Maine legalizes gay marriage

This would create a HUGE religious issue for some religious ceremonies. As an example:
I am LDS (Mormon). I married my wife for what we believe to be eternity in the St Louis Temple. This is considered a sacred event that can only occur within an LDS Temple.The only way a person can enter an LDS Temple is if they meet a lengthy list of stipulations such as being LDS, having a testimony of Jesus Christ, obeying the Word of Wisdom (abstaining from smoking, alcohol, drug abuse, etc), and many other factors.With your proposed concept, I would not have been allowed to legally marry my wife according to my own religious practices, as every worthy adult male member is a part of our lay-clergy.
________________________On another note, I think this whole subject reeks of childish attitudes.If a gay friend of mine wants me to be his best man at his gay wedding, I wouldn't turn him down, despite it being a HUGE disagreement with my religious disposition. I would do this because I acknowledge that our religious beliefs are merely one part of who we are.Too many people have created this US vs THEM mentality within the fundamentalist movements. They feel that somehow being a homosexual dehumanizes the individual. This is why they can justify their horrific (or downright cruel) behavior.I don't think any religion should be forced to provide a religious service in any manner that violates their own religious dispositions. I also don't think that the state should endorse those religious dispositions.If a gay couple wants to wed, let them do it through the state, or a willing religious authority, or from Jean Luke Picard on the Starship Enterprise Command Deck.The fact that people can become so militant about something so silly, in that it really has no effect on their lives at all, baffles me.As a post note:
When I read about the Tyra incident, I was shocked and appalled. The fact that individuals would refuse medical treatment of another human being simply because they thought the person was "icky" is ridiculous. I honestly think those EMTs should be imprisoned for negligent homicide.

Yet not a legally recognized marriage under what you propose. This also completely disregards the foundations of our beliefs in the first place. There is a stark difference between the component in which we are intertwined for eternity, and the actual marriage ceremony. Which would mean I would have to actually get married OUTSIDE the temple. Other than the fact that I would not have been able to legally marry my wife in the Temple. Please give me a list of countries where clergy are not authorized to officiate a marriage.

Both are equally important. Well, this will go into an entirely new topic on what exactly a government is. If a government is merely an organization endorsed by a portion of the "governed" populace, then the mere presence of a religious institution would be the government. This statement alone shows your ignorance of LDS principles in matters of matrimony within the Temple. Of course, that is expected, unless you were a worthy member who has been married in the Temple.Of course this same argument can be used AGAINST same sex marriage as well, in the form of: "Well it's simply a legal contract, would you still not be able to be joined together as one if there were no government?".See, the issue here is this. You are talking about restricting marriage to a purely government administration. This is a totalitarian method if you ask me, and wholly unnecessary. Marriage is a tradition that spans beyond any modern government.The plan I would propose would be the abolishment of any stipulation of gender within current state laws. An example would be:

quote:

---

Marriage is defined as any persons, of legal age, and sound mind, entering into the confines of matrimony. The officiation of any marriage ceremony, that adheres to the aforementioned requirements, can be performed by any individual, so long as proper state endorsed documentation is shown with signed witnesses.

---

It's really that simple. No need for any government interference. No need for government oversight, as if it somehow a superior agent in the process. On top of that, same-sex marriages still happen, and LDS Temple marriages still happen.I feel that in 30 years we will all look back at this whole thing much the same way the general populace looks back at the civil rights movement.

And who is the one defining what is discrimination, and ENSURING that it doesn't happen? Leaving such broad terms to government officials is exactly what a totalitarian government is. I mean, if you can't even govern whom you want to perform your own marriage process, and the state view it as legal, then what is really left?You can have a totalitarian view if you wish. I suppose this does suit your authoritarian predispositions as well. Just remember, if you give your power to another, don't be surprised if he uses it for his own good.As have all things. Whether it has changed to some, doesn't change whether it has changed for others, or that it may not have changed for them at all. See, the thing about the 1st Amendment is that it clearly states congress is not to endorse any religion... but it doesn't say no religion shall xxx. A religion can be it's own government within the united states if it so chooses, so long as it doesn't violate another human's basic rights.
________________
So please tell me how my plan is not a suitable alternative? I understand you don't want the state to authorize individuals to perform marriages who discriminate on whatever basis they choose.Under my suggested act, no one is really state endorsed, as marriage is merely a registration made at the state level, for paperwork or tax purposes (paperwork purposes includes visitation rights, etc).The Government would become completely unbiased as to who marries who, and the individuals that have specific religious practices that require clergy present for religious marriages can do so.My act would allow more freedom, yours would clench that freedom down under government supervision. I don't know about you, but I think we have had enough of the government as a brooding overlord.

How quickly we forget. Link

quote:

---

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

---

quote:

---

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

---

I find it saddening when people say it was a lack of government intervention that caused these failures. The truth of the matter is, these problems are a direct result of the failures of government intervention. Was it the government, or was it great civil rights activists such as Dr. King, and Rosa Parks? (to name a few) Government is always behind, is always wasteful, and is always looking for "what's in it for them".

Since when has a NY Times article been a "Right wing talking point"? I think you are simply accepting an opinion post as fact. (from the same paper no less) What's funny, is I'm not even a Republican or Democrat. In fact, to be completely honest I think both parties are inept, and my 3 year old daughter could do a better job than any of the candidates that were put forth as "presidential material" by either party. So you are saying rape is good, and murder is alright? What... you didn't say, or even infer that? Interesting... Perhaps you should save your capriciousness for your bathroom mirror, and stick to replying to what I actually say. Unless your argument is completely dependent on creating straw-man arguments?When I have been talking about government, it has constantly been in reference to FEDERAL GOV'T. In Gov't 101 you should have learned that Police, Sheriff, Disaster Relief, and education are handled on a Local, or State level. Only when the state can't handle an extreme disaster does the Federal Gov't intervene. (As it so capably did in the case of Katrina)Besides, 'Police Protection' is a joke. They are typically there after-the fact. The only time Police really have any effect is in preventive measures such as pulling over possible drunk/high drivers, and other things. I certainly hope you aren't currently depending on the police to protect you, when you should be quite capable of doing that yourself. I would have thought you intelligent enough to understand the (among others) as my not placing the civil rights movement exclusively to the credit of those two individuals. Let's face it, the government was satisfied with the status quo until the populace spoke up, and put pressure on them. That's how it works. As is dependence on any government. I remember a saying that goes along the lines of "A gov't that can give you everything, can also take it away"

ROFL! There you go again, demonstrating your ignorance Well now, we have gone from my plan which is really the same as it is now, with the exception of removing any gender stipulation, to your plan which increases government oversight... Hmmm, and you describe this as not so different?Why oh why do people so quickly abandon themselves to the shelter of government in hopes it will defend them? What part of "so long as it doesn't violate another human's basic rights" did you not understand?

Perhaps you should read the second part of the article I quoted? LOL! Hmmm, perhaps you should read that article I provided again? If you can't connect the dots on your own, by doing your own research. and going where the evidence leads you, all while leaving your bias at the door, then there is nothing I can do for you. Keep living in your dreamland. You act as thought the federal government spearheaded all those endeavors."How pleasant it must be to live as a slave, never having to think for yourself."
-PompeiiPerhaps the best place for further discussion on this topic would be a new thread?Edited by Michamus, : typo

Hmmm, Probably because it violates the 6th Amendment. What are the first 10 amendments in the US Constitution again? Why the heck would a religious institution want to grant pardons for offenses against the United States? You are certainly reaching. and gives it to... oh that's right, the government. So you now have effectively given the government complete oversight on marriage. It gives no legal power which does not already exist. Please explain what part of the constitution this would violate? I certainly hope you don't try and say the first amendment, because I would probably die from laughter. Now that I think about it, that would be quite ironic that I died from something so harmless as laughter, considering I am almost a month away from coming home. I don't know why people do that, seems you are more qualified than I to answer that.Edited by Michamus, : typo

Let's look at the First Amendment

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

---

"no law respecting an establishment of religion"
This sounds to me (and apparently our judiciary as well) that this is saying congress is not to adopt a specific religion. It says nothing about whether congress can allow rights to all religions without bias toward any.
Now, if the founders had put "Congress shall make no law respecting any religions", then you would have an argument. You are focusing on the wrong part of the First Amendment, the "an establishment of" should be what pops out, not the "religion". And sure, why shouldn't anybody be able to marry anyone else if they claim to be a religion so long as they are adults? Heaven forbid anything should happen that would make Stagamancer uncomfortable. You keep insisting that marriage need be licensed. Why is it necessary marriage be licensed at all? I understand the tax benefits of marriage, and the rights you have for visitation etc... but do you honestly think a hospital would refuse a spouse to be at their loved one's side if there wasn't a government overseer?From what it appears (to me at least) you like things to be nice and neat, in tidy little compartments, with everything defined under control. I would prefer to allow people to be people, and let the government worry about what it was founded for... Tariffs, Managing a Navy, and any inter-state affairs.I really find it ridiculous that some people feel they should be able to tell others how to live. This behavior doesn't seem to limited to just the religious fundamentalist.

This is coming completely off topic. I already offered to continue discussion in a new thread.

We can chalk that up to me being grumpy. I am human after-all I am not saying there should be NO oversight. Notice my definition still included the marriage of one individual to another.Your point is relevant though, in that it could be manipulated for tax benefits in the form of polygamy. There is a sect of FLDS that manipulate the system anyway, without the need of legally being married. They call it "bleeding the beast". If you aren't familiar with it, you should look it up sometime. How would you know what I have and have not realized?* I believe I qualified that question with the word 'spouse'. A 17 year relationship does not qualify as a marriage, just the same as it doesn't qualify as a marriage for a straight couple.
* Hmmm, good point. Since marriage has been a religious rite longer than it has been a legal one, I would say by your own logic, marriage shouldn't be recognized by the state at all.Some great points you have made thus far.Edited by Michamus, : inserted * to *

Non-sequitor. We are discussing federal gov't. A great portion of them did want a weak federal government. In fact, it should be quite obvious from reading the Bill of Rights, that this was their desire. I am pretty sure anyone with even a decent US History education knows about the Federalists. Who the heck are the Demoratic-Republicans? I mean, I've read about the Democratic-Republicans... And I disagree with your simplification of my take on it Edited by Michamus, : fixed last qs tag

ROFL! You make me laugh.

What's left really? You provide ad-hominem, I provide ad-hominem. End of story.Unless you believe that any discussion on US History, and a strong vs weak federal government is relevant to gay rights?