad, is that you?

Sorry, I was an extremely active member of the LDS church at that time. Not only active but a real believer. I even believed if I had sex by myself I would go blind.

[RC Vikings]

Sorry, I was an extremely active member of the LDS church at that time. Not only active but a real believer. I even believed if I had sex by myself I would go blind.

So do you sleep better since you've gotten past that little misconception.