Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
"Control F: Marriage" Change to say "Civil Union"
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 20
| visibility 403

"Control F: Marriage" Change to say "Civil Union"


Jun 30, 2015, 1:43 PM

Why don't we just change the word marriage in all legal and government documents to say civil union? You can get married in a church and not have it affect you legally and you can get a civil union without a church. Do both at one time if you like but this way marriage is only for churches. For government/legal purposes everyone has a civil union.

boom. solved.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: "Control F: Marriage" Change to say "Civil Union"


Jun 30, 2015, 1:46 PM

Ehhhh not changing for people that believe in magic.

And I like to see Cam complain....this may satisfy him.

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

My ##### Rand got us covered


Jun 30, 2015, 1:47 PM

#StandWithRand #KegStandsForRand

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsonrulez08.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Please forgive me, @IneligibleUser


Because that's stupid.***


Jun 30, 2015, 1:49 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Look, man.


Jun 30, 2015, 1:52 PM

I don't want to get gay civil unioned. I want to get GAY MARRIED.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-19b.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Then find a church that will gay marry you***


Jun 30, 2015, 1:54 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

mine will


Jun 30, 2015, 1:57 PM

at least my minister will.

2024 purple level memberringofhonor-greenr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU TOLD ME!***


Jun 30, 2015, 1:58 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Mine as well


Jun 30, 2015, 1:59 PM [ in reply to mine will ]

In fact the lady who did the service for my BIL and SIL was a lesbian. Episcopals be crazy.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Can churches still marry gheys?***


Jun 30, 2015, 1:52 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


If they want to, yes***


Jun 30, 2015, 1:54 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I've been told that you can get married in a church...


Jun 30, 2015, 1:54 PM

without a license. I'm been around Baptist (Southern and Indies) churches for 40+ years and didn't know that.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I assume that's what Mormon polygamists do***


Jun 30, 2015, 1:55 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

May be.


Jun 30, 2015, 1:57 PM

I don't understand how one is ok and the other is forbidden by the same people. I think I'll try gay polygamy.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Fairly simple


Jun 30, 2015, 1:59 PM

2 is not 3

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sure you can. Good luck when your spouse dies with


Jun 30, 2015, 4:34 PM [ in reply to I've been told that you can get married in a church... ]

insurance, social security, etc.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Meh


Jun 30, 2015, 2:08 PM

Marriage is still important to the state for nearly all people entering into it (that's one thing Kennedy gets right, and something more radical liberals would probably disagree with), even if the law now gets it wrong. I'd rather have a sort of arbitrary definition of marriage in the law that can still produce some of the effects of marriage than to just level the whole civil institution. And it's not as if those of us who oppose same sex marriage are just going to forget that and stop advocating for traditional marriage.

I do think, at the very least, that states where people are opposed to gay marriage ought to stop having their justices of the peace perform ceremonies. Others have suggested that churches stop certifying people for a marriage license, but I also disagree with that for the same reason.

Basically, what this guy says:

"The redefinition of marriage will have profound consequences for society. For this reason, focusing at this point on getting the Church out of the civil marriage business or—a true fantasy—getting the government out of the marriage business ultimately distracts us from what most needs doing: defending the truth about marriage.

Provided that rabbis, imams, and Christian ministers are not coerced into performing services that violate their beliefs about marriage, they should continue our tradition of the joint sacred-civil service. Of course, if a state were to require any minister who believes the truth about marriage—that it is a union of male and female—to perform same-sex marriages, that would give him good reason to stop acting as the state’s agent. And once he did, the First Amendment would protect him, as a religious minister, against further coercion.

The coercion that should really concern us is broader—and unavoidable wherever same-sex marriage is recognized. As experience has already shown, the redefinition of marriage and related state policies on sexual orientation have led to intolerance, intimidation, and even government coercion and discrimination against citizens who believe that marriage unites a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage.

Recently, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony—even though doing so would violate the Christian photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs.

Christian adoption and foster-care agencies have been forced to stop providing services because they object to placing children in same-sex households. Similar cases include a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a T-shirt company, a student counselor, the Salvation Army, and more.

Religious liberty infringements aren’t the only cause for concern. The redefinition of marriage will undermine the public understanding of what marriage is and what it requires of spouses. That will make spouses less likely to live out the truth about marriage, and all of society will suffer as a consequence. After all, the law teaches, and what it teaches about marriage matters.

Debating whether religious communities should perform civil marriages undermines the more urgent task of teaching the truth about marriage. But the reverse isn’t true. Given mounting political pressure, we may think it prudent to discuss how to distance ourselves from civil marriage. But, in fact, defending the truth about marriage—including civil marriage—and persuading the public that our views of marriage are reasonable will go a long way toward securing at least the political freedom to live by them.

That freedom matters, because Americans and the associations we form—nonprofit and for-profit—should be free to speak and act in the public square based on our beliefs about marriage as the union of a man and woman, without fear of government penalty.

That freedom is threatened because our neighbors fail to understand even why we believe as we do. And the fault frequently lies with us, for being too often unwilling to make our case.

Our efforts must be extended and multiplied. We need dozens of different ways of defending marriage philosophically, legally, and as a policy matter. We need theologians as well as artists, musicians, and other culture makers to engage in the same task.

That won’t happen if we let discussions about Church and marriage or state and marriage displace the more basic task of actually discussing what marriage is. The best defense of our interests is a defense of the truth by which we seek to live."


Message was edited by: camcgee®


2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Haha, what marriage is and what marriage is about


Jun 30, 2015, 2:21 PM

Like the bachelor and Newt Gingrich haven't already ruined that little message.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Couple of questions:


Jun 30, 2015, 4:43 PM [ in reply to Meh ]

"The redefinition of marriage will have profound consequences for society"

Such as? Leaving this to read as a fact leaves it for interpretation. Couldn't the consequences be positive? Why would the consequences lead to defending the truth about marriage? Not a great start.

"The redefinition of marriage will undermine the public understanding of what marriage is and what it requires of spouses. That will make spouses less likely to live out the truth about marriage, and all of society will suffer as a consequence. After all, the law teaches, and what it teaches about marriage matters."

Huh? Wut? How? First sentence; no elaboration, stated as fact. 2nd sentence; no elaboration, stated as fact. I have never heard this argument, but it fits divorce arguments more than same-sex arguments. Maybe he copy/pasted from a different argument.

"Recently, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony—even though doing so would violate the Christian photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs."

As I've read about that case, and as best I understand it, it was about her freedom of speech and not her freedom to exercise her religion. She didn't want to tell a story of "celebrating same-sex couples." But because her business is in the public square there are laws against discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. So, she lost. The example of her winning I've seen is if she sold her paintings in a gallery. It's a fine line, but a pretty clear one.

I would imagine a similar explanation involves most of his other examples of "infringements."

I'm really surprised this is the type of written argument you aligned yourself with Cam. It doesn't have the bombastic vocabulary or dense philosophical arguments that you typically favor. Sure, it makes a similar flawed argument, but it's not hidden or trying to be something it's not. Imma disappoint

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You don't get it.


Jun 30, 2015, 4:33 PM

No one wants this solved in any way that would give gays equal rights AND give those who support traditional marriage any satisfaction whatsoever.

That was almost exactly what my compromise would have been. The gay lobby is quick to point out the federal government does not recognize civil unions. My law would to be to require all future AND PAST marriage licenses to be titled civil unions and force the federal government to recognize them.

This solution got zero press, because it's not about equal rights. It's about attacking the churches.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Lulz.***


Jun 30, 2015, 4:50 PM



badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

#ACCFTS


Replies: 20
| visibility 403
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic