I see no reason why, if the marriage contract conveys certain things, that if you want to marry another woman, that you can do that and have a contract. But the thing is, is the religious connotation of marriage that has been going on for thousands of years, I still want to preserve that.

"You probably could have both. You could have both traditional marriage, which I believe in, and then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another."

This quote seems to have caused the Atlanta Journal Constitution to think that Rand Paul is "taking a step toward gay marriage," which isn't really true. As Jacob Sullum noted, he made very similar comments recently on Fox (and even further in the past). What was new, and confusing, was when he told evangelicals in a meeting recently that the rise of gay marriage was part of a "moral crisis" that "allows people to think there would be some sort of other marriage." Wouldn't that be the other form of marriage Paul himself is promoting here?

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/13/rand-p...kw5bg:1jKY

Why is this thread here?

you can file that right here

http://csnbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=540

What's going on? I was in the Spin Room.

Apparently not.

CUSA Conference Talk ≠ Spin Room

........and we've all wondered if Fit knew what the hell was going on. It sure appears he doesn't even know what forum he is on!!!!! Too funny.

This is hilarous. Four threads?

It was an honest mistake. I thought I was in the spin room when I posted all four.

I only look perfect.

Here is my thing on it.

Marriage has been around forever, and for the most part started as a religious event ceremony, that wasn't governed by an actual government. A man and woman were pronounced married by a minister, and bam, that was it. No laws created by the government oversaw it. Then government steps in, and says what does and doesn't constitute marriage.

As a Christian, the US government can't tell me if I am or am not married. That is between me, my minister, my wife, and god. Sure, there are legal perks that come with being married, but in the religious sense, they have nothing to do with it.

So what is the big deal about giving those same government issued benefits to a gay couple. Call it something other than marriage in the government terms, and let the gay couple decide to call it whatever the hell they want to call it. There are plenty of churches and pastors out there that will conduct a ceremony for a gay couple. Problem solved.

(04-15-2015 11:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  Here is my thing on it.

Marriage has been around forever, and for the most part started as a religious event ceremony, that wasn't governed by an actual government. A man and woman were pronounced married by a minister, and bam, that was it. No laws created by the government oversaw it. Then government steps in, and says what does and doesn't constitute marriage.

As a Christian, the US government can't tell me if I am or am not married. That is between me, my minister, my wife, and god. Sure, there are legal perks that come with being married, but in the religious sense, they have nothing to do with it.

So what is the big deal about giving those same government issued benefits to a gay couple. Call it something other than marriage in the government terms, and let the gay couple decide to call it whatever the hell they want to call it. There are plenty of churches and pastors out there that will conduct a ceremony for a gay couple. Problem solved.

I agree with you, except for on one very important topic.

Marriage started as a legal (relatively, inasmuch as events from the early years of history could be called legal) affairs, governing the trade of property to another party (for example dowry's, arranged marriages resulting in diplomatic alliances, so on). Marriage was a tool, and in some countries still is. Religion kind of... latched onto it as a matter of course.

There is no question, that marriage in this day and age is still largely a religious event, but you mentioned yourself of the financial and personal advantages bestowed upon marriage. Those advantages have diminished heavily over the years (in comparison), as people grow more and more successful as independent people rather than conjoined assets.

I totally agree with Rand on this issue. I see no reason why 2 adults can not contract with each other and share each others assets, and benefits under the law. My guess is though...it still would not satisfy the LGBT community. Nothing short of forcing churches to marry them will satisfy these terrorists.

Here is my thing on it.

I'm one of the few who actually believes in the sanctity of marriage because I've been married to the same woman for 22 years by church.

In my opinion, only a church marriage is holy. Not a government marriage.

So go ahead and marry whomever you want by the government for legal reasons or whatever reason you want.

It isn't the same thing.

(04-15-2015 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here is my thing on it.

I'm one of the few who actually believes in the sanctity of marriage because I've been married to the same woman for 22 years by church.

In my opinion, only a church marriage is holy. Not a government marriage.

So go ahead and marry whomever you want by the government for legal reasons or whatever reason you want.

It isn't the same thing.

I think we should separate legal and religious marriage. Same sex marriage in the 21st century seems reasonable in a legal / governmental sense. I'm pretty much of the mind that if people want to make a commitment to each other to intertwine their assets and liabilities that's fine with me and should be acknowledged by authorities. So I agree. Marriage in a religious sense is a different animal all together. The church should determine in what situations they perform marriage ceremonies. Don't they already do that?

My Hindu friends don't really consider my wedding valid because it wasn't performed according to the tenets of their religion. Same goes for my Muslim, Jewish, and Christian friends since my wedding was 100% secular. That being said, they all consider my wife and I as a married couple (as does the local and federal government).

For many people, weddings are a religious ceremony whereby you emerge married. The law doesn't care. My stance on SSM is essentially this: If you emerge from whatever ceremony (if any) with the right paperwork, and want to call yourself married, the law should treat you as married. Whether anyone else will consider your ceremony a "wedding" is completely beyond the scope of what the law should care about. Enjoy the joint tax return.

There already is a separation. This is why, in many states, when a couple co-habitates for a certain amount of time, the law automatically considers them to be "common law" married, making it possible for them to file income taxes jointly, and therby reaping the benefits of an actual married couple. Common law is recognized as unions created by mutual agreement and public behavior. The church (insert specific religion) does not recognize common law marriage.

(04-15-2015 11:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I totally agree with Rand on this issue. I see no reason why 2 adults can not contract with each other and share each others assets, and benefits under the law. My guess is though...it still would not satisfy the LGBT community. Nothing short of forcing churches to marry them will satisfy these terrorists.

So long as 'marriage' does not convey any rights to anyone, I have no problem with everyone having civil unions (and everyone having to go down to the courthouse to fill out paperwork).

But there would be literally tens of thousands of bills that would have to be offered in order to sort this out.

But the GOP isn't really serious about this...because they fought civil unions when they were possible. Now that they're going to lose...only now do they want civil unions.

---

If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

(04-15-2015 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Here is my thing on it.

I'm one of the few who actually believes in the sanctity of marriage because I've been married to the same woman for 22 years by church.

In my opinion, only a church marriage is holy. Not a government marriage.

So go ahead and marry whomever you want by the government for legal reasons or whatever reason you want.

It isn't the same thing.

I generally agree with this AND with Rand's position.

The only problem is that the government has 'hijacked' a word that really only means something in religion... Marriage... so if we call it a civil union, SOME gays claim it's not the same... even if we call ALL 'governmental recognition of that which we heretofore referred to as a marriage' a civil union. I think that's a minority opinion, but it's vocal. I think MOST of them want the 'default contracts' and don't care what it is called.

They aren't major religions but I'm sure there are religions that don't recognize the marriages of other religions for a variety of reasons... like the catholic church (as I understand it) didn't used to recognize second marriages etc.... so even within religion, there can be different definitions of marriage.

So yeah... If you choose to name some person your 'life partner' (of any gender) for governmental/legal purposes.. whether or not you get 'married' in a church... then you have entered into a civil union. If you want to be 'married', then find a church that will marry you... and if you can't, then start your own church for the day and call yourself married anyway if you want.

I realize that isn't what the right wants... but it IS what the government should do.

Frankly, it irritates the hell out of me that so many leftists want to beat moderate Republicans and Libertarians up for trying to walk 'the right' to this position. It's as if they insist that people be hammered over the head for their beliefs or they won't accept the outcome. Given that by definition, 'they' hold minority beliefs themselves, this just astounds me.

(04-15-2015 01:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If a church that is not subsidized or benefited by state policy wants to discriminate fine. No problem there.

Sure Tom... Then we'd simply argue over what constitutes a subsidy or a state policy. If no public road or sewer goes to the church, or no zoning law protects their traffic flows on Sundays or they don't want to 'deduct' the money they send to relief efforts worldwide... or deduct the salaries of their workers from their income as a business expense, No problem. I'm not saying YOU would have a problem... I don't know... but I guarantee that many on the left of this issue still would.

If you're against private organizations and their tax status as a whole, fine. If you're against only those that don't agree with your own opinions, then it's just a useless comment. There are plenty of tax exempt organizations who support things I don't agree with as well, but that isn't my call to make. If Scientology can be a charity, then just about anything can be.

I personally think that people who vote based on social issues more heavily than fiscal issues are idiots, and are missing the bigger picture.

I would give anything to have a strong fiscal conservative with moderate social policies. Banning abortion is stupid. Banning late-trimester abortion is smart. Outlawing gay marriage is stupid. Forcing religious folks to actively participate in said gay marriage is also stupid.

We wouldn't be so damn pissed off at each other if the economy were booming.