Illegality of gay marriage

[PassingThru]

I presume you meant it the other way around right?

And what do they not have the right to do because of the distinction?

I just saw you posting on a thread about the gay couple in Texas who can NOT get a divorce due to Texas law. There is one simple example right there.

Now, multiply out all the inter-state problems alone that can arise from archaic state laws on gay marriage, and you get the idea. But your already know this. Quit playing possum.

Now, if all 50 states got their act together, defined civil unions as equal in all legal spheres to marriage, you could start to argue your point. But, until this happens, it is far better to argue for the right to marry, than to argue the need for all these states to align all the laws within those states in any reasonable amount of time.

So, if “civil unions” were de-facto marriages, meaning they had ALL of the same rights and privileges as a marriage, and YOU had to honor them just the same, what it the point? Are you just arguing the semantics of the word? Can you give one example of how you could treat a couple differently due to them being in a “civil union” vs a marriage?

 

[royal_archer]

That depends on what you mean by private financial dealings. Do you think that a Catholic business owner has the right to say he will provide benefits to the spouses of his married Catholic employees (as long as their marriage is valid in the Church’s eyes), but that he will not provide the same benefits to employees that are civilly married or married in another faith? I don’t think that would be right, and I don’t think it would be legal in the US.

How about not allowing a protestant wedding to take place in a Catholic Church?

From that perspective, gay marriages are no different than other marriages considered invalid by the Church, so legalizing gay marriage does not have any appreciable legal impact on the Church or on Catholics. The vast majority of marriages in the US (and in the world) are not recognized as valid marriages by the Church. Gay marriages are merely be a tiny sub-set of those, and are treated the same way.

If a protestant man and woman get married in a protestant church, the marriage is normally considered valid.

 

[royal_archer]

I just saw you posting on a thread about the gay couple in Texas who can NOT get a divorce due to Texas law. There is one simple example right there.

Please provide a link to this thread, I don’t remember posting to such a thread.

Now, multiply out all the inter-state problems alone that can arise from archaic state laws on gay marriage, and you get the idea. But your already know this. Quit playing possum.

there is no such thing as gay marriage. By definition, it is impossible.

Now, if all 50 states got their act together, defined civil unions as equal in all legal spheres to marriage, you could start to argue your point. But, until this happens, it is far better to argue for the right to marry, than to argue the need for all these states to align all the laws within those states in any reasonable amount of time.

So is the whole point to avoid confusion with how that partnership contract is interpreted accross state lines? if so, remember that they had to go through the same thing with driver’s licenses in the early 20th century, and it should work itself out soon, once people stop wasting time trying to legislate against the laws of nature.

So, if “civil unions” were de-facto marriages, meaning they had ALL of the same rights and privileges as a marriage, and YOU had to honor them just the same, what it the point? Are you just arguing the semantics of the word? Can you give one example of how you could treat a couple differently due to them being in a “civil union” vs a marriage?

This isn’t about how I would treat them it is about the law. What specific rights would the individuals not be able to partake in because we do not redefine marriage?