Massachusetts Constitutional Convention

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-12 04:47pm

Fuck 'em. If religious conservatives can't take the heat, they need to leave the kitchen.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-02-12 04:52pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:I think that "marriage" has a religious connotation to it, so they want to give gays the tax benefits, but prevent them from being able to say that they are "married" (as in "married before god").

Green and Purple.

Welcome to institutionalised stupidity.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-12 05:25pm

Frank Hipper wrote: Why doesn't the government try it's hand at making a "Defense of Bar-Mitzvah" act, or "Recognition of Confirmation Act", they have as much a right in defining those two religiously defined states of being as they do with marriage.

Because marriage is not a religiously defined state? Marraiges are only recognized when performed before a public official, if you get additionally married in a church or not is irrelevant to the state.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-02-12 05:27pm

And now it comes right back to the "no discrimination in government".

How can they even have a case for this?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-02-12 06:10pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote: Why doesn't the government try it's hand at making a "Defense of Bar-Mitzvah" act, or "Recognition of Confirmation Act", they have as much a right in defining those two religiously defined states of being as they do with marriage.
Because marriage is not a religiously defined state? Marraiges are only recognized when performed before a public official, if you get additionally married in a church or not is irrelevant to the state.

If you get married in a church it isn't recognised?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-02-12 09:08pm

Frank Hipper wrote:If you get married in a church it isn't recognised?

Not unless the paperwork is squared away properly.