Seperation Of Church And State

[Eejit]

The Bible - if it's good enough for Mussolini it's good enough for me!

 

[CptStern]

So what if their definition of marriage remains intact? That's their definition, not yours.

that's the point of my statement

 

[Tyguy]

i thought married meant just the tip....

DAMNIT!

 

[theotherguy]

seperate but equal is not equal ..and no it wouldnt not change the definition of marriage because other than legal the only other source as to one man and one woman is from the bible and since they wouldnt be forced to change anything their definition of marriage remains intact

So the gay couple could go to a more liberal church. Making the idea of marriage a private matter rather than a matter of the government would allow anyone to perform a marriage ceremony, just as anyone can ordain someone else to be a priest or their girlfriend or whatever. The government should be totally blind to the institution.

The idea of the civil union is that it protects those social rights that religion has no say over, as well as those legal rights which religion, constitutionally, is forbidden to touch.

It would also protect those "religious rights" which the government, constitutionally, is forbidden to touch.

The fact of the matter stands that marriage as a legal institution is obviously unconstitutional, and it should be abolished and replaced with a secular union.

 

[CptStern]

So the gay couple could go to a more liberal church. Making the idea of marriage a private matter rather than a matter of the government would allow anyone to perform a marriage ceremony, just as anyone can ordain someone else to be a priest or their girlfriend or whatever. The government should be totally blind to the institution.

too late, it's been firmly entrenched for decades in marriage. and yes there are christian groups that allow gay marriage (united church of canada to name one) ..so obviously it's just a matter of discrimination and bigotry as to why christian denominations dont perform same sex marriages

The idea of the civil union is that it protects those social rights that religion has no say over, as well as those legal rights which religion, constitutionally, is forbidden to touch.

It would also protect those "religious rights" which the government, constitutionally, is forbidden to touch.

The fact of the matter stands that marriage as a legal institution is obviously unconstitutional, and it should be abolished and replaced with a secular union.

no one religion has no claim over the term "marriage" which is why it's up to individual religions as to whether they can perform same sex marriages in canada. christianity does not have exclusivity to the term marriage, what they want or what they claim is completely immaterial because it's not theirs to begin with. they have absolutely NO say in who can or cant get married outside of their own religion

 

[mortiz-Redux]

I like to think of the seperation of church and state as like the seperation of a turd from my lower intestine, has to be done, but sometimes no matter how hard you squeeze it just won't happen.

 

[CptStern]

I agree, however now you made me picture you with a dingleberry hanging from your a-hole







pics and divx or it didnt happen

 

[The Monkey]

Charming.

 

[jverne]

I like to think of the seperation of church and state as like the seperation of a turd from my lower intestine, has to be done, but sometimes no matter how hard you squeeze it just won't happen.

that's one of the best comparisons i've read in the last few months!

 

[theotherguy]

no one religion has no claim over the term "marriage" which is why it's up to individual religions as to whether they can perform same sex marriages in canada. christianity does not have exclusivity to the term marriage, what they want or what they claim is completely immaterial because it's not theirs to begin with. they have absolutely NO say in who can or cant get married outside of their own religion

In the United States, priests of any denomination can get the licensee to marry a couple.

The reason this is unconstitutional is because it essentially makes priests agents of the state. It allows them to bestow upon individuals certain legal rights that they were not entitled to before.

Any priest can deny marrying a couple at his or her own discretion.

This means that not only can priests grant legal rights, but they can also deny legal rights to anyone they see fit.

To me, this seems like a clear violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Clerics acting on behalf of the state become agents of the state, and the state is therefore endorsing their position and their authority by giving them the liscence to wed. An establishment of authority given to a religious institution clearly constitutes an establishment of religion. Note: the state doesn't have to endorse only ONE religion to make it an establishment. Endorsing ANY religion is considered an establishment, and endorsing ALL religion is also considered an establishment.

Removing the legal aspects of marriage and/or stripping the rights of priests to wed people would solve this constitutional issue, but such a bill could never be passed. This is why marriage must be "maintained" as an institution, but it should not be endorsed by the state. This is also why we must use the term "civil union" when talking about the new institution that would be endorsed by the state.

I am not saying that marriage is fundamentally religious, but if a priest performs the wedding, it becomes religious.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I dont agree with changing the status quo just to suit some special interest group

Isn't that exactly what allowing gay marriages/civil partnerships IS? Isn't that what anti discrimination laws were?

I'm not saying that's BAD, but I'm saying you're against it just because you don't want the word to change legally.


And again- I'm not saying religion should have any sole authority of 'marriage' it was just an example. ALL I am saying is that GOVERNMENT should NOT have anything to do with marriage, just civil unions/partnerships.

If you want to call yourself married go ahead but the term should have no legal pull. It's up to people to decide for themselves what makes them 'married.'

You're trying to say I think the church should have some sole authority and I'm not.



AGAIN-

Government - ONLY ISSUES "CIVIL UNIONS" TO TWO CONSENTING ADULTS

People and social institutions - Decide wtf they want to be called be it married or "grand sex masters of partnership"

 

[cleverendeavouR]

Few random facts back to the separation of church and state.

In context it was a term coined by Thomas Jefferson which was to keep the STATE out of the CHURCH'S business.

It also had to do with our country not declaring a national religion rather then the governing of our laws.

 

[CptStern]

Isn't that exactly what allowing gay marriages/civil partnerships IS? Isn't that what anti discrimination laws were?

you have it backwards, the state discriminated against gays, allowing them equal rights obviously means and end to state decrimination

I'm not saying that's BAD, but I'm saying you're against it just because you don't want the word to change legally.

well damn I'm just so selfish. I mean I should allow christians to take away the fact that I'm married ..no, I should give up my status of "married" and accept "civil union" in it's stead. all at the whim of people who believe in fairy tales. they can go **** themselves

And again- I'm not saying religion should have any sole authority of 'marriage' it was just an example. ALL I am saying is that GOVERNMENT should NOT have anything to do with marriage, just civil unions/partnerships.

it's too goddam late. millions of people are married outside of the church, are you really willing to hand over that sole tenant to religions? if I get married in city hall. I'm married period:

Welcome to the Toronto Civic Wedding Chambers. Marriages are performed at Toronto City Hall Wedding Chambers by appointment only. Please arrange your appointment in advance.

Our Marriage Officiants are licenced to perform marriage ceremonies by the Registrar General of the Province of Ontario.

http://www.marryus.org/cityweddings.htm

no mention of "civil union"

If you want to call yourself married go ahead but the term should have no legal pull. It's up to people to decide for themselves what makes them 'married.'

people can call themselves whatever the hell they want. it doesnt matter in any way except legally

You're trying to say I think the church should have some sole authority and I'm not.

yes you are, you want to take out of the only other outlet: the government. as it stands now anyone who wants to officiate marriages in canada are required to have a license to perform marriages. that includes clergy and laypeople

AGAIN-

Government - ONLY ISSUES "CIVIL UNIONS" TO TWO CONSENTING ADULTS

People and social institutions - Decide wtf they want to be called be it married or "grand sex masters of partnership"

religion has absolutely zero claim to the word "marriage". I for one am not willing to give up my "title" just to placate a bunch of bigots. again they can go **** themselves. You'd have them take away what has been traditionally a government regulated legal title for no other reason than to shut them up. well **** no, they deserve no special treatment. if anything thewy should be exposed for their bigoted agenda

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Stern anyone can call themselves married however the **** they want regardless of what the church thinks in the system I've proposed.

Civil Unions dont necessarily have to be a marriage they can be a domestic partnership. What about hetero life partners? I'm not being sarcastic as that isn't all too rare. Why can't they be joined in a civil union to pool financial resources and legal rights?

You wont lose any title. Your title is whatever you want it to be. It'll just streamline government to make it fair for everyone.


You clearly aren't even looking at this from the perspective I'm presenting it because you think I'm somehow being an apologist for religion on this issue. I clearly am not and others can see that as well.

 

[CptStern]

Stern anyone can call themselves married however the **** they want regardless of what the church thinks in the system I've proposed.

Civil Unions dont necessarily have to be a marriage they can be a domestic partnership. What about hetero life partners? I'm not being sarcastic as that isn't all too rare.

you mean married ..there is nothing else except common law and there is no ceremony for common law cohabitation it just means you're protected legally because you're in a conjugal/dependent relationship

in canada there is NO civil union as marriage replaced civil union once same sex marriage was allowed. there is only marriage, common law cohabitation/domestic partnership. City Hall hands out marriages licenses it does not hand out civil union licenses because there is no such thing

Why can't they be joined in a civil union to pool financial resources and legal rights?

you can, it's called common law relationship ..it's automatic after a certain amount of years, there is NO ceremony no license. so long as you can prove you've lived together for "x" amount of years they're entitled to the same legal rights as married couple. iot doesnt even have to be someone you're in a romantic relationship with, so long as there is co-dependency

You wont lose any title. Your title is whatever you want it to be. It'll just streamline government to make it fair for everyone.

no it discrinimates between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. this streamlines nothing. if anything providing the same legal rights for anyone regardless of sexual orientation ..anything else is discriminatory. Really I dont understand how you cant get this through your thick head: discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination. what missing bit of information do you need to understand this simple concept?

You clearly aren't even looking at this from the perspective I'm presenting it because you think I'm somehow being an apologist for religion on this issue. I clearly am not and others can see that as well.

i'm not saying YOU are I'm saying your proposal IS giving in to what some religious groups want. the only other explanation is that you are bigoted against homosexuals. how else can you explain that you'd willingly discriminate against homosexuals by denying them the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples. why do they need a special title? Every single entity that grants marriages is beholden to government (marriage license). A marriage is NOT valid unless they obtain a license beforehand. Since the government gives out licenses it is their perogative to ensure that there is no discrimination based gender race religion or sexual orientation. you would propose that religion has a say in what the government defines as eligible for marriage. I believe religion has no say in this whatsoever. they have no right to decide for us all what the eligilibity requirements are. they. can. go. ****. themselves

 

[Absinthe]

Stern, Rakurai is not advocating discrimination against anybody. What he is in fact advocating, if I understand correctly, is that government stop being an officiator of "marriage" and classify all such partnerships as civil unions, regardless of the party's orientation. You can call it something else if you want, but it ultimately leaves marriage and all its associated ceremonies as a social matter, not a legal one. It's still up to the individual church if they wish to discriminate against certain couples, but that is a private issue that has no bearing on your taxes, and not one in which government should interfere. Marriage is nothing but a title. Perhaps one that's important to some people and holds value. But in terms of state affairs, there are no ramifications.

Now perhaps you think this is not feasible at this point, or you think no religious organization can claim a monopoly on marriage and therefore it's just as good a term for the government to use. But he's not justifying or making exception for government discrimination in the handing out of marriage licences. He wants it to be a matter apart from government altogether.

Edit: Just to clarify: It would not even up churches to bestow the marriage title to people. Such institutions can pretend they have an authority and declare that homosexual partnerships (or anything else they may disapprove of) aren't legitimate, but it doesn't matter outside of their little worlds where they pretend that shit matters. Anybody can consider themselves a married couple because effectively there would no longer be eligibility requirements for it.

 

[Pesmerga]

"Honey, will you join me in civil union?"
"Oh yes, Pesh, I will! I love you!"

 

[Sulkdodds]

Unite with me!

 

[Sulkdodds]

"If we don't hang together, darling, we shall assuredly hang seperately."
"You're pretty well hung as it is, babe."

 

[Mr Stabby]

We should just get rid of the state.

 

[Pesmerga]

But which one?!

 

[Krynn72]

Louisiana plz.

 

[Kadayi]

Civil union is good enough in my view for same sex relationships, if nothing more than to distinguish between them (and save on social faux pauxs). Essentially it's all about tax breaks and equal rights at the end of the day, not about the ownership of a word. What the Romans considered 'marriage' 2000 years ago has little bearing on what the word means to people in the last 100 years or so.

 

[Eejit]

But which one?!

*dramatic pause* All... of... them!

 

[Mr Stabby]

Should married couples get tax breaks, seems unfair on the unmarried.

 

[Kadayi]

Should married couples get tax breaks, seems unfair on the unmarried.

I think the origins on the marriage tax breaks has always been because the next step after marriage generally is the baby making. By and large most Women like a ring and commitment before they start dropping rug rats. Pretty much every girl I know has gone down the baby route 6 months or a year after the vows have been taken, though that might be down to the fact most of the girls I know are 30 somethings as well.