<p>hyperJulie, the experience which your mom’s friend had when his spouse died is indeed very sad, and one of the big reasons why this whole issue needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, his being confined to a hospital bed didn’t make any difference – even if he had been there, he would have had no rights whatsoever. Also, if there were end-of-life decisions to be made, the spouse’s family would have made them, not your mom’s friend. It’s tragic.</p>
<p>Well, thank you Bclintock. I never grudged the taxes I paid to NYC, since I was using the city. I did not feel as positively towards the state of NY. I hope they now reimburse the city for the taxes collected from those who work there…</p>
<p>Too late to edit…let me add that situations similar to that which Julie describes were all too common during the height of the AIDS epidemic. People were thrown out of their rent-controlled apartments, people were invaded by relatives who took assets, people were excluded from end of life decisions, and on and on. I think it really brought home the need for a legal status for gay couples.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that some people support renaming all marriages civil unions for government recognition purposes, but appear to never consider renaming marriages for church recognition purposes as religious unions and leaving marriage to the government. Even as an ordained minister, I don’t consider the religious recognition of a marriage to be any concern to people outside of that church or other religious venue; the civil recognition is the one more people are concerned about.</p>
<p>Back in the late 80s, my parents were prohibited from marrying in most churches because my father had been married previously. Why they didn’t just have the ceremony at an event hall I don’t know. My great-grandfather was the officiant. </p>
<p>Also, being in a same-sex marriage does not necessarily mean that one has any attraction to the same sex. Plenty of people get married to people they don’t like or aren’t attracted to, have sexless or open marriages, or just marry for the tax benefits. I feel that two men in a bromance or two women who are girlfriends in the platonic sense should be able to get married if they so desire.</p>
<p>Adding to the list of things young people can’t fathom, I can’t fathom there being a time without no-fault divorce.</p>
<p>Roman: Illegitimacy is a major predictor of several of the greatest costs to society, poverty, crime and lower educational attainment. It is my opinion that this is the only reason government has in recognizing marriage at all. Why we choose to get married is really not one of governments concerns. If the issue is benefits, fine, define under what conditions you choose to allow benefits and give them. However, let churches determine what a marriage is for their purposes and keep government out of their decisions. The current situation puts the first amendment and the 14 in conflict if marriage is defined by the benefits one receives. As for the definition of legitimacy it is what it is. I know many who are and have adopted and I respect and encourage ALL who choose to do so but that changes neither the affects of illegitimacy on society or the definition.</p>
<p>No. Not illegitimacy. It’s not having two parents that is a major predictor. The parents do NOT have to be your biological parents. </p>
<p>You don’t have to be in a same sex relationship to not want the definition of marriage to be left up to churches.</p>
<p>On a theoretical level, I’d be fine with all having civil unions or government getting out of it all together. On a practical level, that will never happen because there would be too much outrage. Because of that,religion shouldn’t be involved in the legal status of marriage. They can still choose to recognize or not whatever marriages they like but that should have no bearing on legality.</p>
<p>“Even as an ordained minister, I don’t consider the religious recognition of a marriage to be any concern to people outside of that church or other religious venue; the civil recognition is the one more people are concerned about.”</p>
<p>I think this summarizes the dichotomy nicely. Social marriage is what people choose it to be. DOMA was solely concerned with Legal issues surrounding marriage.</p>
<p>
This is what I think, too. Some denominations refuse to marry couples for all sorts of reasons, some very personal like not believing that they are in the right frame of mind or are truly committed. I fully, vehemently support the right of religious faiths to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. However, that should have no bearing on the legality of the marriage. If you want to marry the crazy psycho witch from hell who is clearly all about stealing your money and murdering your dog, you should be able to do so, but Pastor Jane shouldn’t have to bless that farce.</p>
<p>I agree with Sea_tide and have been arguing the same thing for years: “marriage” in the United States is a secular, civil law concept that has nothing to do with religion. When elected representatives or other government officials, including Supreme Court justices, start talking about the Biblical or religious concept of marriage, they have jumped over the wall that separates church and state. If religious people believe that allowing same sex civil marriage has “tainted” their concept of marriage, then let them call their religious concept of marriage something else, like “religious union.” (See, e.g.,
[Urban</a> Dictionary: religious union](<a href=“http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=religious%20union]Urban”>Urban Dictionary: religious union))</p>
<p>
Or let them call it whatever they like, conduct it how they see fit, and have that be completely separate from the legal marriage status conferred by the state. They can call it marriage, they can call it Bob for all anyone outside that faith should care, but they should be left completely alone to set their own parameters. My daughter couldn’t get married in a Catholic church because she wouldn’t agree to certain of their requirements. But that’s ok because she’s not Catholic so she doesn’t care. If the goal is marriage equality, which I have supported all of my adult life, then everyone has to accept that there will be some religious houses which will not marry you, whether you are gay or straight, for their own reasons and you should accept that. However, if the goal is to force religions to abandon their teachings, whatever they are, then that is a whole other agenda entirely.</p>
<p>Exactly. Legally, a marriage is a contract. Religiously, it is a covenant. You can do the first without the second. Back when marriages were arranged, they were usually done so strategically, with business or land ownership purposes in mind and had nothing to do with love or religion, really.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on this, and your quote yesterday, you seem to be saying that children who are adopted, even by heterosexual married couples, are “illegitimate.” Is that an accurate statement of your view?</p>
<p>BTW, I can’t believe that someone is still using that word in the year 2013.</p>
<p>This thread has raised the interesting question of which will last longer: prejudice against gays, or prejudice against New Jersey.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just want to say I think that was an excellent post that bears repeating.</p>
<p>
Very well put. </p>
<p>
I got a good chuckle out of that one.</p>
<p>Every legal pairing of two consenting adults is a civil union. That’s why you need a license, and why even common law unions require some sort of documentation before spousal benefits/privileges can be conferred. In my mind, what makes a civil union into a marriage is the covenant you enter into with a church of your choosing, as 2016BarnardMom mentioned earlier. Some churches will choose to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, other will not. The government cannot and should not force churches to perform the ceremonies if they choose not to, and people should choose a church that fits their beliefs. To each their own.</p>
<p>As several mentioned upthread, many people are caught up in defining what the “purpose” of marriage is. I personally do believe that the purpose of marriage is to form the basis of a loving, stable family home within which two parents can raise responsible, well-adjusted, well-loved children to propagate our society. While same-sex couples can never BIOLOGICALLY create children without some sort of assistance there are many hetero couples who, by choice or by chance, are not blessed with children either or who require scientific assistance.</p>
<p>The bottom line to me is that over the last several decades we’ve seen respect for the institution of marriage decay markedly, and the importance of a stable family unit has been minimized and trivialized. I don’t care whether the parents are same-sex or opposite sex. I don’t care whether the children are biologically produced or adopted. What I care about is seeing two consenting adults enter into a long-term loving relationship and, if they choose to, raise children to become productive members of society. I support anyone who respects the institution of marriage and embraces the responsibility of properly parenting children, regardless of X and Y chromosome count.</p>
<p>
I agree with you but I would also add the responsibility to each other. If I am legally entitled to certain things like being present in the hospital and making decisions, then I have also chosen to be committed to being at the hospital and making decisions and caring for my spouse so that society doesn’t have to do so. This is very much in society’s best interest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The real reason for government recognition of marriage is that other laws give specific rights and duties to married spouses. Government recognition of marriage, or some marriages but not others, does not really do anything to prevent what you are worried about here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the government should not PREVENT churches from performing ceremonies either, which is precisely what they have been doing. Two ministers from my denomination were actually arrested for performing same sex marriages in NY.</p>