In Maryland, battle over same-sex marriage begins (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2024, 02:05:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  In Maryland, battle over same-sex marriage begins (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: In Maryland, battle over same-sex marriage begins  (Read 1291 times)
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« on: February 25, 2010, 03:36:58 AM »

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2010, 03:34:18 AM »

Nearly all government regulation of marriage is in violation of the First Amendment.  Marriage is an inherently religious institution and as such it should be left to those individual institutions who is married and who is not.  The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which religions get their marriages legally recognized and which religions don't.

But here you need to make a distinction between the social construct of marriage and the legal civil contract of marriage.  The social construct (the ceremony) is protected by the 1st amendment.  The civil contract (in my opinion) is not.

False dichotomy.

Uh, no, that's not a false dichotomy. A dichotomy is a distinction between two things that are contradictory - it's only a false dichotomy if they are not actually contradictory.

Inks is separating ceremonial marriage from contractual marriage. While you can do both at the same time, they are not inextricably linked. For example if you get a legal divorce, it might undo the marriage contract, but one's religion might not recognize that as valid and therefore the ceremonial marriage would still stand to the religious organization even though it wouldn't have any legal bearing.

I'm well aware of what Inks was getting at. I'm also aware that, as always, it is a false dichotomy - if marriage is "purely" a religious institution (as most of our resident homophobes argue), then there is, quite simply, no civil component to it. Therefore the only reasonable course of action is that the State immediately ceases its involvement in the affair and turns marriages over to the religious institutions from which they supposedly spring -- including institutions, like the Quakers, which are more than happy to perform gay marriages.

^^^^^^^^^^^

The last response here is what I was trying to get at in my original post.  The so-called "sanctity of marriage" argument implies that marriage is a religious institution which, if it is, then the government has no right to deny people marriage licenses if their union is recognized by their religion.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 10 queries.