Maine legalizes gay marriage

IMO, the best solution is to copy many other countries (such as France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Japan and Russia) where it is necessary to be married by government authority separately from any religious ceremony, with the state ceremony being the legally binding one.Just as the Catholic church is allowed to deny the eucharist to those who have not participated in the sacraments of baptism, confession, and first communion, so they should be able to deny the sacrament of holy matrimony. This becomes a moot point if you have holy chicken and secular chicken (to continue the metaphor). So yes, the way most marriage laws stand are like your chicken analogy, and I believe this is an unconstitutional situation and we need to stop letting the states decide and make a federal law recognizing same-sex marriage. But once we have that, religions should be able to discriminate when it comes to administering sacraments. Just in the same way that I can currently by a box of communion wafers to snack on while watching a movie (though I don't know why I would, it's like snacking on styrofoam) but the Catholic church does not have to give me a wafer during the sacrament of communion.However, anyone acting as a representative of the government would not be able to discriminate at all.Edited by Stagamancer, : No reason given.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Obviously, you're correct in your criticism. Which why we need to take the power of granting legally binding marriages from the churches and give it solely to the state.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

True, but the state allows religious figures (priests, rabbis, etc) to act on behalf of the state and issue marriage licenses. So, the religious ceremony happens, and the couple signs a state issued certificate. My point is to take away the power of the religious figures to act on behalf of the state.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

True, but being a PUBLIC notary and acting as an agent of the state means they should not be allowed to discriminate. So if they want to discriminate then they should not be allowed to act in that position. Besides I think the point of the thread was more about the businesses involved in marriage, not the churches themselves, which makes my point off topic anyway.Edited by Stagamancer, : redundancy

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Wrong. You can go through the sacrament of marriage, and it is as spiritually binding as you believe it to be. The only difference, is to get a legally binding marriage certificate you would have to have that administered by a judge or some other agent of the state. There would just be an extra step. You're religious rites (and rights) would in no way be infringed. They do this in a bunch of other countries, and it works out just fine.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Which is more important, the legal aspect or the spiritual aspect? Are you saying if you were somewhere with no government to recognize your marriage that a spiritual ceremony alone would not suffice? My point is that there's marriage the sacrament and marriage the legal contract. They don't have to be the same thing, and really aren't. Technically, in an American marriages, two ceremonies are occurring at the same time.

quote:

---

A marriage is usually formalised at a wedding or marriage ceremony. The ceremony may be officiated either by a religious official, by a government official or by a state approved celebrant. In many European and some Latin American countries, any religious ceremony must be held separately from the required civil ceremony. Some countries — such as Belgium, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Romania and Turkey[35] — require that a civil ceremony take place before any religious one. In some countries — notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain — both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) — the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage is not recognised by government under the law.

---

I already did this in a previous post.

quote:

---

In some countries, such as France, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Japan and Russia, it is necessary to be married by government authority separately from any religious ceremony, with the state ceremony being the legally binding one.

---

Those are the ones listed in Wikipedia. The quote above it was also from wikipedia.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Here's my point: from the government's perspective a legally recognized marriage has no religious affiliation. That's why, under the current system in america, there are technically 2 ceremonies occurring during a religious ceremony: the civil and the religious. The state ONLY recognizes the civil and on paper, an LDS marriage is no different from a Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or Scientologist marriage. The civil marriage, being a legal contract is what gives certain legal rights and responsibilities to the spouses, such as joint custody, hospital visitation, etc. If there were no government, then yes, only the religious marriages would stand, and if the religion was against gay marriage, then gays could not get married. I don't think this is right, but it becomes a theological issue, not a legal issue because. So as unromantic as it sounds, gay marriage in america comes down to the state recognizing the right of all it's citizens to form a contract of responsibility between each other regardless of race, creed, or orientation. That's what I'm talking about. And I don't think it's right to allow someone to act as an agent of the state if they are going to be discriminatory. It's not totalitarian, it's to ensure no discrimination. Yes marriage is an old tradition, but it is one that has radically changed, if you don't believe me, do some reading. Your right, I don't know exactly how LDS marriages work, but I assume they still work in the countries where the civil and religious ceremonies are separate, so you should maybe talk to them about how they pull it off. If you can't separate the spiritual from the legal at all, that's a problem in a country that separates church and state.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Says the guy who lets his life be run by an unseen deity because a couple of books told him he should. Agreed, which is why religious ceremonies are not actually binding legally, so that the state and federal governments do not actually endorse any religious ceremonies. That's the same as mine. You would register the marriage with the state during the civil "marriage" (it wouldn't have to be a formal ceremony, just signing the paperwork) and then you get which ever religious figure you want to perform the spiritual ceremony. The state representative would be legally bound to not discriminate based on sex, creed, or race. It's not that hard, and I don't see how that's at all totalitarian. It would basically be the exact same system we have now, except the civil and religious versions of the marriage would be separated. Well, not really. They cannot convict anyone of a crime, nor can, for example, a catholic priest pardon someone by absolving them of their sins. The "government" of the church has no standing in the government of the united states. Why should that be different for marriage? Should catholic confession get people off the hook for their crimes because their sin has been washed away? Or should baptism in an american church confer american citizenship?

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

How is convicting someone of a crime (i said nothing about punishment) or absolving one of a crime taking away basic human rights? How is granting citizenship violating human rights? My point is that churches are not recognized in any way as a government and nothing they do sacrament-wise has any legal standing. So why should marriage be different? My plan in no way increases government oversight, it only takes to power to grant a civil marriage from the clergy. The paperwork involved would not change. You plan gives legal power to religious rites, which is not constitutional. Why oh why do people so quickly abandon themselves to the shelter of God/religion/corporations in hopes it/they will defend them?

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

You're obviously missing my points completely. Most religious sacraments are not legally binding. The only exception is marriage, and that doesn't make sense. There's a difference between marriage the religious rite (which differs from religion to religion) and civil marriage, which is a legal contract (that is the same for all americans who are currently allowed to marry). My points about religions not being able to offer pardons or grant citizenship were to show how ridiculous it would be for religions to be able to do that. Obviously they're not, and it would be crazy to think they should. So why should any religious rite receive recognition by the US government? Recognizing a religious rite and giving it legal standing is endorsing a religion, whether you do it for all religions or not. Plus, how do you define a religion, are you going to let just anybody start marrying anybody else as long as they claim their a religion? It gets way to hairy. If you want something to be a legal contract, you need to leave religion out of it.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Your sardonicism is not conducive to a decent debate, and my comment was not about what makes me comfortable or not. They should, but the legal aspects of that contract demand that some sort of order be kept. Without any oversight at all, what's to prevent people from marrying a whole bunch of people solely for the tax benefits? Yes. It's happened before.Again, what you've failed to realize and address is that there is religious marriage and civil marriage. In the same way that Catholic confession absolves a Catholic of his sins but not his civil crimes, a religious marriage binds two people souls but does not bind them legally. There are no religious rites that have legal standing, why should marriage be different? Edited by Stagamancer, : No reason given.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

That's not using my logic at all, I'm not talking about which came first or which has been around longer. We have an established legal definition of marriage, and we need to keep it separate from religious marriage whether they were once one in the same or not. No, but gay couples get singled out more for this kind of treatment. A gay couple needs the backing of the law more often because I guarantee you that once gay marriage is legal, then people in hospitals will still require they prove it much more often than they will straight couples. It just the nature of prejudice.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely