Comments about ‘Matthew Sanders: Let's take the pain out of the gay marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
amazondoc
USA, TN

@NormalGuy --

"Both genders are restricted to marrying the opposite gender so both genders are treated equally."

**Both races are restricted to marrying members of their own race, so both races are treated equally.**

Sound familiar?

That one got thrown out by Loving v. Virginia, way back in 1967.

@eastcoastcoug --

"I would like to know the position of those favoring Gay Marriage on Polygamy and Polyandry."

This question has already been answered many times. Just look through some of these comment threads for details on why gay marriage is not at all the same thing as polygamy.

And, incidentally, the courts are quite able to tell the difference between the two.

Just recently, the Supreme Court of British Columbia reconfirmed the constitutionality of Canada's ban on polygamy. In their decision, their chief justice wrote (in part), that "women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

Normal Guy
Salt Lake City, UT

@amazondoc

Loving vs Virginia indicated that a minority group was being targeted. Since men and women are found in equal supply neither side can complain that they are being unfairly restricted to who they could marry when compared with opposite sex - completely different than the complaint raise by blacks in the case you mention. Additionally, interface marriages has been allowed in other countries for hundreds of years prior to Loving vs Virginia, giving the court the precedent needed to overturn the law. Gay marriage has no such precedent.

4word thinker
Murray, UT

It is simple.

Marriage is a religious institution, a union between a man and a woman, or however any given church wants to define it for their purposes.

Civil Union is any relationship the Civic Authorities, or government, defines it to be, and it is the only union recognized as a legal union subject to tax advantages, or any other legal privileges bestowed on such a union. Marriage is not a recognized legal union, and the word 'marriage' never appears in the legal document or laws anywhere.

Problem solved.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@NormalGuy --

"Loving vs Virginia indicated that a minority group was being targeted. "

Women make up 50% of the population, yet gender discrimination has been a well-established legal principle for years.

The Supreme Court has already drawn parallels between Loving and gay marriage. I'll side with their legal expertise over yours. ;-)

"Gay marriage has no such precedent."

Actually, it does. Did you know that at least two Roman **emperors** married men? Same-sex unions actually have a long history in many cultures. One good book on them is "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe", by historian John Boswell.

On a related note: recall one of the traditional heterosexual marriage vows. Specifically the one that goes "whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God".

Do you remember who originally said that in the Bible?

Ruth said it -- to **Naomi**. Yup, These traditional wedding vows were originally spoken by one woman. To another woman. In the Bible.

@4word --

In this context, marriage is actually a civil contract. The Supreme Court is not hearing cases about religious rites, I promise you.

4word thinker
Murray, UT

@amazondoc

Hmm, do I believe you, or do I look at the reality of how many churches are being sued over this issue? I believe reality instead of you.

You say all they are considering is a civil contract. Well then let's call it a civil contract, not a marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution, was a religious institution before the USofA existed. The concept of separation of church and state would dictate that the state yield the regulation of marriage back to the churches, and call legal relationships something that represents what they are, like civil unions or civil contracts. Then those relationships can be defined by the state, because they are a creation of the state.

This is the win/win solution. It preserves the integrity of the churches and it protects the legal rights of everyone. No one's rights are infringed.

Why is this not an acceptable solution?

amazondoc
USA, TN

@4word --

"Hmm, do I believe you, or do I look at the reality of how many churches are being sued over this issue?"

You don't have to believe me. You just have to acknowledge the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.

Really and honestly and truly, the Supreme Court is not going to involve itself in the internal workings of churches. They are there to support the Constitution and the laws passed under that constitution. And the millions of American citizens who have been married down at the clerks' offices over the years will be relieved to know that their marriages really are legally valid, even without the benefit of a church involved.

"call legal relationships something that represents what they are, like civil unions or civil contracts."

That would be fine, **if** everyone who got married in a church without signing a civil contract (the marriage license) would be willing to give up all of their government-related marriage benefits -- you know, like inheritance, tax benefits, Social Security spousal benefits, that sort of thing. How well do you think that will go over with John Q. Public? ;-)

4word thinker
Murray, UT

amazondoc

"You just have to acknowledge the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state."

This is exactly the principle I seek to have upheld.

"That would be fine, **if** everyone who got married in a church without signing a civil contract (the marriage license)..."

To get married at a church you must bring a marriage license, or the minister won't marry you, so this is a mute point.

Changing the name does not make any existing contracts null and void, nor did I suggest that any should be nullified. We just legally refer to them as Civil Partnerships, or Unions, or Contracts, and not call them Marriages or partner Baptisms, or any other sacred religious rite name.

Again I ask, Why is this not an acceptable solution?

amazondoc
USA, TN

@4word --

"To get married at a church you must bring a marriage license, or the minister won't marry you"

RIGHT. Because "marriage" is a civil contract -- which is what I've been saying all along. ;-)

"We just legally refer to them as Civil Partnerships, or Unions, or Contracts, and not call them Marriages or partner Baptisms, or any other sacred religious rite name."

I you're going to get rid of the term "marriage" altogether, then go ahead and give that a shot.

But if you mean that you want to call heterosexual unions "marriages" and call homosexual unions something else, then that won't work. This country already proved, decades ago, that separate is not equal. If two things are called something different, then they ARE something different. And homosexual couples deserve the SAME legal rights as every other citizen, not some second-class imitation.

4word thinker
Murray, UT

amazondoc

Not interested in talking in circles.

From my first post (caps added), "Marriage is a religious institution, a union between a man and a woman, or HOWEVER ANY GIVEN CHURCH WANTS TO DEFINE IT for their purposes."

But clearly you aren't really reading what I wrote, or you are purposefully twisting it, as the end of your last post shows.

Simple

Churches perform marriages by their own definition. (to gain the government's benefits, they would need the civil union license from gov't in addition to the marriage, just as it is now)

Government licenses civil unions of a non-religious name, by the government's definition.

This is the win/win solution. It preserves the integrity of the churches and it protects the legal rights of everyone. No one's rights are infringed.

amazondoc can't give a good reason why this solution wouldn't work.

Anyone else want to try?

You're on your own. This is my last post.

ManforGod
Whitehall, OH

All of this discussion is intended for one side to convince the other that sin should be left alone or acknowledged by our government. Well I for one do not wish to give in to people that deny what my God says as being truth. Nor do I care if they believe the way I do. Our government continues to slaughter the values that our constitution was founded on day by day.Our christian beliefs are being laughed at by those that don't share our values. Loving the sinner has nothing to do with condoning the sin !

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@4word --

"Churches perform marriages by their own definition. (to gain the government's benefits, they would need the civil union license from gov't in addition to the marriage, just as it is now)"

But 4word, this is **exactly** what I was saying in previous posts. I said:

"That would be fine, **if** everyone who got married in a church without signing a civil contract (the marriage license) would be willing to give up all of their government-related marriage benefits"

That's **exactly** the same thing you're saying now.

There's a huge problem with trying this approach, though. Specifically, millions of people have already been married in this country in civil ceremonies, without the benefit of any church ceremonies. Do you really think that all those millions of people will agree to suddenly start calling their marriages something else, just because they didn't go into a church? That ain't gonna happen.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments