North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

I think you are completely misreading Skinsguy's post. I dont think he said anything at all about churches. Hes saying remove the federal govt. from marriage all together. That a marriage, gay, straight, poly or anything else shouldnt be recognized by our government. Because why should it?

And i almost completely agree with him and i think skinsguy put it very well. But not the tax thing.

Everyone thinks theres some big benefit to getting married tax wise. There really isnt. There used to be back in the day (pre-70's) when the tax scale for 1 person was twice as steep as it was for 2 married people. But they changed that and made the tax scale much steeper for married people.


Thanks Mlmpetert. I honestly don't know exactly how great the tax thing is with marriage - I'll be finding out in the next few months..lol! You pretty much got what I was saying. Allow everyone the right to whatever insurance, estate, and tax (whatever that may be or may not be) rights that married people currently enjoy.

Only extending these "rights" to gay people is still discrimination. So, it's best to do away with state recognized marriages and allow anybody the opportunity to put whoever they want on their health insurance, their estate, their taxes, etc...whatever it is that married people have the benefit for. But, don't force a large amount of Americans, who are both religious and non-religious, to endorse, agree to, or accept in anyway ideology that goes against their core beliefs. Forcing people into accepting gay marriage is wrong. Plain and simple. One can use every word, every sense of hate he/she can think of to get them to change, and it will still be wrong to force a person to agree with a lifestyle that they just do not believe is right.

As far as the divorce courts, you're probably right about that. My thought process was since the state doesn't recognize the marriage, then there is no state issued marriage license, so there would be no need for state recognized divorces. I suppose the couple could still draw up their own contract, just like a business agreement, which could be disputed in a court of law.

I suggest you read JR's post on the prior page about marriage, religion, and government.

I did. And as JR pointed out, with priests and ministers being appointed as officers of the state, then that connects government to religion, which is wrong. You, of all people, should be fighting to reverse this, not coax on even more government involvement.

Thanks Mlmpetert. I honestly don't know exactly how great the tax thing is with marriage - I'll be finding out in the next few months..lol! You pretty much got what I was saying. Allow everyone the right to whatever insurance, estate, and tax (whatever that may be or may not be) rights that married people currently enjoy.

Only extending these "rights" to gay people is still discrimination. So, it's best to do away with state recognized marriages and allow anybody the opportunity to put whoever they want on their health insurance, their estate, their taxes, etc...whatever it is that married people have the benefit for. But, don't force a large amount of Americans, who are both religious and non-religious, to endorse, agree to, or accept in anyway ideology that goes against their core beliefs. Forcing people into accepting gay marriage is wrong. Plain and simple. One can use every word, every sense of hate he/she can think of to get them to change, and it will still be wrong to force a person to agree with a lifestyle that they just do not believe is right.

As far as the divorce courts, you're probably right about that. My thought process was since the state doesn't recognize the marriage, then there is no state issued marriage license, so there would be no need for state recognized divorces. I suppose the couple could still draw up their own contract, just like a business agreement, which could be disputed in a court of law.

I think you're taking it way too far. If I am understanding you, you wish to destroy/obliterate the right of two people to enter into a government sanctioned contract that permits the pooling of resources, promise of mutual lifetime support and the resultant sanctioning of that contract by the State. As with corporations and the laws relating their creation, existence and dissolution, the laws relating to the creation, operation and dissolution of the marriage "contract" are an essential part of our civil society and have evolved over the course of time distinct from the sacramental rite of marriage. To say that this form of contract can no longer exist is far too simplistic. To remove this form of contract creates a legal void contrary to the evolution of our legal system and, further, represents a radical change to our fundamental legal philosophy .

There is great societal value in allowing two individuals the ability to provide mutual support such that they turn to each other, rather than the govt., for their primary support [I]and for civil society to say what legal rights, liabilities and benefits should govern such contracts. Rules governing the formation, operation and dissolution of such contracts exist b/c, generally and from a societal point of view, the underlying nature of the contract creates a benefit for all members of the society not just the parties entering into the contract.

My point has always been simply that the traditional contract of marriage has, within our civil justice system, diverged from the sacramental rite of marriage and different concepts and principles now govern each. As such, the form of the contract should remain but it should be clearly delinated from the religious sacrament which developed along with it. Such contracts would still require a State sanction (just like the fomation of a corporation) and be appropriately witnessed - just not by a priest/minister.

Also, you say "Only extending these 'rights' to gay people is still discrimination." Sorry, we must mean different things when we say "discrimination". Extending the right to enter into the civil marriage contract and providing benefits based on the contract is only "discriminatory" when some are allowed to do so and others are not. Further, it is only illegal discrimination when the denial is based on race, religion, gender or some other immutable characteristic recognized at law as a "protected class". Thus, it is perfectly constitutional for the law to prohibit polygamous marriage contracts as long as no one is allowed to enter into them. The fact that people who enter into a particular type of contract receive particular benefits, however, is not a form of discrimination against those don't enter into the particualr contract and don't receive the benefits.

I did. And as JR pointed out, with priests and ministers being appointed as officers of the state, then that connects government to religion, which is wrong. You, of all people, should be fighting to reverse this, not coax on even more government involvement.

That was a single, significant point but not the thrust of my argument. My point, as I so cleverly summed up, is that it is time to separate the "right" to marry from the "rite" to marry. Neither need be destroyed - they just each need to be true to their own underlying structures: contracts = govt./laws; sacraments = churches/rites.

I feel like in 10-15 years we'll look back and say wow, I can't believe gay marriage was actually a big deal.

On a related point, I recently watched the movie Philadelphia for the first time (I generally don't watch "legal" movies often simply b/c I am constantly yelling "You can't do that" and "no, No, NOOO!!! That's so blatantly wrong!" at the screen).

While the movie may exagerate it to make a point, it is amazing to see the transformation, in just the last 20 years, of how gays are perceived .

On a related point, I recently watched the movie Philadelphia for the first time (I generally don't watch "legal" movies often simply b/c I am constantly yelling "You can't do that" and "no, No, NOOO!!! That's so blatantly wrong!" at the screen).

While the movie may exagerate it to make a point, it is amazing to see the transformation, in just the last 20 years, of how gays are perceived .

Good point. Seeing that movie now it's hard to believe people were so ignorant just a short time ago.

Good point. Seeing that movie now it's hard to believe people were so ignorant just a short time ago.

Well if you think about it, the movie was made in 1993 - so ~20 years ago.

~ 20 years before 1993, I would suggest that you would be hard pressed to find a oscar nominated movie with a black man in one of the lead roles.

The times they are a changin'.

Well if you think about it, the movie was made in 1993 - so ~20 years ago.

~ 20 years before 1993, I would suggest that you would be hard pressed to find a oscar nominated movie with a black man in one of the lead roles.

The times they are a changin'.

In the heat of the Night, 1967,Sidney Poitier


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Heat_of_the_Night_(film)

That was a single, significant point but not the thrust of my argument. My point, as I so cleverly summed up, is that it is time to separate the "right" to marry from the "rite" to marry. Neither need be destroyed - they just each need to be true to their own underlying structures: contracts = govt./laws; sacraments = churches/rites.

Agreed and understood. As far as the governmental aspects, anyone should be free to enter a contract with whoever they choose. But, the contract does not have to be a marriage contract. It can simply be a contract, like you said, depending upon its underlying structure: i.e., I want to put my friend on my health insurance plan, who is down on his luck and can't afford his own. So, we enter into a contract of health insurance. No prerequisites required, it's completely up to me to decide.

In this example, it solves, or at least greatly helps, a lot of issues for everyone. First of all, gays could put their partners on their health insurance, straight singles could put their friends on their health insurance policy (which would help a lot of young college kids who a lot of times do not have health insurance policies of their own,) and the need for the government to step in and either subsidize health insurance or create a national health insurance policy would be greatly reduced. Also, those who are against gay marriage would not have to feel that they have to honor something that is against their beliefs, so everybody wins. I'm sure it's not that easy, but then again, maybe it is?

The big problem is, this argument has snow balled into something completely different from where it started out as. In the beginning, it was about gays being able to have the same marriage benefits as straight people. Then, it snow balled into gay marriage should be legally recognized by all - the heck with your personal values and beliefs. So, it turns into you're either going against your Christian or Muslim beliefs, or either just your beliefs in general, if you support gay marriage, and your called a bigot and a hater if you stand up for your beliefs. And all the while, no matter which way the government sides, there would still be discrimination of the singles out there who want access to the same rights.

That is why, the "rites" should be completely separated from the government completely. The "rights" should be rights held by all people, regardless of prerequisite. If I vote for the ban on same-sex marriage, I'm a bigot according to NC_Skins. However, if I go against my beliefs and I vote against it, then I'm forced into legally recognizing something as valid, and no matter what anybody says, your vote is an endorsement. Either way I vote, it's still discriminating against a group of people (singles for instance). In my eyes, as long as I feel God is endorsing my marriage, I could care less what the government thinks. Keep in mind, if we truly live in a free world, then we own the government, not the other way around. Get marriage out of the hands of the government, and put it back into the hands of the people!

ABC, CBS, NBC Ignore Chick-fil-A Vandalism Incidents | NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/08/14/abc-cbs-nbc-ignore-chick-fil-vandalism-incidents)