Gay Marriage vs. Gay Rights

[mojoe54]

I bet they were the ones to put the kibosh on the conversion to metric as well. Perhaps they'd go metric if the government told them that cubits metric.

I remember the U.S. tried to convert to metric in the early seventies-- I remember being taught it in grade school. I never could pick it up, though. Neither could anyone else, apparently.

 

[Apollo]

Jeez...my husband and I would love to be Canadians. Unfortunately, we were born a little too far south. Care to adopt us, anybody? Only one requirement--you have to live in a warm part of Canada!

There is no such thing in Canada. All of it's cold.

 

[gsdx]

I remember the U.S. tried to convert to metric in the early seventies-- I remember being taught it in grade school. I never could pick it up, though. Neither could anyone else, apparently.

If you can count to 10, you can do metric. (Just think pennies, dimes, and dollar bills. That's metric.)

 

[mojoe54]

If you can count to 10, you can do metric. (Just think pennies, dimes, and dollar bills. That's metric.)

It's those Kilometers that kill me!

 

[mojoe54]

^^^Well, I can't quite get that French pronunciation!

 

[thermodynamics]

The thing is the government should stop giving out "marriage" licenses altogether--it could start calling them "civil union" licenses, and give them to both straights and gays.

Churches could then be the only institution offering "marriages". Some would even allow gays to participate, others wouldn't. It would be a sacramental, not a legal, thing.

That's exactly what I'd like to see. What we call a "marriage" today really isn't a marriage unless it's performed/officiated by some form of ordained minister. A judge is not ordained by God, and should not have the power to bless a "marriage."

 

[gsdx]

A judge is not ordained by God, and should not have the power to bless a "marriage."

Why not? Captain Kirk can do it.

 

[gsdx]

^ True.

But non-ordained people have always had the power to perform government-recognised marriage ceremonies - ships' captains, JPs (Justices of the Peace), etc.

 

[sean9999]

I don't plan to ever get married. It's just not important to me personally BUT gay marriage is one of my political passions because of what it represents. Equal civil rights. Recognition that we exist as humans and American citizens. Recognition that our families are equal to straight's families.

People argue that it's silly to fight over just a word. Well words have meaning and implications. If it's just a word why are Fundamentalists and social conservatives fighting bloody tooth and nail to keep that one word for themselves? If it's just a word - no biggie - why don't they just give in? Answer. They don't want to be tainted by association. With us. They don't believe our relationships, our love, our families are anything like theirs. It's like we're a different species. So we get penned off to the side with names like Civil Union or Domestic Partnership just to make absolutely clear we're different. It's an effing insult and it sticks in my craw.

But being a realist, I know there are people out there right now who need whatever rights they can get to protect their partners and kids, so I accept Civil Unions as a neccessary evil for the time being. Though the just a word argument really pisses me off.

 

[bankside]

That's exactly what I'd like to see. What we call a "marriage" today really isn't a marriage unless it's performed/officiated by some form of ordained minister. A judge is not ordained by God, and should not have the power to bless a "marriage."

Judges don't bless marriages. They solemnize marriages. In some places, the ability to solemnize marriages is a privilege given to some religious officials by their governments to act on behalf of the state. In some cases, religious officials were granted other roles by governments, like making official records of birth for the state. None of that has anything to do with freedom of religion to bless a marriage or a union or a couple or a single person. There is even a church in my old hometown that did an annual service for blessing pets. All of that falls under freedom of religion. And it has nothing to do with the actual legislation governing marriage and the rights therein.

These roles and privileges can be changed by the government. It used to be that churches made official public records of births. Now it is handled by government departments. Same thing with marriages.

 

[TygreBryte]

The thing is the government should stop giving out "marriage" licenses altogether--it could start calling them "civil union" licenses, and give them to both straights and gays.

Churches could then be the only institution offering "marriages". Some would even allow gays to participate, others wouldn't. It would be a sacramental, not a legal, thing.

this idea seems most sensible to me personally.