I have no idea. Probably. What does any of this have to do with my statement that states have the right to set age limits in their state?
If I had to guess, I'd imagine most marriage codes were written to gain the votes of religious voters. A point that makes it sort of fun to watch them now squirm and say the government should never be involved with holy matrimony. Reap what ya sow. You want to mix your religion with government? Well then the government is going to creep into your religion. If you don't like that, and you shouldn't, keep your faith out of secular affairs.
That would be a profound statement if even a kernel or truth in it, however, as is so often the case it's just a bunch of hot air. Please cite the people who believe that only "Religion" (what does that mean anyway?) gets to use the word "marriage". I'll buy you an ice cream cone if you can find a reputable source that doesn't recognize marriage by atheists or marriages in courthouses. You can't because it's a strawman. It doesn't exist.
All of those things could be modified if they aren't already included in civil unions. As a single person I would very much be in favor of your last point. If the point of gov't getting involved in marriage to encourage family unit, procreation, best interest of child, then the gov't has a vested interest in seeing it continued. However, if it's not then I'm not sure I see the point, and as you say. Why should should I pay more in taxes as a single person than a married couple? End the double standard. Plus, if gov't benefits are the reason for marriage, then why not let any two people get married? Seriously, why not let siblings get married or father/son, not because I'm searching for an ick factor, but rather why shouldn't these people (if single now) get the same benefits as married couples.
Because it's to your advantage not to object. You're finally getting the cool kids on a team that has been losing the battle for relevancy for a generation. Gays may end up saving marriage, get with the program.
What bible are you getting that story from? Cain didn't violate God's law. He raised livestock, Abel was a farmer.
Why would religious people care if the gov't was involved. Their priest, rabbi, reverend, married them which is all they cared about. I guess maybe you could say for the gov't goodies marriage brings, but that's not limited to religious people, even atheists love gov't goodies. That's just simple greed and economics in play, it has nothing to do with religion. My suspicion is elected officials figured married people were better citizens (less crime, more responsible in paying taxes,), encouraged the growth of the population (more taxpayers), and keeping the family unit intact was good for order.
I don't think this is true. This debate wouldn't even exist if religious people only cared about their religious ceremonies. That topic isn't on the table.
That's a generalization on your part and I don't agree with it. I don't know a lot of people, outside of evangelicals, that are real brave in expressing their religious beliefs. It's one of the main criticisms Pope Francis has made about today's Catholics.
Oh come on, you know what a religious ceremony is and of course I'm expressing a generalization, I'm only grouping most if humanity how could it be otherwise?That's a generalization on your part and I don't agree with it. I don't know a lot of people, outside of evangelicals, that are real brave in expressing their religious beliefs. It's one of the main criticisms Pope Francis has made about today's Catholics.
How is codifying marriage "codifying religious beliefs"? One doesn't have to be religious or believe in God to get married by the state. My Church looks at marriage in a different way than other church denominations (Catholic believe it's a sacrament). No one wants to make their religious ceremony (what does that even mean?) the law of the land. Again, one doesn't have to get married in a church or believe in God and their marriage is valid with any religious person I know. The only ones wanting validation from everyone is the gay people who are getting married. If not then they wouldn't be suing a baker if they refused to make a cake for them, they'd just go next door to the baker who'd be more than happy to make a cake for them.
It's always fun when someone in the national media proves a point you made shortly before. I just read on the National Review where Obama's Solicitor General, arguing for gay marriage before the court, conceded what I said earlier about churches losing tax exempt status. D*mn I'm good.
"Religious institutions could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status due to their beliefs about marriage if the Supreme Court holds that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed, President Obama’s attorney acknowledged to the Supreme Court today. “It’s certainly going to be an issue,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli replied when Justice Samuel Alito asked if schools that support the traditional definition of marriage would have to be treated like schools that once opposed interracial marriage. “I don’t deny that.”
Alito was continuing a line of questioning started by Chief Justice John Roberts. “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?” Roberts had asked. Verrilli tried to defer to the states on that point, but Roberts pressed him about the significance of the court’s ruling as it might pertain to federal law. “There is no federal law now generally banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that’s where those issues are going to have to be worked out,” he said.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...may-lose-tax-exempt-status-if-court-rules-gay
You must hang around a lot different Christian crowd than I do. Granted, Catholics aren't known as big evangelizers. Marriage has never (in my lifetime) been an inherently religious institution. The argument against gay marriage has been that marriage has always been between a man and a women, not that it's always been in a church. You don't have to be "religious" to accept the traditional belief of the meaning of marriage. I'm not on any team. If someone argued that marriage was strictly a religious ceremony then the person doesn't know history or you are misunderstanding what they are saying. For example when I say my mom and dad have been married for x number of years. Yes, they have been married in the eyes of the gov't (got the license, etc). They also got married in the Catholic church which is a sacrament. The civil marriage isn't the same as the sacramental marriage, however, the church recognizes the civil marriage as a secular marriage.
It could mean several things, none of them good. Religious universities might be required to allow gay marriages on their campus or lose tax exemption. Religious universities that speak out against gay marriage or support religious freedom protections like RFRA might be deemed as hate speech or hostility towards gay marriage and lose tax exemption.
My mind went in a different direction that I think would be good. Namely that gay employees of religious institutions would enjoy the same spousal benefits. Beyond that I don't see how making same sex marriage legal produces your circumstances. Churches today preach against actual protected classes without ramifications and legalizing marriage is still a long way from that status, which I admit is the goal.
If the states recognize gay marriage then a religious organization would have to recognize that marriage. So, yes, they would have to provide the same spousal benefits. I don't have a problem with that point.
Maybe, but race is a protected class, this case isn't granting that status to gays although I'm sure that legal battle will be fought soon. In the grand scheme of things, there is no right not to be taxed and I believe there is a right to be treated equally. If I attend Notre Dame, the school shouldn't be allowed to tell me my husband can't come to graduation and sit with my family if they allow other spouses to do this. If they do, I'm OK with taxing them. If the nonprofit gay and lesbian center starts turning away Catholics, I'm OK with taking them too. Equal protection works for all of us.
Honestly, I haven't followed this case so don't know the specifics of the arguments, only some of the questions asked during oral arguments. What rationale is the gov't arguing for gay marriage if they aren't arguing a ban violates the 14th amendment?
I think they are arguing this based on the 14, which is why I mentioned equal protection. I specifically said sexual orientation is not a protected class now, which is one way its different than the Bob Jones case. Bob Jones wasn't punished for voicing an opinion about inter racial dating. They were punished for having a policy that prevented it. Thats the reason I picked my example. The fact that you find my example a bit odd ought to set your mind at ease, but its analogous to what Bob Jones did when they said you couldn't have a lover of another color. If they had just voiced the opinion that its sinful, they would have been fine. If Notre Dame preaches that gays are sinful, I think they will be fine too. But if they start kicking out gay students, pull their tax exemption.
The Supreme Court has disagreed with you 14 times in the past, I expect they will again very soon. The existence of restrictions on a right, doesn't make it a privilege. If that were so, there would be zero rights as they are all restricted in some manner.
It bothers me because I believe it's an issue that should be left to the states to decide, not the courts. I don't disagree it's a losing battle but that doesn't mean it's not a battle worth fighting. Actually, I think my reasoning against is pretty well summed up by the editors of National Review.
I'm sorry, but that is the biggest bunch of BS I have read recently. There is a need for society and the government to shape sexual behavior (i.e. non-gay sexual behavior) to promote the well-being of children? What the hell does that even mean? It is EXTREMELY bigoted. The old view basically says that gays and their sexual behavior are bad. Why do they bring up polygamy? The only polygamy I have ever heard of is within the Morman church and that was heterosexual behavior.
That's a generalization on your part and I don't agree with it. I don't know a lot of people, outside of evangelicals, that are real brave in expressing their religious beliefs. It's one of the main criticisms Pope Francis has made about today's Catholics.
How is codifying marriage "codifying religious beliefs"? One doesn't have to be religious or believe in God to get married by the state. My Church looks at marriage in a different way than other church denominations (Catholic believe it's a sacrament). No one wants to make their religious ceremony (what does that even mean?) the law of the land. Again, one doesn't have to get married in a church or believe in God and their marriage is valid with any religious person I know. The only ones wanting validation from everyone is the gay people who are getting married. If not then they wouldn't be suing a baker if they refused to make a cake for them, they'd just go next door to the baker who'd be more than happy to make a cake for them.
It's always fun when someone in the national media proves a point you made shortly before. I just read on the National Review where Obama's Solicitor General, arguing for gay marriage before the court, conceded what I said earlier about churches losing tax exempt status. D*mn I'm good.
"Religious institutions could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status due to their beliefs about marriage if the Supreme Court holds that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed, President Obama’s attorney acknowledged to the Supreme Court today. “It’s certainly going to be an issue,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli replied when Justice Samuel Alito asked if schools that support the traditional definition of marriage would have to be treated like schools that once opposed interracial marriage. “I don’t deny that.”
Alito was continuing a line of questioning started by Chief Justice John Roberts. “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?” Roberts had asked. Verrilli tried to defer to the states on that point, but Roberts pressed him about the significance of the court’s ruling as it might pertain to federal law. “There is no federal law now generally banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that’s where those issues are going to have to be worked out,” he said.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...may-lose-tax-exempt-status-if-court-rules-gay
