Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Marriage Equality

Liberalism is a little self contradictory because it desacradizes sexuality. Fornication and homosexuality by definition desacradize sexuality and deviate from husband and wife standards of relationships.

A cottage wedding isnt a legal marriage its like a civil union. Its like the story where the dying girl pretended to marry her nurse. It was strange but it wasnt even a real marriage.

Marriage is a relationship that functions like a friendship and has a connection to sexuality but not the intention. Its not defined by government recognition, although thats how marriages work today because there are laws. Adam and Eve or if you arent Christian, people in ancient times, didnt need government rights and benefits to be married. Legal marriage is how religious and/or social marriage works today, or rather, social marriage (or marriage) works today, because you dont have to be a Christian to marry. God even recognizes marriages done by an imam or a hindu priest. I dont know if muslims consider imams priests, or rabbis are considered priests. Because priest has different meanings that have to do with priesthood of all believers and the word pastor exists it would sound wierd to call a pastor a priest.

Marriage is defined by a union nothing more nothing less. People in the past didnt have wedding licenses or pastors or white dresses (i think that came from the Bible), and some people today marry with judges and have justices of peaces do weddings and have non white dresses, and dont marry in churches or by a pastor or a priest. Wedding licenses dont define marriages they are just how marriages work in modern times.

 

As a social or religious institution, sure, but there is nothing requiring such to be true of the legal institution.

 

You are making my point. The only real purpose of a legal marriage is to obtain the legal benefits. Without that piece of paper, certain legal functions are denied. Likewise, the paper can be obtained, and no other aspect of what most people think of as a marriage need be present.

 

Marriage wasnt always a legal institution.

 

Exactly. Which is why when a legal institution of marriage is established, it does not necessarily need to reflect any given religious definition of marriage. Especially since there is a large range of marriage definitions across time and cultures.

 

I agree with you to the extent that marriage doesnt have to be Catholic or Christian or Jewish or Islamic. it can even be pagan (some Christians think Islam is pagan though).

Marriage stayed the same in its basic sense. Polygamy still involved me and women and female polygamy was always forbidden in Christian or in Christian like cultures, like Muslim people.

Marriages are done by clergy but that doesnt marriage thats what defines a marriage.

Gods ways arent our ways. Before I realized it wasnt healthy, I did have long hair kind of like a girl. But the Bible mentions putting away childish things. By Gods standards, liberalism redefines, not expands, marriage definition.

The basic definition of marriage was always the same. A relationship that has a connection to sexuality but not the intent.

 

It doesnt make much sense people who think living together before marriage isnt a sin. Marriage by definition is sacred. Any departure from that relationship is a bibical notion of what it means to be married.

 

Ok before you get too confusing, let's review definitions. Polygamy means multiple spouses. It has no set definition on how many of what sexes/genders are within the marriage, only that there are 3 or more people. Polygyny is one husband and multiples wives, and that is what most people mistake as polygamy. All polygyny is polygamy but not all polygamy is polygyny. Polyandry is one wife multiple husbands, and it is still practiced in some parts of the world today. If you are going add polygamy into the mix, please use the correct terms when talking about specific subsets.

Indeed, we do need to put away the childish things, such as hair length meaning anything.

Your god's standards, maybe, but not everyone's god or goddess (or multiples thereof if pantheistic). Historically speaking, marriage has had a wide variety of definitions across time and cultures.

A definition that holds no limit to the sex/gender or the number of participants.

 

Marriage insinuates peoples bodies belong to one another.

 

You are still limiting yourself to your religion. Remember by other religions, you are the heathen sinner.

 

Maybe in your lexicon, but that is hardly universal. Marriage insinuates that two or more people are working together to form a household and family and exist in a close intimate relationship, whether that relationship is physical or not.

 

Would you marry the moon

 

Some married people dont have kids or live together and some people who live together have intimate loving relationships.

 

Only if the moon was sentient and was of a maturity to be able to provide informed consent AND we had developed such an intimate emotional relationship. I won't marry just any heavenly body. That's why I only have three spouses currently.

 

Is that a joke?

 

Exactly. Marriage exists in multiple forms. While similar, a religious marriage isn't the same as a legal marriage. Both can exist simultaneously, and both can exist without the other.

 

Humor injected honesty. As long as the other is a person, whether they are human or not is irrelevant. The ability to give informed consent is vital above all else. I won't say that I wouldn't get a legal marriage purely for the legal benefits, but that would be the only type of marriage it is. Right now I am in a legal and religious marriage with my one wife, and a religious only marriage with my other wife and husband.

 

Let me guess. He wants to replace gay marriage with legalized pedophilia.

 

Roy ??? Quite possibly

 

Couldn't they just have something equivalent to marriage in every legal way, but call it something else?

And, should we also open up the possibility of three-person domestic partnerships, just to be fair?

 

Sure why not. Or foursomes or what ever. But we have to consider the social and legal implications of opening marriage to more than two consenting adults. The whole concept is based on two people regardless of gender. When you take it beyond that, you get into uncharted territory. I'm not saying that I am opposed, just that it is a separate issue that has to be considered on it's ow\n merits

 

No!! And Why. Why the hell are people so damned threatened by allowing same sex unions to be call marriage. It is not rational.

As an ally and supporter of gay and Lesbian people, I feel their pain when they are told that they should have been satisfied with civil unions as a compromise and that they are being “divisive” for having pushed for and won the right to marry.



Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is a more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...ebate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017

We had experience with civil unions here in New Jersey. It did not go well:

Since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect in February 2007, many employers across New Jersey have refused to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, and therefore do not grant equal health benefits to partners of employees. Employers and hospitals say that if the legislature intended for the civil union law to be the same as marriage, the legislature would have used the same name.

Because these employers and hospitals don’t recognize civil unions as they would marriage, many same-sex couples go without adequate health insurance – a horror in this economy. And because of the real-world disparity between civil unions and marriage, some hospitals do not allow civil union partners to make medical decisions for one another, or even to visit one another in the emergency room. http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

Here is more:

Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality

This article first appeared in The Sunday Star-Ledger on Feb. 17, 2008.

When civil unions became available one year ago, Gina Pastino of Upper Montclair was "thrilled" to form one with her partner of a dozen years, Naomi Cohen.

But the couple are frustrated after a year of trying to explain -- at the bank, the passport office and repeatedly in hospitals -- that their civil union entitles them to be treated like spouses.

"People don't understand what civil unions are," said Cohen.

Judy Ford of Port Norris formed a civil union last April to add her partner to her health insurance plan. But the medical center that employs Ford used a loophole in federal law to deny coverage to her partner, Yvonne Mazzola.

Now, because of her civil union, she would be liable for her partner's uninsured medical bills. They might dissolve their civil union.

"It only puts us in a precarious legal situation," said Ford. "Now we have a civil union with no benefit and only detriment." http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/02/report_civil_union_law_fails_t.html

And New Jersey is not the only state to experience a failure to achieve equality through civil unions:

Equality Illinois Says State Civil Union Law a Failure http://www.nottageandward.com/blog/civil-unions/equality-illinois-state-civil-union-law-failure/

And let’s not forget that the federal government only recognizes “marriage “ for the myriad of benefits and privileges that are attached to that status. Change federal laws and regulations? Good luck with that. We can’t even get a none discrimination law in employment passed. Back in New Jersey, a state judge ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples following the Windsor decision by SCOTUS for just that reason. Previously, the state supreme court had ruled that same sex couples must be treated the same as opposite sex couples but that it did not have to be called marriage. Once the section of DOMA that dealt with federal benefits for married same sex couple was overturned, there was no longer even a pretense of equality in same sex unions could be called marriage

.Any more questions??

 

It seems it is not really about "equality" then, if what you are fighting about is recognition of a name, and being socially considered to be the same thing that everybody else is.

Would you be satisfied if the government just got out of the business of "marriages" and stopped officially referring to any domestic partnership by the word "marriage"?

Why does it bother you if some groups get to use that label but not others?

 

So what? You can pass a law to close that loophole.

That's not a good enough reason. If there is a law that they have to recognize all marriages, then you could hold them to that same sort of law that they would also have to give the same benefits to civil unions as marriages.

If there is no law that requires them to have to give the same benefits to all marriages, then passing a law making all domestic partnerships into marriages would not necessarily be very helpful, now would it?

 

It is absolutely about equality. Have you not understood any thing that I have said. Government out of marriage? I have heard that nonsense too many times before, and no one has been able to explain exactly what that would look like, how it would work, or what purpose it would serve. Give it a shot.