Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[byu71]

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

Seriously, will it help you sleep better? I have tried ambien, alieve PM, unisol, etc. Still can't get to sleep until 1-2 A.M. and have to get up at 6:30.

I am sure my Bishop would be OK with it if I explained the medicinal purpose of what I was doing.

[BigFatMeanie]

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.

Interesting. Can you point me to some reference material that supports your version of the history of marriage as opposed to Todd Russ' version? I would like to learn more about this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting. Can you point me to some reference material that supports your version of the history of marriage as opposed to Todd Russ' version? I would like to learn more about this.

Pretty interesting summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag...ry_of_marriage

[SoCalCoug]

Interesting. Can you point me to some reference material that supports your version of the history of marriage as opposed to Todd Russ' version? I would like to learn more about this.

Well, you might start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

This is not an esoteric bit of history. It's pretty well known, except when you want to ignore it for political purposes.

[byu71]

I am not that up to date on gay marriage. As I have stated before, I don't care if there is gay marriage or not. I may believe in traditional marriage, but not so much that I would lose a minutes sleep if gay marriage becomes the law of the land.

I know the Islamic countries do not accept gay marriage. I am pretty sure all of the European countries do.

What other countries don't right now? I am mainly interested in India, Japan, Russia and the old Soviet bloc.

[BigFatMeanie]

Hah, I turned to the Mighty Wikipedia before I asked my question, but for some reason I wasn't able to find that subsection on my own. My web searching skills must be deteriorating...

After a quick glance at that subsection, would the following be a reasonable summary?

Marriage was societal in ancient Rome/Greece
At least for Christians, marriage became "religious" in the 12th century (Council of Verona making it a "sacrament")
Marriage was largely the domain of religions throughout the middle ages ("There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.")
States (i.e. governments) got into the marriage game and began regulating in the 1700s

So, wouldn't either Todd Russ or SoCalCoug be able to make a colorable argument that marriage was historically the domain of governemnt or historically the domain of religions depending on how far back one wanted to look "historically"?

[old_gregg]

Hah, I turned to the Mighty Wikipedia before I asked my question, but for some reason I wasn't able to find that subsection on my own. My web searching skills must be deteriorating...

After a quick glance at that subsection, would the following be a reasonable summary?

Marriage was societal in ancient Rome/Greece
At least for Christians, marriage became "religious" in the 12th century (Council of Verona making it a "sacrament")
Marriage was largely the domain of religions throughout the middle ages ("There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.")
States (i.e. governments) got into the marriage game and began regulating in the 1700s

So, wouldn't either Todd Russ or SoCalCoug be able to make a colorable argument that marriage was historically the domain of governemnt or historically the domain of religions depending on how far back one wanted to look "historically"?

the absence of a meaningful separation of church and state precludes that argument

[SoCalCoug]

To be technical, it was a civil contract - essentially, the government, and then the church when they started getting involved, took the word of the participants that it had happened. But it was clearly done primarily for civil, property, and inheritance purposes. Sure, the Catholic church called it a sacrament in the 12th century, but it was still several hundred years before they would even allow marriages to be conducted inside churches.

The idea that marriage has "traditionally" been a religious institution is just false. It has traditionally been a civil agreement with legal implications. The civil/religious lines were, of course, blurred whenever the government was a theocracy, but in general, it's only been in the last few hundred years that anyone's really considered it primarily a religious institution.

Because of the civil/legal implications of marriage, it's absolutely ridiculous for a state to turn marriage entirely over to the churches. It's ignorant political grandstanding, without regard to the real consequences. It's pure idiocy.

[BlueK]

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.

And the next step the evangelical nutjobs would like to take is to define exactly which churches qualify: i.e., Mormons won't make the cut.

[Katy Lied]

What happens when a muslim family imigrates to the US? What is the legal status of wives 2, 3, and 4? Or are they forced to divorce?

[Jeff Lebowski]

And the next step the evangelical nutjobs would like to take is to define exactly which churches qualify: i.e., Mormons won't make the cut.

Come on people. Ain't no way this law passes judicial review.

[BlueK]

Come on people. Ain't no way this law passes judicial review.

I won't argue with you there. I was just commenting on the nature of radical evangelical nutjobs who are in charge of some of our southern states.

[BlueK]

What happens when a muslim family imigrates to the US? What is the legal status of wives 2, 3, and 4? Or are they forced to divorce?

only one marriage gets legally recognized, just like with fundamentalist LDS polygamists. Doesn't mean they divorce in terms of going their separate ways. It just means only one of the marriages can get the legal benefits of marriage.

[Donuthole]

That slope is getting awfully slippery, folks. If my fb feed is to be believed, bestiality is next!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/op...rime.html?_r=0

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/1...GipB042HFgy.01

[Dwight Schr-ute]

That slope is getting awfully slippery, folks. If my fb feed is to be believed, bestiality is next!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/op...rime.html?_r=0

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/1...GipB042HFgy.01

Under aged beasts at that.