Same sex marrage.

[nodito]

Just curious. What if the “marriage” terminology was dropped and it was just “civil unions” that were recognized with the same state benefits as marriage (joint tax filing, visitation rights, etc.)? Personally, I would be less opposed to such an arrangement.

My primary concern would be whether individuals in civil unions, if given all the same rights as married couples, would be permitted to adopt children.

But here is what the USCCB has said about it:

Q. What about “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” between two persons of the same sex?
A. Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of “civil unions” contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable. Basic human rights are not protected but violated by the erosion and redefinition of marriage.

 

[Thomas1981]

My primary concern would be whether individuals in civil unions, if given all the same rights as married couples, would be permitted to adopt children.

But here is what the USCCB has said about it:

I guess it’s pretty much moot because they are going for the whole enchilada anyway. I can’t see activists backing down and accepting anything short of marriage. It’s not just about the economics but a full-on socio-cultural-political change.

 

[nodito]

I guess it’s pretty much moot because they are going for the whole enchilada anyway. I can’t see activists backing down and accepting anything short of marriage. It’s not just about the economics but a full-on socio-cultural-political change.

I agree.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

government shouldn’t have sacramental marriages at all. religions don’t have to recognize same sex marriage if they don’t want to, but the government shouldn’t get involved in the sacrament.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

if we make same sex marriages illegal, churches who want to perform it won’t be able to.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

that’s overstating it by a lot. the first amendment protects priests, and everybody else, from having to participate in any religious ceremony. so just as rabbis don’t have to marry non-jews, catholics won’t be asked (well maybe asked but not required) to marry any non-catholics.

There is a real concern that if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land, those who refuse to recognize it will be subjected to laws against discrimination. That would arguably apply to any institution. Plus, the term “participate” is flexible. I can guess that the first lawsuits against religious institutions will be about refusing to rent facilities to be used for a same-sex union. Followed perhaps by demands for pre-marital counselling. Small bites will be taken until the only objection left is to performing the actual ceremony. That will be the last to fall… perform the ceremony or lose your tax exempt status as a religious institution based on illegal “discrimination.”

z0wb13:

the state has a compelling interest in marriage, but not because of any high-minded ideals. in the eyes of the law, marriage is mostly a property arrangement. the government needs some system in place to decide what happens with inheritances, taxes, etc.

This is incorrect. There are inheritance laws (Probate Codes) that deal with inheritance. And there is are state and federal tax codes that deal with income tax. While both make certain allowances for married couples, the state is not required to enact laws that encourage or support married couples. Government chooses to alter the tax and probate codes because it has a separate interest in maintaining and supporting families. Notably, marriage laws are generally to be found in the “Family” codes. E.g. Cal. Family Code sec. 300, subd. (a) defines marriage as: “[A] personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).” Your understanding is not correct. For the most part, the Family Code describes the legal rights, duties, and relationships existing between members of a family. A change in the definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples will alter the Family Code on a fundamental level, because the proposed definition (the one cited above) completely ignores the rights and privileges that biological children have regarding their biological parents.

z0wb13:

marriage is also public ceremony that declares a lifetime commitment to another person. and let’s agree that people get married for lot’s of different reasons, not solely to procreate. the state interest in marriage obviously exists, and also individuals can have religious, emotional, financial reasons to get married that fall outside the purview of government intervention.

What do you believe is the state’s interest in recognizing a union between two people of the same sex? If the reasons for marriage fall beyond the “purview of government intervention” then why have a government-recognized public ceremony? Your comments here presume the definition of marriage that you are trying to impose. Do you not see that?

z0wb13:

regardless of one’s personal feelings, marriage does confer some privileges to married couples, in the form of tax breaks, plus all the great wedding gifts etc. and many other intangible benefits like hospital visitation rights.

Marriage does not by its nature require tax breaks. The government can take those away tomorrow, and that action would not render marriages void. Same holds true for hospital visitation rights. Those rules, in most states, have already been changed to prevent discrimination against a registered domestic partner.

z0wb13:

to me, it’s simple: denying gay couples these rights is sexual discrimination.

In CA, for many years, the Domestic Partnership Act has given all of the rights of a marriage to registered domestic partners, including same-sex partners. The dispute is not about rights. It’s about redefinition. If marriage by nature requires male and female, which I contend it does, then it is not unlawful discrimination to say that two people of the same sex cannot marry each other, any more than it is discrimination to say that a man cannot be a mother.

z0wb13:

let’s say there’s adam and eve and steve. both eve and steve want to marry adam- who is very desperate and will marry the first person that asks him. the only difference between eve and steve are their sexes. so to deny either steve or eve the right to marry adam is clear-cut sexual discrimination.

Again, if marriage requires both a man and a woman, the only two that can marry are Adam and Eve. This is not unlawful discrimination if by its very nature the institution requires people of both gender.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Rau]

government shouldn’t have sacramental marriages at all. religions don’t have to recognize same sex marriage if they don’t want to, but the government shouldn’t get involved in the sacrament.

Individuals marry each other, and if circumstances apply, they confer the sacrament on each other. The state recognizes the marriage (circumstances permitting).

 

[Rau]

if we make same sex marriages illegal, churches who want to perform it won’t be able to.

By that thinking, baptism is illegal.

 

[808Catholic]

if we make same sex marriages illegal, churches who want to perform it won’t be able to.

I don’t know of any church that is saying to make SS marriage illegal; what we are saying is don’t force any church to perform SS marriages in the church.