We need to preserve the sanctity of marriage!

Let's see now, the divorce rate is 50%, meaning half of the so called "proper marriages"fail.

The ultra conservative Governor of Alaska condones the marriage of two children because one is pregnant.

What's wrong with this picture?

If we need numbers to gain our civil rights then maybe we should start having more children.  The next time there's a pro LGBT rally we should tell the constipated minds, "When this rally is over the gay men and lesbian women are going to have a love in and nine months from now you will see the beginning of a population explosion of open minded LGBT children and we'll vote away your rights!"

Can you imagine the reaction? 

QuoteWe need to preserve the sanctity of marriage!

Not, Marriage is a religious belief and should not be used by a secular government. All legal reference to marriage needs to be dropped. They need to replace it with a legal contract that is available to all regardless of gender in fact, gender is a form of discrimination all gender reference by the government needs to be dropped and replaced with citizen.  "We the people" not him or her.

Sort of in the vein in the previous post, I'd give the fundies a choice:

1) Legal marriage is available without regard to the sex of the partners (it's available to same-sex, mixed-sex, and intersex-whateversex alike).
2) There is no legally recognized marriage, and civil unions (or some other contract) is available without regard to the sex of the partners.  Such a union may also be extendable to two people who aren't in a romantic relationship but still want the legal benefits of such a contract.
3) There are no legally recognized marriages, civil unions, or any similar contract available to any coupling of people.

Of course, no particular religious denomination is required to recognize a legal marriage as a religious marriage.  That tradition was around before same-sex marriage was a major topic of discussion.

While marriage is religious in some regards, it's not really exclusive to religions, so I don't particularly mind seeing a contract called "marriage" available.  However, I think necessary to force society (from a legal standpoint) to not differentiate according to the genders of the partners.  As to what is the maximum contract that is available to couples, I'm not really particular as long as the "covenant marriages" come to an end (since those are prone to perpetuate abusive relationships).

Quote from: lisagurl on November 09, 2008, 10:59:04 AM
Marriage is a religious belief and should not be used by a secular government.

Anthropology says marriage is a socio-cultural belief that operates even in societies with no recognized religion or government.

Quotemarriage is a socio-cultural belief

The fact that peoples had partners for thousand of years is true. However the legal term of marriage has been used for a legal contract issued by the government that can be changed to remove the religious or socio-cultural clouds that hang over the word. Let cultural groups have the word and create a new word for the legal contract that does not include gender.

Quote from: Kaelin on November 09, 2008, 01:42:25 PM
However, I think necessary to force society (from a legal standpoint) to not differentiate according to the genders of the partners.

Don't forget, the idea of "force" is where the opposition comes into play. The rightness or wrongness of an issue notwithstanding, the majority of people in this country are not ready yet. It is, afterall, a question of a person's right to marry whom they want. Society at large doesn't view it that way, they see it as a public institution greater than that person's rights. Keep pushing in the political spectrum, and there are victories in some states, but changing federal law right now just isn't going to happen. Give it 10 years. Remember the civil rights movement in the south was supported by the majority of society not living in the south, ergo ultimately successful.
A good example is California, the issue was pushed through the legal system but not the political, where the majority of Californians were opposed to what became law. Sometimes that may be a good thing, but it still isn't fair to enforce a new idea on old values until those values shift for most. Many states are in the process of adding "same-sex marriage bans" to their constitutions. They are doing this because it is a reflection of how most, or at least many, people in that state feel about the issue, and to "protect their rights". Only time and exposure to the idea can change this...that's why I say influence rather than force. Forcing it is a bad thing, and will only backfire and cause this issue to crumble and take years to put back together again.

Quote from: lisagurl on November 09, 2008, 10:59:04 AM
Marriage is a religious belief and should not be used by a secular government.

I disagree. The notion of two people establishing a family before a communal authority does not belong to religion, and if it ever did (in the days when religion and government were indistinguishable), it was recovered  during the revolutions of the XVIII century for secular government. This at least in the western world.

QuoteThe notion of two people establishing a family before a communal authority

That relationship can be called something different other than marriage. Just like a birth certificate is a government document and baptismal certificate is not. 

Quote from: lisagurl on November 15, 2008, 10:54:15 AM

QuoteThe notion of two people establishing a family before a communal authority

That relationship can be called something different other than marriage. Just like a birth certificate is a government document and baptismal certificate is not. 

It definitely can, and it will have to be an intermediate step, if the US is to ever move towards true marriage equality; just because the religious community has appropiated for exclusive use a term that doesn't belong to them, doesn't mean that they should be humored in their excesses though. Why don't churches invent a new term instead if it bothers them so much?
Same-sex couples should call themselves "married" and be known as "married" until civil authority awakes to its responsibility and puts things in black and white. For all intents and purposes of civil life, it's the secular government that arbiters births, marriage, death and taxes, not churches.

(By the way, baptism is an exclusively religious term, marriage is not)

Quote(By the way, baptism is an exclusively religious term, marriage is not

Before the government even started legal documents they both only had the religious stamp. The governments mistake was to use the term in the first place.