Resolution to marriage/civil unions

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-10-15 05:50pm

How about the word "marriage" is taken out of a legal context altogether?

That way, gays, christians, polygamists and whatever can all get "personally married" but the legalities can only be recieved via application for civil unions, which would sort out things like taxation and the like.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-10-15 06:08pm

Rye wrote:How about the word "marriage" is taken out of a legal context altogether?

That way, gays, christians, polygamists and whatever can all get "personally married" but the legalities can only be recieved via application for civil unions, which would sort out things like taxation and the like.

Works for me. Arrangements between consenting adults are their own business.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-10-15 06:18pm

I've been saying this all along, marriage is a religious institution, and therefore should have no status in the eyes of the law. Let the churches decide on what marriage is, and let the courts decide on what life partnerships are.
Why should a platonic relationship that shares lifelong financial and emotional ties be exempt, for instance?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-10-15 07:08pm

Frank Hipper wrote:I've been saying this all along, marriage is a religious institution, and therefore should have no status in the eyes of the law. Let the churches decide on what marriage is, and let the courts decide on what life partnerships are.
Why should a platonic relationship that shares lifelong financial and emotional ties be exempt, for instance?

I said the same thing earlier this year. Why would gays want to "buy-in" to an institution that despises them? Why not come up with a new label for marriage between same-sex partners?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-15 08:28pm

It's too ingrained into society. There's no way you can pass a bill to change the legal term.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-15 11:40pm

That's a fucking stupid idea; the paperwork necessary to excise the word "marriage" and replace it with a completely synonymous term would cost a fortune and be completely pointless. Marriage is not a religious institution; it is a FUCKING ENGLISH WORD and it happens to be the ONLY word that properly describes the binding romantic union of two people.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-10-16 12:29am

Frank Hipper wrote:I've been saying this all along, marriage is a religious institution, and therefore should have no status in the eyes of the law. Let the churches decide on what marriage is, and let the courts decide on what life partnerships are.
Why should a platonic relationship that shares lifelong financial and emotional ties be exempt, for instance?

Wrong, whilst it's true that marriage is a religious institution it isn’t and never has been exclusively so. Marriage has always been a civil, legal AND a religious institution churches have no legitimate claim to a monopoly on who can and can’t get married.

If as you maintain they do then please explain to me why divorced heterosexuals can get married when this is explicitly forbidden in the bible and also by pretty much every branch of Christianity (I’m just assuming you want to see Christian Churches dictating things do correct me if I’m mistaken) I have ever learned of.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-10-16 01:19am

The word "marriage" is not, and never has been, the property of right-wing Christianity, so I see no reason to cave into their demands.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-16 02:04am

HemlockGrey wrote:The word "marriage" is not, and never has been, the property of right-wing Christianity, so I see no reason to cave into their demands.

Which is why you'll never be a successful politician in the South.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Resolution to marriage/civil unions

Resolution to marriage/civil unions

Re: Resolution to marriage/civil unions