Why is marriage important in America today?

[Wheres Toto]

I think we need new words. Marriage as a sacrament (whatever the tradition, Christian or otherwise) is different than marriage as a legal recognition. I think differentiating them by names would make a lot of the debates over the "institution" of marriage go away - a lot of people would agree but don't know it because they're using the same word to mean different ideas.

 

Maybe. I have to admit I'd be mad if I was suddenly not married anymore. That might sound silly, but it would feel like I was being singled out and that something had changed. Plus it's really nobody's business what my religious status is.

 

:iagree: Separate terms may end a lot of the debate but I don't think the religious should have the right to the term "marriage". I am married. I have a marriage. The fact that we were not married in a church doesn't change that.

 

Isn't the actual religious ceremony called the "Sacrament of Matrimony"? Don't most religions have a formal name for the ceremony by which they join two people? Maybe they should go with that.

[Impish]

Here there are deductions like that too. I am not sure if it is comparable to married filing jointly though.

 

In terms of the fairness of deductions, etc. there are all sorts of unfair aspects to that. Well unfair in the sense you get certain tax breaks for things that are technically pretty arbitrary. I mean as a single person I might argue that it's unfair to pay more taxes because I don't have kids. After all, people "choose" to have kids. Etc...

it's been almost 10 yrs since I was a single mom, but the deduction was equal to having a dependant spouse, from what I remember.

[Davysmom]

Marriage in our faith is a covenant between husband and wife ordained by God. It's symbolic of His covenant to His church. It is absolutely a hill to die - in our faith.

 

I would also like to see legal marriage, marital tax issues and health insurance garbage done away with as issues/reasons to marry. Those things have nothing to do with marriage as far as I am concerned. It's about a covenant between my husband and I with God. It is not the same as living with someone according to our faith. Getting married for those reasons, IMO, lessens the value of marriage as defined by our beliefs.

 

Flat tax, UHC, better immigration laws, and civil unions (or legal marriage or whatever you want to call it for those not "marrying" for religious reasons!) would allow these issues to be separated as they should be. The US government has become far too intertwined in the covenant of marriage.

 

People who believe marriage is sacred are fighting for it to be persevered as a holy union because it has been so distorted by the govt.

 

Taxes, rights, custody, end of life decision, and all the rest, have nothing to do with the covenant of marriage, but our society they are unfortunately, very intricately intertwined.

[Davysmom]

:iagree: Separate terms may end a lot of the debate but I don't think the religious should have the right to the term "marriage". I am married. I have a marriage. The fact that we were not married in a church doesn't change that.

 

Isn't the actual religious ceremony called the "Sacrament of Matrimony"? Don't most religions have a formal name for the ceremony by which they join two people? Maybe they should go with that.

 

:iagree: It isn't about the word - it's more about the definition.

[stripe]

Referring to the bolded, that is technically not true. You cannot go into a church, perform a ceremony, and then say you are married in a legal sense. In the legal sense you still have to go to city hall, fill out papers, get a blood test, pay a fee, then have specific people, who are legally allowed to do so, sign it. No ceremony in and of itself replaces that as far as I know.

 

I did not need a blood test to get married. It is my understanding that many places don't require a blood test. I also didn't need to go to city hall. I sent my now husband. I wasn't even geographically nearby when he applied for the license.

 

There are religious traditions or organizations in which a religious marriage/union can be performed that is not recognized by the government. I witnessed some of these when I was a kid, so they're nothing new. Some countries have the tradition of common law marriages, too.

 

The govt gives all sorts of people tax breaks. Older people and the blind can knock off some of their money. People with a mortgage can knock off some. People who donate to charity. And so on. There are deductions for all sorts of stuff the govt is trying to promote in some fashion.

[Desert Rat]

I don't disagree with you on principle. I married my husband because I wanted to be with him and there was no other easier way (he is from another country). And then there are some financial/legal benefits.

 

Beyond that, I don't feel like I "NEED" it to prove he is the one person I want to be with.

 

I'm not religious so it's not a sacrament or anything for me (I grew up in a Catholic family and marriage is considered a holy/religious thing).

 

:iagree: It was so super important to my momma. She eloped and I'm the only girl. Oh my goodness, did she have a blast! She loved helping me pick out my dress and go shopping. She loved being the mother of the bride. She loves my dh like a son. It was a big party! I had 200 people attend, I would say 75% her friends. My dad's a minister (Methodist). He didn't marry us, but said a blessing. My vows were Wiccan. We lit candles. We had a great time.

 

Thinking back on it, I was young and my dh was even younger. We didn't care one way or the other, but it seemed so important to our families that we marry and we knew we'd be together forever anyway. I mean, I'm glad we got married. I love having his last name even if it makes mine sing-songy. I love calling him my "husband" and still get tingly when he introduces me as his "wife". :blush: But, I would have been just as happy if we had lived together and never legally married. My FIL has never married his long-time girlfriend of 25 years. They are fine with that.

 

I really don't see the big deal either way. I do like the health benefits and tax breaks though.

[TravelingChris]

There is lots of evidence that marriage relationships are better for society than live togethers. And whether marriage is beneficial financially depends on the couple's particular circumstances. For example, President Obama has suggested raising taxes for single people making more than 200,000 and married couples making more than 250,000. Obviously, that is a large marriage penalty.

 

ON the other hand, I will be getting social security based on my husband's work history.

 

Yes one another aspect is that while I will get those social security payments after I am 65, because my husband has been working all these years, the taxpayers have never had to pay disability payments to me.I think that will eventually save the taxpayers more money than my social security payments. Oh and for the society, it is very helpful that I don't work and neither do some of the women I know. What do we do? Take care of many of society's needs as volunteers.

[DawnM]

[Bluegoat]

I believe marriage is a sacrament. But I don't think that is divorced from how marriage is dealt with legally in society for everyone.

 

From a religios perspective I would say that in marriage, two individuals form a union in which, in some sense, they become one organism.

 

I think this is functionally what happens in marriage. The most basic functioning unit of the state is the family, not the individual. A bit like in the military where a unit is an organization which can support itself. It may have smaller organizations within it that have important roles, and all those sub-units are what allows it to be self-sufficient, but they function as part of a larger whole, toward a common goal.

 

Now, a family unit may in some cases include only one individual who may play all the roles required. But it is the household, the oikos, that is the fundamental economic unit. And everything that we do that is about how we live is economics.

 

That is why the state, as in the political bodies that govern, has a legitimate interest in marriage. Recognizing marriage is about how the state can recognize a household, and strong marriages will make for stable households, and those are good for the state.

 

Unstable marriages and unstable households are bad for the state - they tend to be an economic liability, just like business partnerships would be.

 

It has always been the case that a household may be made up of people who are not actually married - two brothers for example. Marriage has typically been understood historically to have as a fundamental component producing and raising children. That is seen by the state as particularly important for several reasons. One is that households directed towards raising children are typically very stable - more so say than a business partnership or friendship or maybe even other sorts of relatives.

 

Child-rearing also represents the future of the state. Providing a stable home and upbringing for children has generally considered one of the most important functions of the oikos, and essential to the future success of the state. And historically it has been pretty overwhelmingly thought that an intact household with two parents is the most advantageous arrangement for this. In particular mothers and children have been thought to be vulnerable to the failure of the marriage and dissolution o the household, and that still seems to be the case today.

 

So states or cultures or societies have typically had traditions or laws or whatever that try to strengthen, protect, and promote marriage, because it helps to strengthen the state and make it secure and successful.

[Ipsey]

I have only read the first 4 pages.

 

Here are my thoughts, and I share them because I didn't really see them addressed.

 

The state has an interest in having a fiscally, emotionally, socially healthy and stable population. Marriage has long been an institution that (in best cases) encourages these things. The state is trying to encourage these things. It's protecting its best interest, I think. Which is not to say that unmarried people, etc. aren't as stable or healthy (or more stable and healthy) than married people, just that in terms of creating cohesive family units and therefore societies, marriage is one of the biggies in doing just that.

 

I may be repeating someone else here. . . . But this is it, in a nutshell, for me.

[Ipsey]

So states or cultures or societies have typically had traditions or laws or whatever that try to strengthen, protect, and promote marriage, because it helps to strengthen the state and make it secure and successful.

 

Whoa! We're agreeing on something, Bluegoat! *taking a moment*

[sleeplessnights]

I agree with most everything others have said. The one thing I have to add is that there is no way that I would have become a stay-at-home mom if I didn't have the legal marriage paperwork. If it's that easy to walk away, I wouldn't risk my future earnings for the sake of my family. I would need to have a "fall-back" in case of a spur of the moment break-up.

 

In addition to the covenant before God, I always thought that the purpose of a legal marriage was to protect the family. Before women worked, they need to be taken care of. If the husband died, the wife (widow) had no income potential and needed his pension benefits. The same for the children. Medical benefits are applied to the family for the same reason. Instead of having two completely independent people living together, marriage was constituted so that they could work together as a unit for the benefit of the family. This assumes some risk on the part of the husband & wife, and the legal protections support this union.

 

Obviously times have changed, but I don't know if it's for the better. I believe our society is deteriorating because we value earning money and buying things over a stable, family-centered lifestyle. We don't value the SAHM and the benefits she brings to society. If you hear the stories of kids these days, you'll understand where this is heading.

 

Anyway, I don't care who gets legal "marriage" status & benefits as long as "traditional" marriages are respected and supported. Maybe we have deviated from the original purpose for marriage, but that doesn't mean that it's progress.

[Trish]

I've never been married (and I'm fine with that), so I honestly don't get the fuss one way or the other. Do we "need" legal marriage?

 

Other than financial benefits bestowed by governments and insurance companies, I mean. (Which, as a single mom, do not necessarily seem fair to me whether extended to "domestic partners" or not.)

 

I know traditional people (my extended family included) may view living together out of wedlock as "living in sin," but would having a marriage certificate really change traditional/conservative people's view of a gay couple's living arrangements? I'm thinking not. So that can't be it.

 

What is it, folks? Why is this a hill worth dying on?

 

Not sure who is dying over it.

 

I don't see why there's a rush to extend marriage rights to gay couples and not others with non-traditional arrangements, such as the polyamorous/polygamous cultures. And for that matter, why people need to be considered partners at all. If we want to go in that direction, why not allow people to associate and dis-associate at will, in any numbers they want, and for whatever reason they choose.

 

I don't see gay marriage as being sacramental because it isn't in my denomination, but of course others are free to view it however they want.

[Seeker of Schole]

I would like to thank everyone participating in this conversation for keeping it civil and informative. The other discussions that I have tried to read about this quickly result in the word bigot being used, which is a complete turn-off. I feel much more informed about this issue, and have actually altered my stance.

 

So, thank you.

[Stellalarella]

Do we "need" legal marriage?

 

I believe we, as a society, benefit from the commitment of marriage. I think there is a great benefit to everyone for good marriages. We may not "need" the institution of marriage the way we need air, water, shelter and food, but people do also have a need for giving and receiving love, security, a network to raise children, help during hard times and marriage (and the subsequent family unit that can form around marriage) is a powerful organization to provide those necessary things. If we lived without marriage as an institution, we would be giving up an effective tool that helps people care for one another.

 

 

...

would having a marriage certificate really change traditional/conservative people's view of a gay couple's living arrangements? I'm thinking not. So that can't be it.

 

As I've thought about the difficulties of what happens when a same sex couple raises a child together, splits up, then begins a very nasty fight over the child, I really do think we need a legal institution for these relationships. We need civil unions for the children--for medical compassion--and for every other thing.

Honestly, why don't we just call everyone's "marriage" a civil union (a legal commitment licensed by the state, with legal responsibilities and benefits therein) and let religious organizations sanction the sacrament and call it a marriage.

 

...

What is it, folks? Why is this a hill worth dying on?

Who is dying on the marriage hill? Well, in America, it's mainly just the marriages that are dying up on marriage hill.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Andrea Lowry
changed word

[MamaSheep]

Philosophically and religiously (though please note that this is my PERSONAL point of view and shouldn't necessarily be viewed as the same interpretation held by others of my faith), I view "marriage" as a synergistic union formed between a man and a woman--and perhaps between the divine masculine and the divine feminine in the man and the woman. It's a kind of yin/yang thing in which both differing parts are necessary to form a "living" whole. I understand the "image of God" in which mankind is created to consist of both male and female aspects, and I view marriage between man and woman to be a sort of completion or culmination of their creation, as well as the beginning of a new kind of unit or creation (a family) that is greater than the sum of its parts (the man and the woman). (Although procreation is a part of this, the synergistic female/male, yin/yang aspect is present whether children are born into the union or not.) Undoing that joining, while sometimes necessary, feels like a sort of death to me. I believe that children have a divinely bestowed right to be born into such a union, and to be raised by a good father and a good mother operating as a committed equal partnership under God. I believe that children who are born into other circumstances (to unmarried parents, or to parents in an unstable, dysfunctional families) are disadvantaged in numerous ways, some obvious (such as greater chance of poverty, poor education, abuse, etc.), some much more subtle (identity development, feelings of security, etc.--though I certainly understand that circumstances are not always ideal and that people often have to just do the best they can with what they've got, and I think single parents need support too). I also believe that family units, like many other living things, thrive best in a supportive community and in a hospitable environment, and that society benefits from encouraging the formation and long-term stability of family units. My personal preferences would be for a society which takes both marriage and divorce very seriously, and which provides financial and social advantages to those who work to create and maintain stable, healthy family units. Others here have already pointed out some of the ways stable families benefit society.

 

I also think that knowingly entering into a so-called "marriage" that does not rise to that level, and lacks even the potential to do so (such as a publicity stunt celebrity wedding, a frivolous Vegas wedding between near-strangers just for kicks, a union in which both partners are of the same sex, or a "marriage" between people who have no serious intention to develop a permanent integration), is a of mockery of something holy.

 

However, I also fully recognize and celebrate that I live in a pluralistic society in which there are a variety of beliefs regarding marriage and family, many of which differ rather dramatically from mine. Because I believe it is wrong to force other people to live by my beliefs, and I object to being forced to live by someone else's beliefs, I support laws that protect and support as many people as possible, and provide a broad base of societal stability. I am open to laws that allow other kinds of stabilizing unions (such as committed gay partners) to have similar civil rights and legal supports and advantages to those given to "traditional" marriages. I think separate terminology for the different kinds of unions would help reduce confusion and contention, and I think we should be able, as a society to build up a new institution without tearing down or replacing the old one. I don't think we need to change the age-old definition of "marriage" in order to provide other kinds of family units with protection and support.

 

When laws are instituted that LEGALLY redefine "marriage" as a union between any two non-related consenting adults regardless of gender, then by law it is ILLEGAL to define it in any other way--which makes it illegal for me, and others like me, to hold the above-mentioned philosophical and religious point of view, even as relates to my own marriage. Does it change the relationship between my husband and myself? No. But it retroactively changes the nature of the legal agreement into which we entered without our consent, which is unjust. Would calling homosexual partnerships something other than "marriages" alter the nature of their relationships? I wouldn't think so. Could they not establish their own legal agreements without altering mine? Why can't marriage mean what it's ALWAYS meant in our society, while at the same time other kinds of relationships are recognized and supported as well? Maybe I just want to have my cake and eat it too, but if that can't be worked out, then I have to err on the side that protects me and my family and our rights.

 

Another concern I have is that it might be argued under such a law that not only must individuals conform to the new LEGAL definition of marriage, but so must institutions, including religious institutions, and that both individuals and institutions might be legally penalized for by advocating a personal view of marriage as requiring both the feminine and masculine aspects, and for religiously practicing this perspective as individuals and as groups. For example, persons might be able to sue conservative Christian churches for not allowing homosexual weddings to take place in their facilities, and be awarded legal damages, or be compelled by force to allow their facilities to be used for practices that violate their religious tenets. Ministers might be fined or jailed, or have their legal marriage privileges revoked, for refusing to perform homosexual marriages on the grounds of personal or institutional religious belief. To me, this would be a blatant infringement of the First Amendment, in which the government is forbidden from imposing a state religion (such as a governmentally enforced doctrine regarding the nature of marriage), and in which people are guaranteed the right to free exercise of their religion. And again, I think this could be avoided by using a term other than "marriage" in legally defining other kinds of interpersonal unions.

 

So no, I don't object to laws that give other people security, stability, and protection. But I do still want to protect the kind of security, stability and protection that I enjoy, both maritally, and religiously.

 

And honestly, I don't think that makes me a hate-monger.

[MamaSheep]

I agree with most everything others have said. The one thing I have to add is that there is no way that I would have become a stay-at-home mom if I didn't have the legal marriage paperwork. If it's that easy to walk away, I wouldn't risk my future earnings for the sake of my family. I would need to have a "fall-back" in case of a spur of the moment break-up.

 

In addition to the covenant before God, I always thought that the purpose of a legal marriage was to protect the family. Before women worked, they need to be taken care of. If the husband died, the wife (widow) had no income potential and needed his pension benefits. The same for the children. Medical benefits are applied to the family for the same reason. Instead of having two completely independent people living together, marriage was constituted so that they could work together as a unit for the benefit of the family. This assumes some risk on the part of the husband & wife, and the legal protections support this union.

 

Obviously times have changed, but I don't know if it's for the better. I believe our society is deteriorating because we value earning money and buying things over a stable, family-centered lifestyle. We don't value the SAHM and the benefits she brings to society. If you hear the stories of kids these days, you'll understand where this is heading.

 

Anyway, I don't care who gets legal "marriage" status & benefits as long as "traditional" marriages are respected and supported. Maybe we have deviated from the original purpose for marriage, but that doesn't mean that it's progress.

 

This applies to me too. I have found that having my family be my primary "occupation" has been a huge benefit to all of our family members, and most especially our children. Plus, it is a very rational division of labor between dh and I that allows both of us time and space to pursue our own interests, as well as engage in activities that help to build and solidify our relationship (and keep our little societal unit a contributive force in our community, and not a drain, or worse, a danger). But it has certainly also resulted in my being less employable in other arenas because of how I have chosen to spend my "in-service training" time, and it is comforting to me that if my dh were to break our legal marital agreement and dump me, the government would back up my claims to my half of what WE have built together so that I could get my feet under me again. Not that I think that will happen, but it's nice to know someone's got my back if it did. And that if some jerk ran out on my sister or my friend, or abandoned his children, there is some recourse for them as well.

 

Also, like you I really appreciate the freedom to go out and make a difference on MY terms, as a volunteer (such as with the autism support group I help run, which supports women who couldn't afford to pay for the services) and not have to sell my time to the highest bidder, and then have to operate under THEIR terms. I really think our society could use a lot more educated moms with their hands untied.

 

I believe we, as a society, benefit from the commitment of marriage. I think there is a great benefit to everyone for good marriages. We may not "need" the institution of marriage the way we need air, water, shelter and food, but people do also have a need for giving and receiving love, security, a network to raise children, help during hard times and marriage (and the subsequent family unit that can form around marriage) is a powerful organization to provide those necessary things. If we lived without marriage as an institution, we would be giving up an effective tool that helps people care for one another.

 

 

...

 

As I've thought about the difficulties of what happens when a same sex couple raises a child together, splits up, then begins a very nasty fight over the child, I really do think we need a legal institution for these relationships. We need civil unions for the children--for medical compassion--and for every other thing.

Honestly, why don't we just call everyone's "marriage" a civil union (a legal commitment licensed by the state, with legal responsibilities and benefits therein) and let religious organizations sanction the sacrament and call it a marriage.

 

...

Who is dying on the marriage hill? Well, in America, it's mainly just the marriages that are dying up on marriage hill.

 

I would actually be okay with that as a solution.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

When laws are instituted that LEGALLY redefine "marriage" as a union between any two non-related consenting adults regardless of gender, then by law it is ILLEGAL to define it in any other way--which makes it illegal for me, and others like me, to hold the above-mentioned philosophical and religious point of view, even as relates to my own marriage. Does it change the relationship between my husband and myself? No. But it retroactively changes the nature of the legal agreement into which we entered without our consent, which is unjust.

 

This statement is simply so fundamentally wrong I don't even know where to start.

You do understand that your philosophical and religious views have no standing under the law, correct? Marriage laws don't mention love, synergy, God, or well anything else you used to define marriage. Changing what constitutes the legal definition of marriage doesn't by its nature make your personal views now illegal, and to think so is just...wow. That is out there a bit. I mean way out there.

It also does not change your legal agreement in any, shape or form. You still both consented to marry each other under the law. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter what your personal views are.

 

Would calling homosexual partnerships something other than "marriages" alter the nature of their relationships? I wouldn't think so. Could they not establish their own legal agreements without altering mine? Why can't marriage mean what it's ALWAYS meant in our society, while at the same time other kinds of relationships are recognized and supported as well? Maybe I just want to have my cake and eat it too, but if that can't be worked out, then I have to err on the side that protects me and my family and our rights.

 

Again, what rights would your family be losing? Please list them. I want to know exactly what rights you no longer have if John and Steve down the street can say they are married. BTW, you are aware that John and Steve CAN call themselves married now, they just can't receive the legal benefits?

Do you and your husband lose your ability to receive spousal benefits? Do you lose any custody rights of your children? Inheritance rights? The ability to visit each other in the hospital? To make decisions for the other if one of you becomes incapacitated? :bigear:

 

Another concern I have is that it might be argued under such a law that not only must individuals conform to the new LEGAL definition of marriage, but so must institutions, including religious institutions, and that both individuals and institutions might be legally penalized for by advocating a personal view of marriage as requiring both the feminine and masculine aspects, and for religiously practicing this perspective as individuals and as groups. For example, persons might be able to sue conservative Christian churches for not allowing homosexual weddings to take place in their facilities, and be awarded legal damages, or be compelled by force to allow their facilities to be used for practices that violate their religious tenets. Ministers might be fined or jailed, or have their legal marriage privileges revoked, for refusing to perform homosexual marriages on the grounds of personal or institutional religious belief. To me, this would be a blatant infringement of the First Amendment, in which the government is forbidden from imposing a state religion (such as a governmentally enforced doctrine regarding the nature of marriage), and in which people are guaranteed the right to free exercise of their religion. And again, I think this could be avoided by using a term other than "marriage" in legally defining other kinds of interpersonal unions.

 

Absolutely not in any, way, shape or form. Churches would still have their full 1st Amendment rights to practice as they choose. Are Catholic churches forced to allow a heterosexual Protestant couple to marry in their church? Can a heterosexual couple sue a Baptist church for refusing to endorse their Methodist wedding within their church? So why do you now fear homosexual couples could do so?

 

So no, I don't object to laws that give other people security, stability, and protection. But I do still want to protect the kind of security, stability and protection that I enjoy, both maritally, and religiously.

 

As I stated above, I am eager to hear how the marriage of another affects the security, stability, and protection of your marriage?

 

And honestly, I don't think that makes me a hate-monger.

 

I would agree. However, you are very uneducated on this topic.

[SKL]

Interesting point someone brought up - if marriage is a "civil right" regardless of who's marrying whom, does that mean churches won't be allowed to "discriminate" against gay couples when they decide who gets to be married in their church?

 

I don't think the question is "out there." Not in light of the recent debacle over religious establishments being forced to cover contraceptives in their insurance plans etc.

 

Whatever the law says marriage is or isn't, churches must be free to decide these things based on their religious beliefs.

[SKL]

..., you are very uneducated on this topic.

 

We can agree to disagree without insulting each other.

[Susan of Croton]

Newbie, repeated myself

Edited July 24, 2012 by Susan of Croton
new user and duplicated post.

[Susan of Croton]

People marry to celebrate finding their beloved. They affirm the tradition of beloved ancestors who led the way in doing so. They hope to create a future family to continue civilization. The actual marriage or civil ceremony is a public moment of joy for the couple, and allows non-celebrants to witness the moment of the creation of the family. Families are the atomic unit of culture. I just finished 16 years of bliss with DH.

[MamaSheep]

[/b]This statement is simply so fundamentally wrong I don't even know where to start...You still both consented to marry each other under the law. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter what your personal views are.

 

Of course I understand that the PERSONAL OPINION I expressed is not part of marriage law. And I don't want it to be. I don't think my personal view in that regard should be imposed on other people. However, traditionally marriage law HAS contained the assumption that a marital union was between a man and a woman--because traditionally, that's what "marriage" has meant. I am not the one trying to change the long-standing definition of marriage.

 

Even though John and Steve down the street can say they are married now, their saying so does not take away my right to view marriage as a union that can only exist between a man and a woman, my right to express that point of view, or my right to conduct myself consistently with that point of view. They can say what they want, and I am not legally compelled to agree with them.

 

Creating a law requiring that marriage can ONLY be legally defined as a genderless relationship puts my point of view outside those legal parameters--making it illegal. If the only way to legally define marriage is as a genderless arrangement, then defining it some other way is not legal. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions as to whether, and how this might be enforced--as I am entitled to mine.

 

As you say, my husband and I agreed to be married under the law, nothing more, nothing less--nothing different. The law under which we agreed to be married assumed that marriage meant a union between a man and a woman. Retroactively CHANGING the law under which we were married without our consent is unjust--it's basically saying to us, "Now that you've agreed to abide by the rules, guess what? We're changing the rules!" I get that you don't think that this is a big deal. And you're certainly free not to be bothered by it. But I am still free to have my own feelings about how MY marriage is legally defined--or redefined without my consent. Even if I am helpless to stop it from happening, and even if people mock me, call me names, or insult my intelligence because of it.

 

I have already stated that I would support legislation enabling John and Steve to enter into a similar legal agreement that would allow them legal benefits similar to those currently available to married couples. If all the rights bestowed are the same, how does allowing me to maintain the ORIGINAL definition of my marriage--the one I agreed to when I signed the form--harm John and Steve?

 

As I've said, I think we should be able to build a new "institution" without replacing the old one. I think we should be able to improve the situation of one group without oppressing another. We should be able to find ways that we can co-exist amicably while still allowing for differences of opinion, even on important matters.

 

Absolutely not in any, way, shape or form... However, you are very uneducated on this topic.

 

Or perhaps I just have a different point of view.

 

 

I do understand that you view my concerns as unfounded. But I didn't just pull them out of a hat. Here are some things that make me a little leery about your assertion that I would continue to enjoy the same rights to believe as I choose and to act on those beliefs as I see fit:

 

Bernstein et al v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association: In New Jersey, in 2007, a Methodist group lost its tax-exemption for a property they owned because the group didn't approve a permit for a lesbian couple (who were not members of the group) to use the property for their civil union ceremony. The reason given was that civil unions violated their Methodist doctrine. A state administrative law judge also ruled that the group had violated the state's anti-discrimination law, in that facilities that are open to the public can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. I've not heard if an additional penalty, beyond losing their tax-exemption on the property, was imposed. http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01/13/judge-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case/

 

In 2006, in New Mexico, a wedding photographer, Elain Huguenin, declined to photograph a civil union ceremony between two women because of her personal religious conviction regarding the nature of marriage. She was found by a court to have violated anti-discrimination laws, and ordered to pay the couple thousands of dollars. The case is apparently still under appeal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/elaine-huguenin-photograp_n_1572676.html

 

In Illinois, in 2010, an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism in the Department of Religion at UI lost his teaching position after a student complained that a discussion about homosexuality in the class included the idea that homosexuality was considered by the Catholic Church to be morally wrong. The instructor had been teaching there for 9 years, and had previously been given recognition for his excellent teaching. He did not require students to agree with his position, only explained what the Catholic Church teaches and why. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free

 

In 2010, in Georgia, a student was threatened with dismissal from the counseling program if she didn't alter her views on homosexual relationships, which she stated were rooted in her religious beliefs. She would be allowed to stay if she completed a remedial "re-education program" and changed her beliefs, but she would not be allowed to complete the program if she maintained her religious convictions on the subject. Another student, Julea Ward, was dismissed from the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University because of her religious convictions about homosexual relationships. Both cases seem to still be in litigation. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/26/lawsuit-claims-school-bias-on-christian-views/

 

Also in Georgia, a licensed counselor was fired after she referred a lesbian client to a different counselor (who was available right away) for advice about her romantic relationship. The counselor felt there was a personal conflict because of her strong personal religious beliefs about homosexual relationships, and that she would not be able to do a good job working with the client, so she helped her find a counselor who could help, and with whom the client was very satisfied. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/gay-rights-vs-faithful/?page=all

 

Catholic Charities opted to close down its Boston location (if I remember right?) rather than be forced to violate its religious principles and place children with gay couples (though they weren't preventing other agencies from placing children with gay couples).

 

My concerns are not assuaged when I look at other countries either.

 

In the UK a street preacher was arrested when he told a passerby that he thought homosexuality was a sin. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

 

And an Anglican Bishop was fined for not hiring a gay man as a youth pastor. http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2008/02/english-anglican-bishop-fined-sent-for.html

 

In Sweden a pastor was arrested and spent a month in prison because he preached against homosexual relationships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green (I know...wikipedia. It's late, and I'm tired.)

 

And I gather that Catholic priests in Canada are experiencing some difficulties as well. (Again, late; tired of looking up links).

 

Anyway, yes, I have been paying attention. No, I don't see things the same way you do.

 

I am not "afraid" that the marriage of another will affect the quality of my relationship with my husband, or the legal rights to which we are entitled. I am concerned, however, that the way marriage laws are written and enforced might infringe upon my personal right to believe what I do about marriage, to conduct myself accordingly, and to legally teach my children about my beliefs. And I am concerned about these laws being misused to implement a further eroding of religious freedom for groups as well as for individuals. My concerns are not based on my own imagination, but on actual incidents I have observed taking place in the world around me. These are just some examples.

 

I understand and can appreciate your passion about this. But I can't agree with your position.

Edited July 24, 2012 by MamaSheep

[SKL]

I always used to think the whole "kids benefit from being raised in a strong family" was a good argument for subsidizing married couples. However, my views on that have changed. Here are some thoughts that I feel work against that philosophy:

 

1) Two-parent families, on average, already have financial and social advantages before receiving any subsidies.

 

2) An "incentive" to marry only makes sense if there is a good prospect for marriage. This is not something a single mom can control.

 

3) Even if marriage incentives theoretically work, they don't influence the neediest single-parent families, because those families wouldn't be paying significant taxes anyway.

 

4) For whatever reason, a huge and growing percentage of children are being born out of wedlock and remain in single-parent homes. Apparently the marriage incentives aren't influencing behavior as intended. If this were my personal budget, I'd be redirecting the funds to a more effective program.

 

5) Even where couples are legally married, kids don't always reap the theoretical benefits. The marriage benefits go to couples that are dysfunctional and to those who are separated. They also go to lots of couples who don't and won't have kids. Ironically, they are lost after a divorce, when the kids become needier. (And if that's supposed to be an incentive to stay in a toxic marriage, I don't see that helping the kids, either.)

 

6) If there's money to be spread around, it seems it should go where it can help the most. If kids' needs are the concern, let's focus the resources on needy kids directly. Perhaps giving some more support to single-parent families would mitigate some of the factors that lead to problems for those kids. A little more money for working single moms might enable them to maintain a stable home in a better neighborhood, where the kids could access better schools and be surrounded by better attitudes toward achievement. This would create benefits beyond the family itself.

 

Bottom line is, if a kid is born to a single mom, that's that kid's reality. No amount of tsk-tsking is going to undo that fact. You don't help single-parent kids by giving ice creams to their two-parent counterparts.

 

For the record, I'm a single mom by adoption, my kids are doing fine, and I don't qualify for most tax/social benefits because my income is too high. So this isn't about me. But having experienced single motherhood, I can see what the problems are and aren't. I can also see that the "ideal" of the happy, stable two-parent family is not really the norm - and I don't see any evidence that financial/legal marriage benefits are going to make it the norm. So we ought to get practical.

[MamaSheep]

We can agree to disagree without insulting each other.

 

:iagree: :D

[K&Rs Mom]

I always used to think the whole "kids benefit from being raised in a strong family" was a good argument for subsidizing married couples. However, my views on that have changed. Here are some thoughts that I feel work against that philosophy:

 

1) Two-parent families, on average, already have financial and social advantages before receiving any subsidies.

 

2) An "incentive" to marry only makes sense if there is a good prospect for marriage. This is not something a single mom can control.

 

3) Even if marriage incentives theoretically work, they don't influence the neediest single-parent families, because those families wouldn't be paying significant taxes anyway.

 

That's an interesting point. From what I understand of the "helps" for the very lowest incomes, there's actually a disincentive to marry - making the household officially double-income will cut benefits, while having the exact same people live there as "roommates" won't. So higher income couples have a tax incentive, while lower income couples are discouraged, and the gap grows wider. Regardless of the social implications, the financial setup here really doesn't make any sense.

[Impish]

Interesting point someone brought up - if marriage is a "civil right" regardless of who's marrying whom, does that mean churches won't be allowed to "discriminate" against gay couples when they decide who gets to be married in their church?

 

I don't think the question is "out there." Not in light of the recent debacle over religious establishments being forced to cover contraceptives in their insurance plans etc.

 

Whatever the law says marriage is or isn't, churches must be free to decide these things based on their religious beliefs.

Seems to me that there was a lawsuit involving a church that refused to allow a gay cpl to marry there, or a pastor/priest/whomever that refused to do the ceremony.

 

Same s*x marriage is legal in Canada.

[abacus2]

I see marriage as similar to adoption. It takes two previously unrelated people and makes them family. My DH became not just family, but my closest relative. That is amazing, wonderful and very different from just living together and being committed to our relationship.

[Entropymama]

I didn't read all 10 pages, so I apologize if somebody covered this point already. I'm not sure that the economic and legal aspects are what drive most who oppose gay marriage. From a Christian/church point of view, the reasons are twofold - first, marriage was originally a religious act, not a governmental one. We have legal marriage for many reasons that have already been discussed. The church also believes that homosexual relationships are wrong. (I know there are some now that don't, but I'm speaking for those against gay marriage). For the government to now come in and tell those churches that they must now perform the sacrament they initiated for relationships they don't condone is beyond their rights and hurtful to many. Second - if gay marriage is legalized and churches refuse to marry gay couples, they can face government penalties and censure. (Imagine if a church today refused to marry a mixed race couple!) The government can pull a church's tax-exempt status, as well as the other benefits non-profits enjoy, that often make it possible for small churches to stay open, and to serve their communities.

 

What it comes down to is the feeling that the government is dictating to churches what they can and can't do, even opposed to their beliefs.

 

OTOH, many Christians could give a hoot about civil unions, so it isn't like just because someone is against gay marriage, they hate gay people.

[TranquilMind]

I don't think we need legal, government-sanctioned marriage at all, honestly. I think people who want to have a religious ceremony should do so (and call it whatever they like!) but the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

 

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children, the fruit of a marriage. The point is that children grow up in a stable, two parent home, and this is supposed to be encouraged by the benefits accorded marriage.

 

Fat lot of good it has done for most Americans. But that's the intention.

[TranquilMind]

I'll admit up front that as a Christian, I have mixed feelings about the issue.

 

That said, I think one of the biggest arguments in favor of gay marriage is end of life decisions. A committed couple who has been together many years and have their wishes documented will be overruled in favor of blood relatives. Sometimes, the partner is shut out completely and is not even permitted to be with the partner who is dying. One would think that a medical power of attorney would prevent this situation, but it does not. The wishes of the blood relatives take precedence.

 

A medical power of attorney provides all medical decision-making ability to the holder. A general power of attorney and wills can cover all of the rest. The wishes of blood relatives will not take precedence over the wishes of the current holder of the medical power of attorney (while alive) or the Will, after death, absent extreme circumstances that defy logic (like POA holder tells doctor to let patient die when antibiotics will save him).

[Jenny in Florida]

I haven't read the whole thread and don't have time to at the moment. But I can tell you a few of the reasons why most people I know (of assorted sexual orientations) find marriage important:

 

1. The financial stuff. It's not primary, but it's there.

 

2. Rights and responsibilities regarding children. I can tell you various horror stories about gay and lesbian couples I know who were raising children together before breaking up.

 

3. Rights regarding things like visiting in hospitals, making end-of-life decisions, etc. One of the reasons I wanted to be married to my husband wa that I trusted him to make these decisions for me much more than I did my biological family. It was easy for me, because I happened to want to marry someone of the "right" gender. My heart breaks for people who don't have those options.

 

4. Public acknowledgement or the relationship. There's a certain legitimacy and permance to being married (even in this age of rampant divorce) that is important to many people. I believe that, for those for whom it is important, it should be available.

 

Those are the ones that pop into my mind immediately. None of them may be important to you, but that doesn't mean they aren't important to other people.

[Jenny in Florida]

A medical power of attorney provides all medical decision-making ability to the holder. A general power of attorney and wills can cover all of the rest. The wishes of blood relatives will not take precedence over the wishes of the current holder of the medical power of attorney (while alive) or the Will, after death, absent extreme circumstances that defy logic (like POA holder tells doctor to let patient die when antibiotics will save him).

 

Such things are easily challenged. It happens.

 

And, almost more to the point, why should LGBT folks have to go through those extra steps just because we won't allow them to be legally married? The rest of us never have to worry about it.

[TranquilMind]

I don't see why there's a rush to extend marriage rights to gay couples and not others with non-traditional arrangements, such as the polyamorous/polygamous cultures. And for that matter, why people need to be considered partners at all. If we want to go in that direction, why not allow people to associate and dis-associate at will, in any numbers they want, and for whatever reason they choose.

 

 

This is where we are going, and there will be high taxes associated with each structure, if the federal government has anything to say about it.

[justamouse]

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children, the fruit of a marriage. The point is that children grow up in a stable, two parent home, and this is supposed to be encouraged by the benefits accorded marriage.

 

Fat lot of good it has done for most Americans. But that's the intention.

 

I was just looking up the stats for the benefits of a nuclear family that owns a home--the outcome on the kids are incredible. The children fare 30% better than those that come from a committed relationship. I think that speaks to what Butterfly was talking about in a pp. Non married homes also seem to be a marker for poverty. They account for 62% of all poor children.

 

There's a PDF you can download.

 

That alone is a reason for 'marriage'. Committed relationships is a failed experiment. We are seeing the results of it, and for some reason, we're pushing for even fewer ties.

Edited July 24, 2012 by justamouse

[SKL]

I was just looking up the stats for the benefits of a nuclear family that owns a home--the outcome on the kids are incredible. The children fare 30% better than those that come from a committed relationship. I think that speaks to what Butterfly was talking about in a pp. Non married homes also seem to be a marker for poverty. They account for 62% of all poor children.

 

There's a PDF you can download.

 

That alone is a reason for 'marriage'. Committed relationships is a failed experiment. We are seeing the results of it, and for some reason, we're pushing for even fewer ties.

 

You seem to be assuming that correlation equals causation.

 

Maybe it just proves that the type of people who get married before having kids, and own a home, also happen (on average) to be the type of people who have more money and/or a higher sense of responsibility.

 

I'm the type of person who would do my best to give my kids a stable home with their father if feasible. As it turns out, my kids don't have a father, yet I'm still the same responsible person, and they still have a stable home and all the other goodies that well-cared-for children enjoy. However, I'm sure we can all think of couples who have given marriage a try but didn't exhibit much responsibilty toward their kids. I don't believe marriage makes people responsible, especially not nowadays when it's so easy to walk away via divorce, bankruptcy, etc.

[AdventureMoms]

A medical power of attorney provides all medical decision-making ability to the holder. A general power of attorney and wills can cover all of the rest. The wishes of blood relatives will not take precedence over the wishes of the current holder of the medical power of attorney (while alive) or the Will, after death, absent extreme circumstances that defy logic (like POA holder tells doctor to let patient die when antibiotics will save him).

 

Those are challenged all the time. A marriage certificate is considered much safer than POA. We had POA for a long time, but one of the primary reasons we got married was to strengthen that.

[SKL]

You seem to be assuming that correlation equals causation.

 

Maybe it just proves that the type of people who get married before having kids, and own a home, also happen (on average) to be the type of people who have more money and/or a higher sense of responsibility.

 

I'm the type of person who would do my best to give my kids a stable home with their father if feasible. As it turns out, my kids don't have a father, yet I'm still the same responsible person, and they still have a stable home and all the other goodies that well-cared-for children enjoy. However, I'm sure we can all think of couples who have given marriage a try but didn't exhibit much responsibilty toward their kids. I don't believe marriage makes people responsible, especially not nowadays when it's so easy to walk away via divorce, bankruptcy, etc.

 

Also, it seems to me that the message to be gleaned from this type of research is that you don't put out until you're married, or if you do, you make doubly and triply sure it doesn't leave you pregnant - unless you're fully prepared to raise a child well alone.

[butterflymommy]

Maybe it just proves that the type of people who get married before having kids, and own a home, also happen (on average) to be the type of people who have more money and/or a higher sense of responsibility.

 

They've found that this isn't the case with "live together" relationships. Even when you take into account education, income, and attitudes toward marriage, the living together couples have the same failure rates. Again it's surmised that this is because one party (usually the woman) sees living together as a step toward marriage, while the other (usually the male) see it as a delay tactic against marriage. Even if the relationship was healthy to begin with this conflict is eventually abrasive on the union.

 

Here is the nytimes article mentioned previously, which frames the debate in terms of single VS dual income, which I felt was disingenuous, as the same "marriage benefits" are seen in single income families with SAHPs.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=all

[SKL]

Another thing. Is it really any wonder that kids in two-parent families fare better, when two-parent families are favored so much both socially and economically? That's like saying "the people I gave money to ended up wealthier." Well . . . .

[AdventureMoms]

To answer the OP - I dont think marriage SHOULD be important, honestly, but the way our legal, medical, financial, and insurance systems are set up, it is important. I support a lot of changes to those for the benefit of single parents and cohabitating but unmarried couples of whatever gender. I also only get a small percentage of the legal benefits of marriage, since my marriage is not federally recognized.

 

However in the practical reality of today, my marriage gives me health insurance through my wife. Otherwise I would need to work full time to get health insurance. My marriage ensures that my spouse can make medical and end of life decisions for me if I were incapacitated. If something were to happen to one of us, marriage helps us to have more immediate access to all the family assets, which could be especially important if DW were to die, leaving me with no job, 3 little kids, and a mortgage to try to sort out on my own. If we had more kids, a marriage would give the non-birth mother more rights to the child during the time between the birth of the child and the finalization of the adoption by the non-birth mother (8-10 months usually). We SHOULD be able to do all those things without getting married, but unfortunately it doesn't always work that way.

 

If we had a federally recognized marriage we would also have things like social security benefits and the ability to open an spousal IRA in my name. As a non-employed spouse, this would be a valuable thing for me. But I'd be equally happy with allowing anyone to extend SS benefits to whoever is caring for my kids, for example, or some other more equitable set up. I'd also love to just see the "earned income" requirement for IRA's removed entirely.

[AdventureMoms]

Another thing. Is it really any wonder that kids in two-parent families fare better, when two-parent families are favored so much both socially and economically? That's like saying "the people I gave money to ended up wealthier." Well . . . .

 

:iagree:

[SKL]

They've found that this isn't the case with "live together" relationships. Even when you take into account education, income, and attitudes toward marriage, the living together couples have the same failure rates. Again it's surmised that this is because one party (usually the woman) sees living together as a step toward marriage, while the other (usually the male) see it as a delay tactic against marriage. Even if the relationship was healthy to begin with this conflict is eventually abrasive on the union.

 

Here is the nytimes article mentioned previously, which frames the debate in terms of single VS dual income, which I felt was disingenuous, as the same "marriage benefits" are seen in single income families with SAHPs.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?pagewanted=all

 

I didn't have time to read the whole article (I'm supposed to be working :D), but I noticed that it said that education level seems to be the indicator of who's going to end up heading a stable vs. unstable home.

 

Once again, our culture needs to do a better job of supporting teens / young women in waiting to do what makes babies, until they have the tools to do it right. That isn't done by promising tax breaks x years down the line.

[AdventureMoms]

I didn't read all 10 pages, so I apologize if somebody covered this point already. I'm not sure that the economic and legal aspects are what drive most who oppose gay marriage. From a Christian/church point of view, the reasons are twofold - first, marriage was originally a religious act, not a governmental one. We have legal marriage for many reasons that have already been discussed. The church also believes that homosexual relationships are wrong. (I know there are some now that don't, but I'm speaking for those against gay marriage). For the government to now come in and tell those churches that they must now perform the sacrament they initiated for relationships they don't condone is beyond their rights and hurtful to many. Second - if gay marriage is legalized and churches refuse to marry gay couples, they can face government penalties and censure. (Imagine if a church today refused to marry a mixed race couple!) The government can pull a church's tax-exempt status, as well as the other benefits non-profits enjoy, that often make it possible for small churches to stay open, and to serve their communities.

 

What it comes down to is the feeling that the government is dictating to churches what they can and can't do, even opposed to their beliefs.

 

OTOH, many Christians could give a hoot about civil unions, so it isn't like just because someone is against gay marriage, they hate gay people.

 

Um...marriage has been around for much longer than Christianity, has it not? Marriage exists in many non-Christian places.

[AdventureMoms]

I didn't have time to read the whole article (I'm supposed to be working :D), but I noticed that it said that education level seems to be the indicator of who's going to end up heading a stable vs. unstable home.

 

Once again, our culture needs to do a better job of supporting teens / young women in waiting to do what makes babies, until they have the tools to do it right. That isn't done by promising tax breaks x years down the line.

 

And we also need to do a better job of supporting teens/young women who have made babies to do what they need to do to care for those babies.

[SKL]

And we also need to do a better job of supporting teens/young women who have made babies to do what they need to do to care for those babies.

 

True, but in a way that builds the tools to establish a stable home.

[AdventureMoms]

True, but in a way that builds the tools to establish a stable home.

 

Fair enough, as long as "stable" is not written so narrowly that it can only be defined as "married to the father of your children". I'm aware that that is not your definition, but it does seem to be the definition for some...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Creating a law requiring that marriage can ONLY be legally defined as a genderless relationship puts my point of view outside those legal parameters--making it illegal. If the only way to legally define marriage is as a genderless arrangement, then defining it some other way is not legal. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions as to whether, and how this might be enforced--as I am entitled to mine.

 

You are still not legally compelled to agree with John and Steve's marriage, and your views do not become "illegal". That is simply incorrect and not a matter of opinion.

 

As you say, my husband and I agreed to be married under the law, nothing more, nothing less--nothing different. The law under which we agreed to be married assumed that marriage meant a union between a man and a woman. Retroactively CHANGING the law under which we were married without our consent is unjust--it's basically saying to us, "Now that you've agreed to abide by the rules, guess what? We're changing the rules!" I get that you don't think that this is a big deal. And you're certainly free not to be bothered by it. But I am still free to have my own feelings about how MY marriage is legally defined--or redefined without my consent. Even if I am helpless to stop it from happening, and even if people mock me, call me names, or insult my intelligence because of it.

And the change in NO WAY affects the marriage of you and your husband. You are not harmed or affected by the legal definition of marriage being broadened.

When miscenegation laws were struck down, would you have accepted the argument from those that believed races should not intermarry that their marriages had now been altered against their will?

 

I have already stated that I would support legislation enabling John and Steve to enter into a similar legal agreement that would allow them legal benefits similar to those currently available to married couples. If all the rights bestowed are the same, how does allowing me to maintain the ORIGINAL definition of my marriage--the one I agreed to when I signed the form--harm John and Steve?

You simply don't have the right to claim the word marriage. BTW, if we got what "traditional" marriage is and use the Bible as a our basis, the one man/one woman marriage you support wouldn't be the only form of marriage practiced.

 

I do understand that you view my concerns as unfounded. But I didn't just pull them out of a hat. Here are some things that make me a little leery about your assertion that I would continue to enjoy the same rights to believe as I choose and to act on those beliefs as I see fit:

 

Bernstein et al v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association: In New Jersey, in 2007, a Methodist group lost its tax-exemption for a property they owned because the group didn't approve a permit for a lesbian couple (who were not members of the group) to use the property for their civil union ceremony. The reason given was that civil unions violated their Methodist doctrine. A state administrative law judge also ruled that the group had violated the state's anti-discrimination law, in that facilities that are open to the public can't discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. I've not heard if an additional penalty, beyond losing their tax-exemption on the property, was imposed. http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01/13/judge-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case/

When they opened the facility up as a revenue source they forfeited their 1st Amendment rights by making their facility a public accommodation. Very clear cut, and not related to gay marriage. (Note: this involved civil unions, which you allegedly support.)

 

In 2006, in New Mexico, a wedding photographer, Elain Huguenin, declined to photograph a civil union ceremony between two women because of her personal religious conviction regarding the nature of marriage. She was found by a court to have violated anti-discrimination laws, and ordered to pay the couple thousands of dollars. The case is apparently still under appeal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/elaine-huguenin-photograp_n_1572676.html

A bit greyer, but again a public accommodation ruling. I would be interested in the appeal, as generally personal services are not viewed as public accommodations.

 

In Illinois, in 2010, an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism in the Department of Religion at UI lost his teaching position after a student complained that a discussion about homosexuality in the class included the idea that homosexuality was considered by the Catholic Church to be morally wrong. The instructor had been teaching there for 9 years, and had previously been given recognition for his excellent teaching. He did not require students to agree with his position, only explained what the Catholic Church teaches and why. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free

I have no idea why you think this is related to gay marriage.

 

In 2010, in Georgia, a student was threatened with dismissal from the counseling program if she didn't alter her views on homosexual relationships, which she stated were rooted in her religious beliefs. She would be allowed to stay if she completed a remedial "re-education program" and changed her beliefs, but she would not be allowed to complete the program if she maintained her religious convictions on the subject. Another student, Julea Ward, was dismissed from the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University because of her religious convictions about homosexual relationships. Both cases seem to still be in litigation. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/26/lawsuit-claims-school-bias-on-christian-views/

Depending on the nature of the counseling program, requiring that students be able to work with people of all backgrounds is reasonable and expected.

 

Also in Georgia, a licensed counselor was fired after she referred a lesbian client to a different counselor (who was available right away) for advice about her romantic relationship. The counselor felt there was a personal conflict because of her strong personal religious beliefs about homosexual relationships, and that she would not be able to do a good job working with the client, so she helped her find a counselor who could help, and with whom the client was very satisfied. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/gay-rights-vs-faithful/?page=all

 

Catholic Charities opted to close down its Boston location (if I remember right?) rather than be forced to violate its religious principles and place children with gay couples (though they weren't preventing other agencies from placing children with gay couples).

More of the same. When you offer a service to the public and take public funds (which Catholic Charities did in that case) or work for a private company, you cannot use religious beliefs to justify discrimination or violate company policy.

My concerns are not assuaged when I look at other countries either.

The laws in other nations are not the same as the US, so I have no idea why you would look there.

 

In the UK a street preacher was arrested when he told a passerby that he thought homosexuality was a sin. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

 

And an Anglican Bishop was fined for not hiring a gay man as a youth pastor. http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2008/02/english-anglican-bishop-fined-sent-for.html

 

In Sweden a pastor was arrested and spent a month in prison because he preached against homosexual relationships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85ke_Green (I know...wikipedia. It's late, and I'm tired.)

 

And I gather that Catholic priests in Canada are experiencing some difficulties as well. (Again, late; tired of looking up links).

 

Anyway, yes, I have been paying attention. No, I don't see things the same way you do.

I do not know the ins and outs of the laws in other nations, but I do believe free speech laws and discrimination policies can be quite different. I have no idea why you think they bolster your argument in a discussion about the United States.

 

I am not "afraid" that the marriage of another will affect the quality of my relationship with my husband, or the legal rights to which we are entitled. I am concerned, however, that the way marriage laws are written and enforced might infringe upon my personal right to believe what I do about marriage, to conduct myself accordingly, and to legally teach my children about my beliefs. And I am concerned about these laws being misused to implement a further eroding of religious freedom for groups as well as for individuals. My concerns are not based on my own imagination, but on actual incidents I have observed taking place in the world around me. These are just some examples.

I teach my children that gay marriage should be legal. My personal right to do so has not been infringed by the law saying other wise. Why do you believe your opinions will somehow be deemed illegal when the laws change? Have you seen that occur in states where gay marriage is legal? I noticed you didn't provide any examples from those states.

Your examples were flawed, and again demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of discrimination laws.

 

I also note you never gave an example of how your marriage would be harmed by gay marriage.

[ChristineW]

Another thing. Is it really any wonder that kids in two-parent families fare better, when two-parent families are favored so much both socially and economically? That's like saying "the people I gave money to ended up wealthier." Well . . . .

 

This article in Slate (hardly a bastion of conservatism) seems to indicate otherwise http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.single.html

 

Aside from the inflamatory title, I found it fascinating. We might consider that educated, affluent families who are less likely to get the tax goodies associated with marriage are the least likely to have children out of wedlock.

[Parrothead]

I really think the state should stay completely out of marriage. If people want civil unions, regardless of their orientation, a legal binding contract, then that is awesome. If people want a biblical marriage, no state paper is going to provide that, but it would be fine for people to do...their own business. I am not sure how other religions ( beyond Judeo -Christian ) view marriage :bigear:

 

I know my opinion isn't going to change a thing. I have a biblical marriage with dh because we chose to. We were married legally for our kids, but our commitment to each other is personal, and spiritual.

I've never really thought about the topic at hand. But I think I agree with this. Is the state involved in marriage for any reason beyond making that little bit of money per couple for a marriage license?

 

People should be able to have the type of union that appeals to them. Handfasting, wedding, civil union, or whatever.