Sign in or 
Location: California Election - Ballot Initiatives
Discussion: TIME MAGAZINE: A Marriage Solution: End State Sanctioned Marriage?
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 7 posts
StayWoke |
TIME MAGAZINE: A Marriage Solution: End State Sanctioned Marriage?
Mar 16 2009, 3:30 PM EDT
By Michael A. Lindenberger Monday, Mar. 16, 2009 (excerpt)When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing altogether in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role at all for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse, and no federal tax benefits attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred. Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. Two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage in a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors — one of who voted for and one against Prop 8, which successfully ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether. For the full article see: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
Church
Civil Unions
Domestic Partnerships
Marriage
State
|
|
DebNmass |
1. RE: TIME MAGAZINE: A Marriage Solution: End State Sanctioned Marriage
Mar 17 2009, 8:33 AM EDT
Or maybe the best solution is to take religion out of marriage? Why should atheist have to give up the word marriage and everyone else keep it? Wasn't there civil marriage before the church had anything to do with it? Let's have civil marriage officiated by civil servants and revoke the right of clergy to officiate at this civil event.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
mewimi |
2. RE: TIME MAGAZINE: A Marriage Solution: End State Sanctioned Marriage
Mar 17 2009, 10:32 AM EDT
"Or maybe the best solution is to take religion out of marriage? Why should atheist have to give up the word marriage and everyone else keep it? Wasn't there civil marriage before the church had anything to do with it? Let's have civil marriage officiated by civil servants and revoke the right of clergy to officiate at this civil event."Agreed, Marriage as I have said a lot of times now... is not a "Holy" institution, that title has been set fourth by religion, marriage USED to be nothing more than a verbal contract. The "definition" of marriage itself ( even the word ) has changed for thousands of years.... Before Christianity, before Middle eastern superstition. StayWoke, your push for Civil Unions is extreme... why should we be trying to rewrite the constitution to benefit one single minority when we can simply veto the religion right's constitutional changes? You think they'll stop at Marriage? They tries to fight our civil unions in vermont too. The reason why civil "unions" don't work is because many employers/insurances/laws wont recognize them, and you think them not recognizing them will stop only at homosexual group? They'd have more than enough excuses to use this so called bill as a means to avoid benefits granted by their policies. Civil Marriage is what marriage originally was. "holy" marriage is what the religion right use as an excuse to validate their discrimination. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
StayWoke |
3. RE: TIME MAGAZINE: A Marriage Solution: End State Sanctioned Marriage
Mar 17 2009, 1:32 PM EDT
We live in EXTREME TIMES and EXTREME TIMES call for EXTREME MEASURES. I'm and those who concur are for REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. Our goal is for Federal Civil Union for All Legislation. No more of this state by state mess! The Federal Civil Union for All Legislation will grant all the rights, responsibilities, obligations, and benefits of "marriage". Marriage will no longer have any LEGAL weight. It will be relegated to a social ceremony for those who wish to so engage.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
DebNmass |
4. RE: TIME MAGAZINE: A Marriage Solution: End State Sanctioned Marriage
Mar 17 2009, 2:09 PM EDT
I can agree with the goal of having uniform marriage or civil union laws across the country, but the implementation is frought with complexity. The federal government has never been in the business of registering unions (though they did put themselves in the business of disrespecting legal gay unions). If they were to register civil unions, they would have to develop a whole set of laws dealing with domestic disputes and dissolution of civil unions, and open a system of family courts to hear divorces. Far simpler if a federal judge just decreed that all state marriage laws were to be gender neutral. But I guess neither option is going to happen soon. In the meantime, I anticipate more progress by advocating for equal marriage rights state-by-state, until at some point, the different treatment of gay couples in different states becomes untenable, and a federal law or court decree finally achieves national marriage equality. Meanwhile, I wish anyone and everyone the best of luck in keeping the issue visible and fighting for equality however you see fit. It all has to help in the end.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
StayWoke |
5. RE: TIME MAGAZINE: A Marriage Solution: End State Sanctioned Marriage
Mar 17 2009, 4:22 PM EDT
| Post edited: Mar 17 2009, 4:23 PM EDT
You're making it far too complicated. Think of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights USSC cases. The passage of Federal Civil Unions for All Legislation doesn't mean that the Federal government will "register" civil unions or administer their dissolution. States will handle civil unions like they handle marriages now. All we are doing is standardizing the law as to allow for the operation of full faith and credit & the dormant commerce clause, changing a word, and disallowing clergy to officiate state business. It's really quite simple.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
atmasilver |
6. RE: TIME MAGAZINE: A Marriage Solution: End State Sanctioned Marriage?
Mar 17 2009, 10:04 PM EDT
| Post edited: Mar 17 2009, 10:16 PM EDT
This is the third so-called compromise I have heard of in a month, and it's by far the worst yet.Jonathan Rauch and David Blackenhorn proposed extending federal civil unions to state same sex marriages if they include exempions for religious organizations not to recognize them Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis proposed creating federal civil unions open to all couples ineligible for marriage in exchange for keeping the Defense of Marriage Act. Now this one is proposing throw out the word marriage from civil marriage and leave civil unions to both gay and straight couples in exchange for couples being able to marry in church. No way. This will serve to extinguish marriage entirely. Church attendance is going down in this country, but religion has managed to leave a few very good and institutions, one of which is the idea that marriage is sacred. I'm all for people not having to ask the state's permission to get married, but I've met people who are not able to see marriage existing outside of a justice of the peace ceremony--something I only see as a piece of paper. Now we're talking about forcing that religious viewpoint--marriage is just a piece of paper--onto everybody. Forcing the meaning of marriage to die along with organized religion is completely unnecessary and is a great harm to those people who are not religious but who value marriage very strongly. Bad enough that more and more people are popping out babies in their teens, shaking up for years, and letting fathers be pen pals. Now we want to say take cooperative child rearing out of marriage, take "this is a very special event" out of marriage, take out every statement that we want couples to stay together out of marriage. And for what? So religious fanatics can say gays are never getting married? So gay fanatics can say we'll each have the same incomplete half of marriage? No way. Do you find this valuable? |
