Gay Marriage

Mine wasn't religious, neither. (Nor my parents'.) (I wasn't there, exactly... I was the bump under my 6-month-pregnant mother's silk floral mini-dress.)

I was married in a small wedding "chapel"/facility by a justice of the peace, not at all a religious ceremony.

I was married in Vegas at the "Velvet Elvis Wedding Chapel" (I kid you not!). Not much religion there, thanky'verr'much!

And in none of these instances was God mentioned?

These civil marriages should fit the bill for homosexual marriages then. It keeps the religeious folk happy as it keeps it out of the churches and the homosexuals happy as they are married.

I will be getting married in a non-religious ceremony. One of my early points (or questions, maybe) was - by the court stating that civil unions aren't 'as good' as marriages, then what the heck will I be? I should be protected under the law the same as religious 'marriage' ceremonies. It is a case of semantics - but by the courts saying that civil union is not acceptable, only marriage is, then obviously they see a difference between the two.

Don't know the particulars, but the state issues a marriage license, not an affirmation of civil union or some such. Never been to Massachussetts, though, and the whole codified marriage thing -- whether for God or State or Walt Disney -- doesn't interest me very much.

Mentioning God does not make something a religious ceremony.

And you're all forgetting the national gay church, the Metropolitan Church which is very well organized.

Just skimmed the intro to this, but I thought I'd weigh in with my general opinion(s) on the topic (in no particular order):

1) As far as I can tell (and I admit having looked into this very little and thought about it just a bit more) the Mass Supremes ruled correctly given the letter of the Mass Constitution.

2) As far as I can tell, the question of who can or cannot get a marriage license will not alter the character of my marriage whatsoever.

3) As far as I can tell, most people on the right AND on the left have this one wrong. Each state should be able to decide what contractual unions they want to acknowledge, and each state should decide which other states' unions they want to recognize legally. (Yes, that makes for a bit of a mess, but better that than a tidy mandate from the Federal government on the issue.)

4) As far as I can tell, any time 2 or more consenting adults express a desire to enter into a long-term, committed relationship, society benefits from encouraging same.

5) As far as I can tell, that's all I have to write about this at this time. :wink:

All right then, Lightwizard. Define civil union and then define marriage, because according to the court it is not the same thing. What makes it different?

It's the predilection that the religious right has that they can change people, otherwise known as control freaks.

The problem with allowing heterosexuals to have a marriage ceremony and allowing homosexuals to have 'civil ceremonies' is the problem of the 'letter of the law', legal hairsplitters that will come out of the woodwork and try to deny homosexual couples the same benefits that hetero couples have because their company and governmental benefits only apply to 'married couples'.

Many company allows married couples to have their spouse on their health plan, the government allows married to have certain legal protections (such as the right to not have to testify about ones spouse)
There are numerous advantages (and disadvantages) that are granted to married couples. Knowing the people the way I do, you would see thousands of cases of companies trying to avoid paying benefits to 'civilly joined' couples because according to the 'letter of the law', they are only required to do those things for married people.

Just my 2 cents (pre tax)

I recently went to a wedding that was held at a conference center and performed by a civil celebrant. God wasn't mentioned once.

These types of services now constitute the majority here.

My wedding, too, was civil, performed in the local courthouse.

Scrat argues, as did Barney Franks, that no heterosexual marriage will be influenced an iota by the occurrence of a gay marriage across the country or down the street. It's pretty difficult to imagine how or why that might not be the case.

Allowing the matter to rest with each individual state, like other matters under state jurisdiction, has the acknowledged benefit of the states as social laboratories. The negative here is that the 'christian right' is organized nationwide and is clearly seeking to do naughty things at the state level, picking off states one by one, as well as attempting the constitutional ammendment.

But the entire exercise is built upon bigotry.

MCGentrix, no, God was not mentioned at all. (The "obey" part of traditional vows was taken out, too. )

And it was a marriage, not a civil union. Marriage certificate and everything.

I'm just curious: how (and where) can there be a CIVIL marriage with the mentioning of God?

(At least God is not mentioned in German civil marriages since January 23, 1874 )

I did mention Beelzebub at my divorce.

I still refer to my ex-wife as Asteroth!

The Christian Coalition document (posted earlier by Lola) contains not merely a plethora of illogical arguments, but too, a robust helping of falsehoods, which we have seen repeated on this thread, and which we will hear many more times in the near future.

"Marriage has been a religious institution everywhere, always". That is such a compound fracture of fact that one wonders what unusual sort of mental disorder might allow the notion a happy perch.

So, what was going on in 12th century Japan? Or Micronesia? Or, say, in Thebes at 600BC? Or even presently, among the Haida Gwaii?

Or even, in early colonial America? The following took a two minute search on google...

http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/marry_colonies.htm

That will go in one ear and out the other. Fascinating how seemingly intelligent people go into denial anytime a basis for the objection to something like gay marriage causes selective memory loss. The Hebrews did not invent marriage.