my despair over prop 2, 120, and potentially prop 8

[wanderingjoe72]

I got you now TPG. That would be a good solution. The government reconised act would be a civil union for all things official.

A religious ceremony would then be defined as a marriage.

A good seperation of church and state. I like the idea very much.

[AFPheonix]

The only problem with that idea is that a massive rewrite of a lot of laws at a lot of different levels of government would have to take place, which would cost a good sum of money.
Furthermore, it assumes that the word marriage belongs only to the religious, when it does not. Atheists marry, people of all races and creeds marry.

No, just define marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults. It can have religious connotations to people that wish to have it, or not if they don't. Bringing in civil unions just unnecessarily complicates an idea that really shouldn't be all that complicated in the first place.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

The only problem with that idea is that a massive rewrite of a lot of laws at a lot of different levels of government would have to take place, which would cost a good sum of money.
Furthermore, it assumes that the word marriage belongs only to the religious, when it does not. Atheists marry, people of all races and creeds marry.

No, just define marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults. It can have religious connotations to people that wish to have it, or not if they don't. Bringing in civil unions just unnecessarily complicates an idea that really shouldn't be all that complicated in the first place.

It would be a bit of work, but the fact is that it needs to be done. We keep church and state strictly separate on all sorts of other things---except marriage. The only reason for that is because in past times marriage was seen as a religious institution. It was taken for granted that they coincided. Now though, with so many Americans whose lives are not defined by religion, and so much teeth gnashing and rock throwing going on over this issue, they should be separated, as it will totally undercut the fighting that is going on.

Right now marriage IS a contract between two consenting adults. But the word 'marriage' has such a multitude of religious connotations that many states have been successfully able to pass all sorts of regulations and rules regarding marriages that do not conform to federal anti-discrimination guidelines. The point I am trying to make is that the simplest way out this mess is to totally separate the religious connotations from the institution of civil marriage contracts. The easiest way to do that is to just find another term for those contracts.

"Marriage", for better or for worse, is essentially a religious term that in modern times has been regulated more and mroe by governments for various reasons. The religious connotations need to be divorced from the civil practice once and for all.


Anriana does make an excellent point, though. Many of those states in the link she listed not only define the term marriage, but specifically and categorically state that they will not recognize any kind of similar contract between people of the same sex, no matter what it is called. The thing is that federal marriage laws currently state that marriages performed in any state must be recognized by all states, which makes these 'sanctity of marriage' laws unconstitutional, or so I believe.

[TheRoo]

The thing is that federal marriage laws currently state that marriages performed in any state must be recognized by all states, which makes these 'sanctity of marriage' laws unconstitutional, or so I believe.

One small correction on this point. The Defense of Marriage Act (I hate the way they name laws) says that states do not have to honor same sex marriages performed in another state if these marriages would not be valid in the state. I believe that New York is the only state that does not have same sex marriage that honors these marriages performed in another state.

[Flyndaran]

One small correction on this point. The Defense of Marriage Act (I hate the way they name laws) says that states do not have to honor same sex marriages performed in another state if these marriages would not be valid in the state. I believe that New York is the only state that does not have same sex marriage that honors these marriages performed in another state.

Constitution trumps laws. As these blights on human rights history are unconstitutional, the blasted Supreme Court should get off their butts and actually make the proper, but horribly unpopular, stand for civill rights.

[TheRoo]

Constitution trumps laws. As these blights on human rights history are unconstitutional, the blasted Supreme Court should get off their butts and actually make the proper, but horribly unpopular, stand for civill rights.

I would agree that the Defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, based on the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, however, every federal judge who has heard a case regarding the law has ruled that it is constitutional.

[Flyndaran]

I would agree that the Defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, based on the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, however, every federal judge who has heard a case regarding the law has ruled that it is constitutional.

The reason it is unconstitutional is because of the S. Court's hearing of miscenegenation laws against "mixed" marriages. One said that marriage was a civil right and not a priviledge that may be revoke for any reasona state deams.

Without a legitimate reason for banning gay marriages, it becomes fully and without a doubt unconstitutional to do so.

[AFPheonix]

It would be a bit of work, but the fact is that it needs to be done. We keep church and state strictly separate on all sorts of other things---except marriage. The only reason for that is because in past times marriage was seen as a religious institution. It was taken for granted that they coincided. Now though, with so many Americans whose lives are not defined by religion, and so much teeth gnashing and rock throwing going on over this issue, they should be separated, as it will totally undercut the fighting that is going on.

Right now marriage IS a contract between two consenting adults. But the word 'marriage' has such a multitude of religious connotations that many states have been successfully able to pass all sorts of regulations and rules regarding marriages that do not conform to federal anti-discrimination guidelines. The point I am trying to make is that the simplest way out this mess is to totally separate the religious connotations from the institution of civil marriage contracts. The easiest way to do that is to just find another term for those contracts.

"Marriage", for better or for worse, is essentially a religious term that in modern times has been regulated more and mroe by governments for various reasons. The religious connotations need to be divorced from the civil practice once and for all.

There are many words and social constructs with legal ties that have meaning to various religions. Does that mean that we have to rewrite all of those too just to keep a few people's balloon knots from puckering further?
With the definition I laid out, state and religion are already separated. There is no need to make it any more complicated than it is. The Supreme Court, as Flyn already said, will need to make that unpopular ruling, just as they've had to make others in the past to create equality. Eventually people will get over themselves as they have with other issues.