Santorum and his views on our privacy rights

[Mike.357]

To be married in a church do you not need a license bought and paid for at some courthouse?

Without it i am pretty sure a marriage holds no legal standing.

Or did i miss your point?

[Fallguy]

If two people want to enter into a legal contract with each other through the government, fine and IMO the government shouldn't restrict who can enter into any such agreement.

If two people want to have their union blessed by a church, then if a church is willing to do it, then by all means do it.

But again IMO neither should affect the other.

[mikegideon]

To be married in a church do you not need a license bought and paid for at some courthouse?

Without it i am pretty sure a marriage holds no legal standing.

Or did i miss your point?

The LAW calls it marriage, and so does the church. But they're two different things. Various clergy persons are licensed to perform the legal part. If you're gay, the legal part can't be valid because the laws in the Bible should trump the laws in the US. Easy Peasy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

To be married in a church do you not need a license bought and paid for at some courthouse?

Without it i am pretty sure a marriage holds no legal standing.

Or did i miss your point?

Yeh, you did. The license is required by the state, not by the church, originally.

The state already has it's nose under the tent and should be kicked out. The ceremony

and the license are severable, or should be. State sanctions of a church proceeding

cause a lot of this debate and it is getting ridiculous.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't like the state telling a church what it can and can't do, just to please

a segment of the population some particular church might have a problem with,

do you?

[Mike.357]

The state should not tell a church it must marry gays. But should recognize it if a church opts to marry them, same as with hetero adults.

The problem is not churches it is the .gov not issuing the license

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There are churches that do. I don't care about that. Some people do and want to use a

law to make their situation forced on others. That's wrong.

"You have the right to be free. I have the right to be free from you." I like that phrase,

don't you? From Wilkow Majority. I heard it the other day. I think it hits the nail on the

head.

[Fallguy]

The state should not tell a church it must marry gays. But should recognize it if a church opts to marry them, same as with hetero adults.

The problem is not churches it is the .gov not issuing the license

I agree the state shouldn't tell a church what to do, but at the same time the state shouldn't have recognize any ceremony as something legal.

It has to cut both ways.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Thanks for keeping this open. I'm actually seeing that reason and logic can gain

ground.

[mikegideon]

There are churches that do. I don't care about that. Some people do and want to use a

law to make their situation forced on others. That's wrong.

"You have the right to be free. I have the right to be free from you." I like that phrase,

don't you? From Wilkow Majority. I heard it the other day. I think it hits the nail on the

head.

But it's not about forcing something on you. I think it's safe to say that the majority doesn't want to flaunt anything. That's not exactly the way to get accepted, and acceptance is a big part of the goal. If you leave religion out of it, there aren't any good arguments against it.

And FWIW, I abosulutely don't believe that any church should be forced to accept it, or to perform the ceremonies.

[Mike.357]

I don't think that phrase applies at all.

I don't get how licensing gay marriage stops you from doing anything

[Mike.357]

To get married in tn do you have to go to city haul or wherever they peddle them, and get a marriage license?

[mikegideon]

To get married in tn do you have to go to city haul or wherever they peddle them, and get a marriage license?

I think so. Both times I did it, we showed up with the license, and handed it to the preacher.

[Fallguy]

To get married in tn do you have to go to city haul or wherever they peddle them, and get a marriage license?

The courthouse...Yes TCA 36-3-103

36-3-103. License required -- County of issuance.

(a) Before being joined in marriage, the parties shall present to the minister or officer a license under the hand of a county clerk in this state, directed to such minister or officer, authorizing the solemnization of a marriage between the parties. Such license shall be valid for thirty (30) days from its issuance by the clerk.

( All existing marriages that occurred before March 24, 1986, are validated if a marriage certificate was signed by the county clerk either from a county in which the female did not reside or from a county where the marriage was not solemnized.

© (1) The county clerk issuing a marriage license is hereby authorized to record and certify any license used to solemnize a marriage that is properly signed by the officiant when such license is returned to the issuing county clerk. The issuing county clerk shall forward the record to the office of vital records to be filed and registered with such office. If a license issued by a county clerk in Tennessee is used to solemnize a marriage outside Tennessee, such marriage and parties, their property and their children shall have the same status as if the marriage were solemnized in this state. A county clerk is prohibited from issuing a license for a marriage that is prohibited in this state.

(2) All existing marriages occurring prior to May 2, 1989, by the authority of a Tennessee license, properly signed and certified by the officiant, are validated and the issuing clerk is authorized to record such license when it is returned to the issuing county clerk and to forward the record to the office of vital records to be filed and registered with such office.

[mikegideon]

All I know is that it's like a tatoo. Pretty easy to get, but hell getting it removed.

[TMF]

So the obvious compromise should be the state should have no authority in regards to what defines "marriage". Other than contractual reasons, the state should have no involvement. In that case any person can enter into a legal contract with another to share finances and personal property as well as be the primary NOK, as well as have rights to half the stuff of the other upon dissolving of said contract. The state should have no visibility on how that relationship is defined... marriage, civil union, life partner, butt buddy. Who cares? I don't care how the state defines my relationship with my wife; it's not their business.

So long as the state is not involved with the religious institution and the religious institution isn't involved with the state. Isn't the answer here obvious?

[Oh Shoot]

So the obvious compromise should be the state should have no authority in regards to what defines "marriage". Other than contractual reasons, the state should have no involvement. In that case any person can enter into a legal contract with another to share finances and personal property as well as be the primary NOK, as well as have rights to half the stuff of the other upon dissolving of said contract. The state should have no visibility on how that relationship is defined... marriage, civil union, life partner, butt buddy. Who cares? I don't care how the state defines my relationship with my wife; it's not their business.

So long as the state is not involved with the religious institution and the religious institution isn't involved with the state. Isn't the answer here obvious?

By "the state" you mean federal government or the individual states?

So how is this any different than a simple "civil union" that would give the same rights and privileges as "marriage" does now, on both state and federal levels? (which would have to be enacted on federal level)

- OS

[Guest lostpass]

I don't like the state telling a church what it can and can't do, just to please

a segment of the population some particular church might have a problem with,

do you?

I haven't seen that or anything close to that with gay marriage. Example? Reference? Citation?

Churches are free to do, mostly, what they want to do except that they can't engage in political speech. cause tax exemption and all.

[TMF]

By "the state" you mean federal government or the individual states?

So how is this any different than a simple "civil union" that would give the same rights and privileges as "marriage" does now, on both state and federal levels? (which would have to be enacted on federal level)

- OS

"State" meaning both Fed and State government.

As far as the civil union goes, that was pretty much what I was saying. I don't care what the government calls it because that means diddly squat to me and shouldn't mean anything to anyone else. To me "marriage" is a personal thing and the government's definition is merely for tax/legal purposes. If they decide to call it something else in order to open it up for gays then it doesn't affect me one bit. I don't care if the government decides to call my legal marriage something different than what they call it now. I don't need a tax stamp from the government to give meaning to the relationship with my wife. The only advantage of having that paper is for tax purposes or if my wife decides to take half my stuff. That peice of paper that legally defined my marriage to my wife changed our relationship zero... what changed our relationship were the vows we took.

If gays get the same tax benefits or legal coverage by getting married or having a civil union, what are the negative ramifications (from a government standpoint, not religious inspired morality)?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I haven't seen that or anything close to that with gay marriage. Example? Reference? Citation?

Churches are free to do, mostly, what they want to do except that they can't engage in political speech. cause tax exemption and all.

What' is this thread about? I can't help what you have or haven't seen. It appears obvious, at least to me,

that this is a concern that many share. No one argues that churches are free to do those things, now. The

concern would be if a law is passed that might alter that.

Hey, for what it's worth, I'm no expert on this subject. Maybe you are. Those are my views and you can take them

or leave them. Good enough?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So the obvious compromise should be the state should have no authority in regards to what defines "marriage". Other than contractual reasons, the state should have no involvement. In that case any person can enter into a legal contract with another to share finances and personal property as well as be the primary NOK, as well as have rights to half the stuff of the other upon dissolving of said contract. The state should have no visibility on how that relationship is defined... marriage, civil union, life partner, butt buddy. Who cares? I don't care how the state defines my relationship with my wife; it's not their business.

So long as the state is not involved with the religious institution and the religious institution isn't involved with the state. Isn't the answer here obvious?

What's to compromise?

[TMF]

No one argues that churches are free to do those things, now. The

concern would be if a law is passed that might alter that.

One has nothing to do with the other. Not that I don't think your concern is valid, because I think it is, but we should not restrict a couple's contractual validity based on what an activist group MIGHT do. I don't put it past the ACLU to start suing churches to force them to perform gay marriage ceremonies. When they try that they will be wrong, but that shouldn't restrict gays from being able to enter into a civil union contract between two consenting adults and have the same legal rights as a hetero couple. I still don't see what I, you or anyone stand to lose if they are recognized by the government.

It's like a liberal saying "we shouldn't let the populace have HCPs because of what they MIGHT do". The "might" or even "will" factor should have nothing to do with it.

What's to compromise?

The government's involvement in the contractual relationship between two consenting adults.

[G27]

"State" meaning both Fed and State government.

As far as the civil union goes, that was pretty much what I was saying. I don't care what the government calls it because that means diddly squat to me and shouldn't mean anything to anyone else. To me "marriage" is a personal thing and the government's definition is merely for tax/legal purposes. If they decide to call it something else in order to open it up for gays then it doesn't affect me one bit. I don't care if the government decides to call my legal marriage something different than what they call it now. I don't need a tax stamp from the government to give meaning to the relationship with my wife. The only advantage of having that paper is for tax purposes or if my wife decides to take half my stuff. That peice of paper that legally defined my marriage to my wife changed our relationship zero... what changed our relationship were the vows we took.

If gays get the same tax benefits or legal coverage by getting married or having a civil union, what are the negative ramifications (from a government standpoint, not religious inspired morality)?

Well, it's deeper than that wrt who gets custody of a child when a parent dies, etc. Not to mention that if one state recognizes a gay civil union, but another state does not, what happens if they move to the other state (work, whatever)? I'm NOT a federal power guy (at all) - I'm a strict constitutionalist - but there's a lot more to civil unions than just tax breaks and who gets what in divorce proceedings.

I don't have an answer for this, just pointing out the complexity of the issue.

[TMF]

I don't have an answer for this, just pointing out the complexity of the issue.

Yeah, I'm with you. I don't like the Fed getting anymore involved than it already is in regards to States' rights, but this is nothing more than a contract. Why should a contract between two gays (or hot lesbians) be any different than a contract entered into by two people of the opposite sex? Really, any homosexuals can do this with a halfway decent lawyer in any state, the only difference is the state not calling it what it is. The way I see it is the "marriage contract" that the government and our courts recognize is a standardized thing for couples of opposite sex. In order for gays to do the same thing they have to jump through a lot more hoops to get there, which is discriminatory, in my opinion.

I would like it if the government would stay the hell out of my marriage... but that's a different subject altogether. I do recognize the importance of their involvement, however, for the reasons you stated above. If gays want to do the same thing it would make it a lot more streamlined in the courts if they equated "civil unions" to "marriages" in legal terms, or, to make it easy, just called them all (hetero and gays) civil unions; once again, I don't care what the government calls my relationship with my wife. It's just words and it's none of their damn business.

Edited January 12, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think most of us agree this could be a very complicated issue. The real problem I keep saying

and one or two don't see it, is the heavy hand of government doing to an institution only damage

and playing social engineering. Kind of Brave New Worldish stuff in the early phase.

I don't have anything against gays, but they can work their stuff out some other way.