Who thinks we need to get GOD out of Marriages?

[dahunan]

[flamesuit]Our Govt gives tax breaks to couples who are "married"... Marriage is a religious institution... George Bush is a religious man who is using the oval office to write scripture into our constitution.

Certain privileges are bestowed upon couples who are married.

How can the "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have." President tell America that Gay People are lower class citizens and are not allowed the same rights as Heterosexuals?


If he is able to rewrite the constitution to exclude gay couples from the institution of marriage then should the Govt. be allowed to give tax breaks to Married heterosexuals?

"The Compassionate Conservative" :disgust: [/flamesuit]

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dahunan
[flamesuit]Our Govt gives tax breaks to couples who are "married"... Marriage is a religious institution... George Bush is a religious man who is using the oval office to write scripture into our constitution.

Certain privileges are bestowed upon couples who are married.

How can the "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have." President tell America that Gay People are lower class citizens and are not allowed the same rights as Heterosexuals?


If he is able to rewrite the constitution to exclude gay couples from the institution of marriage then should the Govt. be allowed to give tax breaks to Married heterosexuals?

"The Compassionate Conservative" :disgust: [/flamesuit]

We would be better off getting goverment out of marriage.

 

[kylebisme]

my thoughts exactly charrison.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

ditto

 

[dahunan]

I agree with charrison... but I don't think it will ever happen.. George Bush will have more luck getting his right wing christian gay hate bill passed before we would ever have a chance to get the Govt. out of marriage.

I thought religions and Govt. were not supposed to be affiliated so tightly?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

I think a government should only provide licenses of civil unions to all adult couples who want the legal responsibilities and benefits of a lifelong partnership. The issue of marriage should be left up to the church.

 

[Bowfinger]

What tax breaks does one get for being married? You get breaks for dependents, but that is true regardless of marital status. The only exception is a single-income married couple reports the spouse as a dependent. Other than that, the last I knew a two-income married couple pays more than two single people with the same incomes. This is the "marriage penalty" they talk about.

 

[mastertech01]

Marriage is a religious institution

Although many marriages are conducted in a religious setting and or ceremony, it is very common to be married by a justice of the peace with no religious ties. It is a legal, lawful contract. It would be wrong to make your statement a blanket fact. How do you make a statement that our government is secular, and requires separtion of state and church, but recognizes marriage ONLY as a religious institution? If this were true all laws governing marriage would be unconstitutional. Our government also gives tax breaks to those unmarried head of household do they not?

Would you feel better if married persons paid more, or single persons paid less? Most marriages between opposite sex result in children. I dont think you can say the same of same sex relationships.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Marriage is a religious institution

Although many marriages are conducted in a religious setting and or ceremony, it is very common to be married by a justice of the peace with no religious ties. It is a legal, lawful contract.

That statement struck me as odd as well; anyone with half a clue about the history of marriage (or sociology in general) would understand it's not a religious institution, it's a social institution. But the original poster was clearly more interested in offering shrill flamebait rather than intelligent thought. I'd certainly like to hear about all those tax breaks for married heteros; April 15th is coming up fast!!

 

[chess9]

Marriage is really a religious institution that has been codified by the states and recognized by the Federal Government for a variety of purposes. The problem is not with the codification or regulation of marriage by the states, but with the states' willingness to use arbitrary and capricious standards to define marriage. For instance, Virginia, and quite a few other states forbade miscegeny. The law was enforced by the Virginia courts including the Virginia Supreme Court. However, THE SUPREMES ruled the practice unconstitutional in the case of Loving v. Virginia. If a state may not legally tell me what color my spouse must be, why can they tell me what gender my spouse must be? Personally, I feel any ban on homosexual marriage should be unconstitutional. Getting the current Gang of Nine to agree to that is highly unlikely, but I suspect the wigged out right wing is aiming for a constitutional amendment to make this result impossible. Yet another reason to keep the YO-YO HEADS out of government.

-Robert

 

[dahunan]

I may be wrong about the tax breaks.. but.. I guess most here agree that the US Constitution should be ammended to disallow gay marriages?

I wonder what percentage of Marriages take place in a Church?

My flamebait was **George Bush IS a very religious man - AND he is rewriting the constitution through the eyes of his religious morality**

I am all for freedom of religion.. but when it starts to take over our government then someone needs to stop it.

 

[dahunan]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage << at bottom

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
marriage

-was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we
have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on
which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that
monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law
was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.
4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the
patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was
acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued
to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity,
after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted
(Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was
bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17;
1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic
law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted
and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away
his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was
celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends
were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed
under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord
corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.
22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The
apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable"
(Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of
degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the
union between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the
New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to
his saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's
wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I may be wrong about the tax breaks.. but.. I guess most here agree that the US Constitution should be ammended to disallow gay marriages?

I don't know about "most" here, but I certainly don't support amending it. This is not an issue of Constitutional significance. As others suggest, I don't think the government has a legitimate interest in "marriage" at all. From a legal perspective, a union is a union. Let churches decide whether and when they label such unions as marriage.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: charrison

We would be better off getting goverment out of marriage.

Agreed. The day marriage became a secular institution was the day marriage was desanctified. IMO there should be two separate contracts, one as a civil union, open to hetero or homosexual couples, that is legally binding and confers legal benefits, and a marriage contract, one that confers no special legal status and that is granted by religious institutions.

Cheers!
Nate

 

[nutxo]

If you dont believe in god why would you believe in marriage?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: nutxo
If you dont believe in god why would you believe in marriage?

There we go, nutxo.

What does god have to do with one loving someone else?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ELP
What does god have to do with one loving someone else?

Because God is Love.

CkG

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: ELP
What does god have to do with one loving someone else?

Because God is Love.

CkG

For those of you who believe that, that's great. So tell me what does this have to do with the gov't.
If "god" is synonymous with "love" then why does the gov't have a say in who loves who?

 

[rbV5]

The issue of marriage should be left up to the church.

Personally, I'd appreciate the government and the church to stay out of my marriage.

 

[buckmasterson]

God should be a part of a well balanced marriage. It should be like, God, Family, Work, and Computers...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: ELP
What does god have to do with one loving someone else?

Because God is Love.

CkG

Which God?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dahunan
I may be wrong about the tax breaks.. but.. I guess most here agree that the US Constitution should be ammended to disallow gay marriages?

I don't know about "most" here, but I certainly don't support amending it. This is not an issue of Constitutional significance. As others suggest, I don't think the government has a legitimate interest in "marriage" at all. From a legal perspective, a union is a union. Let churches decide whether and when they label such unions as marriage.

The Republican controlled States are already implementing the Presidents plan. Georgia is passing a State Constitutional Law banning Gay couples along with othe States. This will make it easy for the President to get the U.S. Constitution ammended.

They better take that Queer Eye show off TV since Gays are illegal in the U.S. now. Also will be easier to round them all up and deport them out of here.

On a bright note, when we get rid of all the Gays there will be a lot more job openings at Walmarts too.

 

[maXroOt]

the tax breaks are only a very small part of it.

1. inheritance. if you die w/o a formal will, most, if not all, of ur stuff goes to ur spouse. but for gay couples, since they cant be married, dont get this benefit. also i think it also has an effect on life insurance and such

2. hospital visitation rights

3. job benefits. if you work for a company that gives health coverage, dental coverage, etc it also applies to your family (in most cases). so if you have a wife, she is covered. but if you have a gay partner, they are not covered since they arent "married."

those are just a few

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: maXroOt
the tax breaks are only a very small part of it.

1. inheritance. if you die w/o a formal will, most, if not all, of ur stuff goes to ur spouse. but for gay couples, since they cant be married, dont get this benefit. also i think it also has an effect on life insurance and such

2. hospital visitation rights

3. job benefits. if you work for a company that gives health coverage, dental coverage, etc it also applies to your family (in most cases). so if you have a wife, she is covered. but if you have a gay partner, they are not covered since they arent "married."

those are just a few

1. A person can leave their worldly belongings to anyone they wish. All that it takes is a written request.

2. A person can allow anyone to visit them in a hospital. All that it takes is a written request.

In other words, anyone willing to take them time and prepare for these incidents will not have a problem.

 

[maXroOt]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: maXroOt
the tax breaks are only a very small part of it.

1. inheritance. if you die w/o a formal will, most, if not all, of ur stuff goes to ur spouse. but for gay couples, since they cant be married, dont get this benefit. also i think it also has an effect on life insurance and such

2. hospital visitation rights

3. job benefits. if you work for a company that gives health coverage, dental coverage, etc it also applies to your family (in most cases). so if you have a wife, she is covered. but if you have a gay partner, they are not covered since they arent "married."

those are just a few

1. A person can leave their worldly belongings to anyone they wish. All that it takes is a written request.

2. A person can allow anyone to visit them in a hospital. All that it takes is a written request.

In other words, anyone willing to take them time and prepare for these incidents will not have a problem.

1. like i said, it is in context of when you dont have a will written. ie, sudden deaths and such. and like i said, still doesnt take care of the insurance issue

2. no not always. my mom works as a nurse, and she told me of plenty of times were they couldnt allow the persons partner in cause they werent "married." this usually applies to situations where the patient is in bad condition and cant give written permission for someone to see them.

3. and you ignored this one, which is big