KatieSuddard wrote: Let's face it, if we really had a separation of church and state then a lot of our "hot issues" would go away. Birth control, abortion and same sex marriage? Poof, not a problem because they come down to an issue individual freedoms without being gummed up by people saying it "goes against their religion." Newsflash: If it goes against your religion- DON'T DO IT. Hate birth control? Don't use it. Hate abortion? Don't get one. Disagree with same sex marriage? Don't marry someone who is the same sex as you. This isn't rocket science.

Nope never gonna happen, to much logic and common sense in that argument. You must agree with one side or the other or both sides hate you. As a Republican that really doesn't give a E36 M3 about gay marriage and is against the govt regulating something that should be a personal freedom I get hate from both sides.

In reply to KatieSuddard:

As stated, I completely agree with you.

However, I don't think that was ever the issue.

It's more like, if someone has a religious issue with something, do we have the right to force them to enable other people to do it?

So, for example, the recent ruling for Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with the owner's desire to use or not use contraceptives, it had to do with forcing them to pay for other people using contraceptives.

The abortion issue has a lot to do with forcing people who do not believe in abortion to pay for it via their tax dollars being given to organizations like planned parenthood (and some of them also would rather not see babies get killed...)

Similarly, the cost of gay marriage will be shared by all.

While the behaviors are not rocket science in of themselves, it gets a bit more complex when those who WANT a particular freedom (or vice, I guess depending on your view) seek to force others with religious convictions to pay for and enable the actions.

Back on subject- no difference. Semantics. It would be much easier if there were no government endorsed marriages.

In reply to z31maniac:

Who said anything about Abrahamic religions??

Whoa, get back on the rails people...this was just a thought exercise. Based on current law, if a state says "Same Sex" marriage is legal, then there has to be proof of cohabitation and mixed finances etc (just like people who marry foreigners). But if they say GAY marriage is legal, then that kinda requires another level of commitment and proof doesn't it? All I am saying is that laws usually require terminology to be pretty specific. The media used interchangeable terms, I wonder what the law says.

In other news, available for a limited time and they are AWESOME!

SVreX wrote: While the behaviors are not rocket science in of themselves, it gets a bit more complex when those who WANT a particular freedom (or vice, I guess depending on your view) seek to force others with religious convictions to pay for and enable the actions.

Speaking specifically on the issue of same-sex marriage, I must respectfully disagree on your usage of the word 'action' to describe something, that for all intents and purposes, should be an inalienable right, as is afforded to heterosexual couples. Furthermore, I don't quite agree that those of us in favor of marriage equality are forcing religious people to do anything. They are not the primary focus.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: Yeah, but that seems to piss off the bible thumpin folks, so if "marriage" is such a religious term, what's it doing in government? Should just be civil unions for all IMHO. Separation of church and state and all that.

I say, they get to go pound sand.

They were not concerned that Marriage was government term for the last 200 (++++) years. But now that it's being used in a way that doesn't conform to their standards, they are upset! I'm sorry, you don't get it both ways.

P.S. I have no issue with calling what is now legal marriage, legal unions. It just a legal contract filled with rights, why make it sound like it's more they it is anyway? The fact that they don't just want to do that says a lot.

In reply to Richard Nixon:

Sounds like a semantics argument.

I'll pass.

FWIW, I am in support of equal rights for both hetero and gay, but do not think there was ever an inalienable right to marriage at the federal level for anyone. The only thing the federal government ever did was recognize and protect marriages created by the states.

Carry on.

mad_machine wrote: Personally I would like to know how many marriages are really just for the sake of convenience.. gay, straight, or from across a country's borders

Well, if you look at marraige from the point of convenience or politics, arranged marraiges have been happening for centuries. Sometimes the couple involved first meet when standing at the alter.

aircooled wrote: I'm sorry, you don't get it both ways.

SVreX wrote: Similarly, the cost of gay marriage will be shared by all.

Frequently, being a part of a society is having your taxes go to support things that you do not believe and agree in, because society as a whole has decided it is a benefit. The trade off is that you probably get the benefit of programs that someone else does not totally agree with.

I was going to argue why the "cost" of gay marriage (I presume from lower join tax rates) is totally a non-issue. But... it doesn't matter. We have already decided for many good reasons to grant incentives to stable marriages. You can not offer those benefits to one group, and not offer them to all groups.

Here's a quick litmus test: take any arguments and replace "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage". Does the argument now sound like b.s. racism? Than it's almost certainly still b.s.

I heard that the two guys on Two and a Half Men are going to get married so that they can adopt a child. should be wild.

Beer Baron wrote: Frequently, being a part of a society is having your taxes go to support things that you do not believe and agree in, because society as a whole has decided it is a benefit. The trade off is that you probably get the benefit of programs that someone else does not totally agree with.

This, my tax dollars go to spying on american citizens, militarizing the police, perpetuating the prison industrial complex, bombing brown people, etc. etc. things that I intensely dislike, but you don't hear me screaming about it on Faux News.

Beer Baron wrote: Here's a quick litmus test: take any arguments and replace "gay marriage" with "interracial marriage". Does the argument now sound like b.s. racism? Than it's almost certainly still b.s.

I like that.

pinchvalve wrote: Whoa, get back on the rails people...this was just a thought exercise. Based on current law, if a state says "Same Sex" marriage is legal, then there has to be proof of cohabitation and mixed finances etc (just like people who marry foreigners). But if they say GAY marriage is legal, then that kinda requires another level of commitment and proof doesn't it? All I am saying is that laws usually require terminology to be pretty specific. The media used interchangeable terms, I wonder what the law says. In other news, available for a limited time and they are AWESOME!

since when do you have to prove that it's a "real" marriage unless there is immigration involved?

SVreX wrote: In reply to Richard Nixon: Sounds like a semantics argument. I'll pass. FWIW, I am in support of equal rights for both hetero and gay, but do not think there was ever an inalienable right to marriage at the federal level for anyone. The only thing the federal government ever did was recognize and protect marriages created by the states. Carry on.

Except for that "Equal protection under the law" thing. If I can marry a woman, so can everybody. Including Sally. "Separate but equal" didn't work out so well in our not too distant history.

The hobby lobby thing is weird to me because the CORPORATE religious belief is now being used to deny a legally required benefit to individuals that work for the company. I did not realize that the constitution protected the rights of made up entity over that of individual citizens.

pinchvalve wrote: Whoa, get back on the rails people...this was just a thought exercise. Based on current law, if a state says "Same Sex" marriage is legal, then there has to be proof of cohabitation and mixed finances etc (just like people who marry foreigners). But if they say GAY marriage is legal, then that kinda requires another level of commitment and proof doesn't it? All I am saying is that laws usually require terminology to be pretty specific. The media used interchangeable terms, I wonder what the law says. In other news, available for a limited time and they are AWESOME!

Try em in the freezer.

SVreX wrote: In reply to KatieSuddard: As stated, I completely agree with you. However, I don't think that was ever the issue. It's more like, if someone has a religious issue with something, do we have the right to force them to enable other people to do it? So, for example, the recent ruling for Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with the owner's desire to use or not use contraceptives, it had to do with forcing them to pay for other people using contraceptives. The abortion issue has a lot to do with forcing people who do not believe in abortion to pay for it via their tax dollars being given to organizations like planned parenthood (and some of them also would rather not see babies get killed...) Similarly, the cost of gay marriage will be shared by all. While the behaviors are not rocket science in of themselves, it gets a bit more complex when those who WANT a particular freedom (or vice, I guess depending on your view) seek to force others with religious convictions to pay for and enable the actions. Back on subject- no difference. Semantics. It would be much easier if there were no government endorsed marriages.

Just to clarify here: If we follow the Hobby Lobby ruling to a logical conclusion, a Quaker/conscientious objector/buddhist/hindu should be able to reduce their tax bill by the percentage that goes to fund the military. If a corpo-person doesn't have to pay any money to fund a healthcare plan that includes contraceptives he/she/it doesn't like then people who don't want to kill Iraqi/afghan/'insert country here' children/parents/anybody should receive the same treatment with regard to taxes? Otherwise, isn't corpo-person receiving favored status versus actual person?

If people opposed to abortion are able to reduce their tax burden by the amount that would go to planned parenthood, and Hobby Lobby is allowed to reduce their healthcare expenses because they sincerely believe 'whatever they believe,' why should anybody who 'sincerely believes' that war might result in death have to pay taxes that support war?

To keep this GRM, if I sincerely believe that carbon monoxide is healthy because my religion told me so, am I legally able to remove the emissions equipment from my vehicle and sell it? Remember that I sincerely believe it and my religion is centered around Carbon Monoxide. It is the molecule that we worship.

Essentially I support eliminating marriage as a state supported term and renaming it civil unions as long as any existing marriage is also included in this massive renaming project including having your existing 'marriage license' returned and reprinted as a 'civil union license.' Anything else would be a 'separate but equal' situation.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Richard Nixon: Sounds like a semantics argument. I'll pass. FWIW, I am in support of equal rights for both hetero and gay, but do not think there was ever an inalienable right to marriage at the federal level for anyone. The only thing the federal government ever did was recognize and protect marriages created by the states. Carry on.

Actually, after the civil war the federal government required all states to recognize the status conferred by other states such as 'free black men.' I think your statement is spot on as long as you can accept the replacement of the word marriage with 'interracial marriage' or even 'slavery' as both were either prohibited or recognized depending upon your personal religious views. Personally I don't want our laws to be crafted to grant exemptions based upon a sincere belief otherwise my 'sincere belief' is that Santa Claus should pay my taxes every year until I die. Since it is my 'sincere belief' you cannot deny me my right of the free practice of my religion based upon Santa Claus.

Is this not ridiculous. Any person or even corpo-person is allowed to argue that their religion prohibits 'insert anything here' and get official recognition from the supreme court. What if my 'sincere belief' is that any Honda made past 1992 is a blasphemy. Since Honda makes Accords in Ohio and they receive a tax deferment for doing so, should I have to pay that tax money that goes towards Honda's Ohio tax deferment?

this too will pass. more and more laws are being struck down by the courts (which are rather conservative at the moment) and in the near future the idea that you cannot marry two men or two women together will seem as odd as saying a marriage across the race boundary is illegal. It has only been 50 years since that one was ruled unconstitutional

mattm wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to KatieSuddard: As stated, I completely agree with you. However, I don't think that was ever the issue. It's more like, if someone has a religious issue with something, do we have the right to force them to enable other people to do it? So, for example, the recent ruling for Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with the owner's desire to use or not use contraceptives, it had to do with forcing them to pay for other people using contraceptives. The abortion issue has a lot to do with forcing people who do not believe in abortion to pay for it via their tax dollars being given to organizations like planned parenthood (and some of them also would rather not see babies get killed...) Similarly, the cost of gay marriage will be shared by all. While the behaviors are not rocket science in of themselves, it gets a bit more complex when those who WANT a particular freedom (or vice, I guess depending on your view) seek to force others with religious convictions to pay for and enable the actions. Back on subject- no difference. Semantics. It would be much easier if there were no government endorsed marriages.

Just to clarify here: If we follow the Hobby Lobby ruling to a logical conclusion, a Quaker/conscientious objector/buddhist/hindu should be able to reduce their tax bill by the percentage that goes to fund the military. If a corpo-person doesn't have to pay any money to fund a healthcare plan that includes contraceptives he/she/it doesn't like then people who don't want to kill Iraqi/afghan/'insert country here' children/parents/anybody should receive the same treatment with regard to taxes? Otherwise, isn't corpo-person receiving favored status versus actual person? If people opposed to abortion are able to reduce their tax burden by the amount that would go to planned parenthood, and Hobby Lobby is allowed to reduce their healthcare expenses because they sincerely believe 'whatever they believe,' why should anybody who 'sincerely believes' that war might result in death have to pay taxes that support war? To keep this GRM, if I sincerely believe that carbon monoxide is healthy because my religion told me so, am I legally able to remove the emissions equipment from my vehicle and sell it? Remember that I sincerely believe it and my religion is centered around Carbon Monoxide. It is the molecule that we worship. Essentially I support eliminating marriage as a state supported term and renaming it civil unions as long as any existing marriage is also included in this massive renaming project including having your existing 'marriage license' returned and reprinted as a 'civil union license.' Anything else would be a 'separate but equal' situation.

the Amish get some sort of exemptions involving the military, but i can't remember if they get a lower tax bill or if it's just that they don't have to register with Selective Service for the draft..

That's correct.

There are religious exemptions for tax payments related to military expenses.

Amish, Mennonites, and others benefit.

I understand people's objections to religious exemptions.

The point is the whole religious freedom thing and that darned First Amendment.

KatieSuddard wrote: Let's face it, if we really had a separation of church and state then a lot of our "hot issues" would go away. Birth control, abortion and same sex marriage? Poof, not a problem because they come down to an issue individual freedoms without being gummed up by people saying it "goes against their religion." Newsflash: If it goes against your religion- DON'T DO IT. Hate birth control? Don't use it. Hate abortion? Don't get one. Disagree with same sex marriage? Don't marry someone who is the same sex as you. This isn't rocket science.

great in concept ….

but look at the E36 M3 storm that the SCOTUS created when they decided that HL didn't have to provide ins coverage for the morning after pill …

SVreX wrote: In reply to Richard Nixon: Sounds like a semantics argument. I'll pass. FWIW, I am in support of equal rights for both hetero and gay, but do not think there was ever an inalienable right to marriage at the federal level for anyone. The only thing the federal government ever did was recognize and protect marriages created by the states. Carry on.

not sure what you're getting at there … the federal government seems to recognize "marriage" … if for no more reason than the income tax benefit that comes with marriage …or am I missing something ?