• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A way forwarded (Obergefell)

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
There is concern that the supreme court will do to the gay marriage decision what they did to Roe V Wade. (Frankly from a legal standpoint there is a strong argument for this, but that’s a side note).

Back in the 0’s there was a lot of discussion about marriage privileges. Things from tax benefits to visitation rights in hospitals. The core argument was that if gays could not marry, they did not have equal protection under the law (again a strong legal argument).

So, IF (a big if at this time) the supreme court overturns Obergefell. What can we do?

If we have the government exit the marriage industry, we have a good shot at peaceful change.

If we return marriage to a church only thing (it can be a gay humanist church) the way we define marriage is not forced on others.

We could also set up a legal shared life document and registration system. You head over to the court house spell out which parts of legal shared lives you want with who, get it singed and notarized and all the legal marriage benefits are yours. (You want tax breaks for being in a relationship with Bob, but want Sally to decide when to pull your plug great). (Yes you can do a lot of this now at great cost).

This system would work for heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, tri-sexual 6-somes, 2 straight dudes who want to raise their kids together, a mother and daughter living together and pretty much any other possible combination people might want.

Religious freedom is preserved. The cake shop owner does not have to bake a cake. The traditional marriage views may be enjoyed by all who see things that way and anyone disagreeing can still have their life without legal penalty.

This also makes for a great soft landing for any gay couples who could find themselves unmarried in many states.

I’m well aware that this won’t make everyone happy. Those who want to force their view on others will lose out. However, in dealing with the realities we have it seems a great balance of needs and views on the topic.

Thoughts on improving this concept?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Back in the 0’s there was a lot of discussion about marriage privileges. Things from tax benefits to visitation rights in hospitals. The core argument was that if gays could not marry, they did not have equal protection under the law (again a strong legal argument).

I remember at the hospital where I worked you had to be married in order to have your SO on your insurance plan. They changed the plan so unmarried partners could receive insurance, only if they were same sex partners, not available for partners who could get legally married.
Are you saying all of this could be undone with the Court swipe at same sex marriage? Or might that be another decision left to the states?
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Separate but equal is unconstitutional. Our culture does marriage. Your religion does not hold a monopoly on that. Obergefell doesn't force you to acknowledge gay marriage, it doesn't infringe on your religion.

There are churches that will marry gays though. Churches can't decide who is married and who isn't, so what other avenues but the government do we have? Possibly we just make our own vows for it?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There already is church marriage and state marriage. Anyone can get married in a church by any church's perview. But the only thing that matters when it comes to securing wealth and decision making powers in the government is state marriage, which is and should be separate from religious doctrine.

It's certain religious people looking to infringe on the rights of people not meeting their religious expectations. They're used to controlling the pie and we're tired of letting them, so they view that distribution of power along secular lines as discrimination.

Honestly, too bad so sad for them. If they want to make a religious state I will fight them tooth and nail.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
There are churches that will marry gays though. Churches can't decide who is married and who isn't, so what other avenues but the government do we have? Possibly we just make our own vows for it?
What we do is take a firm stand and tell the Church to bugger off. It has no business or right to govern us.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It's certain religious people looking to infringe on the rights of people not meeting their religious expectations. They're used to controlling the pie and we're tired of letting them, so they view that distribution of power along secular lines as discrimination.
Yup. They gained control, forced their dogma on the nation, and now we're standing up and saying no more, this is all of ours country and the it is secular so it can be a nation for all of us.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Separate but equal is unconstitutional. Our culture does marriage. Your religion does not hold a monopoly on that. Obergefell doesn't force you to acknowledge gay marriage, it doesn't infringe on your religion.

It did for many people as anti discrimination laws discriminated against religious persons with businesses.

but that is a bit off the topic.

Does the removal of marriage from the government and making it a private religious thing work?
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
I remember at the hospital where I worked you had to be married in order to have your SO on your insurance plan. They changed the plan so unmarried partners could receive insurance, only if they were same sex partners, not available for partners who could get legally married.
Are you saying all of this could be undone with the Court swipe at same sex marriage? Or might that be another decision left to the states?

So that gets very messy. Several years ago DOMA set in federal law what marriage was.

SCOTUS killed it. As best I understand that situation. They could just undo what they did and leave the properly passed law in place. Or they could call DOMA unconditional and kick the issue to the states. If DOMA stays then same sex couples can’t file jointly on federal tax returns and many other perks as federal employe family would be for traditional married couples only.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
There is concern that the supreme court will do to the gay marriage decision what they did to Roe V Wade. (Frankly from a legal standpoint there is a strong argument for this, but that’s a side note).

Back in the 0’s there was a lot of discussion about marriage privileges. Things from tax benefits to visitation rights in hospitals. The core argument was that if gays could not marry, they did not have equal protection under the law (again a strong legal argument).

So, IF (a big if at this time) the supreme court overturns Obergefell. What can we do?

If we have the government exit the marriage industry, we have a good shot at peaceful change.

If we return marriage to a church only thing (it can be a gay humanist church) the way we define marriage is not forced on others.

We could also set up a legal shared life document and registration system. You head over to the court house spell out which parts of legal shared lives you want with who, get it singed and notarized and all the legal marriage benefits are yours. (You want tax breaks for being in a relationship with Bob, but want Sally to decide when to pull your plug great). (Yes you can do a lot of this now at great cost).

This system would work for heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, tri-sexual 6-somes, 2 straight dudes who want to raise their kids together, a mother and daughter living together and pretty much any other possible combination people might want.

Religious freedom is preserved. The cake shop owner does not have to bake a cake. The traditional marriage views may be enjoyed by all who see things that way and anyone disagreeing can still have their life without legal penalty.

This also makes for a great soft landing for any gay couples who could find themselves unmarried in many states.

I’m well aware that this won’t make everyone happy. Those who want to force their view on others will lose out. However, in dealing with the realities we have it seems a great balance of needs and views on the topic.

Thoughts on improving this concept?
The problem with your suggestion is that marriage is a legal contract between two people and the state. It is legal in tax rates, in death benefits, in inheritance, in end of life decisions, etc. This is what gay people wanted from marriage. Churches have no legal authority, so in essence you will eliminate the very benefits of marriage that gays wanted by removing it from government.

Plus, there are atheists who get married, so what then?

This does not solve any problems. The problem of threatening Obergefell is religious, not judicial. The last three SC justices were picked for their religious bias in making judgments. If the 5 or 6 conservative justices decide to rule against anything that is what far right Christianity wants, nothing can stop them. It will all fall onto congress to pass legislation. These decisions will fall onto democrats since republicans are heavily tied to the Christian right. This will only create more division and suffering of those targeted by the Christian extremists with a hard line agenda.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
It did for many people as anti discrimination laws discriminated against religious persons with businesses.
No discrimination at all. The dilemma some religious companies had is that they wanted to discriminate against certain classes of people, and since many of these businesses were licensed to operate by a secular state the businesses had to follow non-discriminatory laws SINCE the state endorsed them through licensing. For the state to allow a licensed business to discriminate against citizens that would imply the state endorses the discrimination, which is cannot do.

The solution was that if people held discriminatory views against their fellow citizens then they should avoid opening businesses that are open to the public. People are free to be bigots. They just can't do commercial business in a bigoted way when the government exists to treat all citizens equally.

The real lesson for theists is to reflect on your bigotry, not complain about why a government that represents a diverse population doesn't endorse your bigotry. It's highly likely your religion explains how you are wrong.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It did for many people as anti discrimination laws discriminated against religious persons with businesses.
Show me where you Jesus discriminated in his Ministry.
He didn't.
Does the removal of marriage from the government and making it a private religious thing work?
No, because marriage involves contracts, inheritance, and many other things where it's best to have things legally sorted out before something happens.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
The problem with your suggestion is that marriage is a legal contract between two people and the state. It is legal in tax rates, in death benefits, in inheritance, in end of life decisions, etc. This is what gay people wanted from marriage. Churches have no legal authority, so in essence you will eliminate the very benefits of marriage that gays wanted by removing it from government.

Plus, there are atheists who get married, so what then?

This does not solve any problems. The problem of threatening Obergefell is religious, not judicial. The last three SC justices were picked for their religious bias in making judgments. If the 5 or 6 conservative justices decide to rule against anything that is what far right Christianity wants, nothing can stop them. It will all fall onto congress to pass legislation. These decisions will fall onto democrats since republicans are heavily tied to the Christian right. This will only create more division and suffering of those targeted by the Christian extremists with a hard line agenda.
1. By making a new system for the legal benefits the government and the persons can enter into a contract.
2. There is a major legal issue at play. The court tossed the very clear properly passed law stating what marriage was. It’s shackle legal ground.
3. Last I looked it was not the Christian Right running about taking away people’s jobs and businesses. If we are going to have peace we need to respect the rights of all not just a favorite group.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Show me where you Jesus discriminated in his Ministry.
He didn't.

No, because marriage involves contracts, inheritance, and many other things where it's best to have things legally sorted out before something happens.

How are you defining discrimination?
In this context?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It did for many people as anti discrimination laws discriminated against religious persons with businesses.

but that is a bit off the topic.

Does the removal of marriage from the government and making it a private religious thing work?
Letting someone follow the law of the land is discrimination.
Droll.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
1. By making a new system for the legal benefits the government and the persons can enter into a contract.
Why is it necessary to make a new system at all? We have one that works.

2. There is a major legal issue at play. The court tossed the very clear properly passed law stating what marriage was. It’s shackle legal ground.
What are you talking about? What law? What major legal issue?

3. Last I looked it was not the Christian Right running about taking away people’s jobs and businesses. If we are going to have peace we need to respect the rights of all not just a favorite group.
Then who is taking away people's jobs and businesses? Show us how this is happening, and who is doing it, and why?

And you are avoiding the issue you raised, why do you see a need to separate gays marriage from mis sex marriage? It's not as if evangelical Christians don't get divorced, about 50% from the data I've seen. So they don't see marriage as forever and before the eyes of God.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Why is it necessary to make a new system at all? We have one that works.


What are you talking about? What law? What major legal issue?


Then who is taking away people's jobs and businesses? Show us how this is happening, and who is doing it, and why?

And you are avoiding the issue you raised, why do you see a need to separate gays marriage from mis sex marriage? It's not as if evangelical Christians don't get divorced, about 50% from the data I've seen. So they don't see marriage as forever and before the eyes of God.

It’s a fake law written by judges. It override federal law and many state constitutions.


Also it harmed religious liberty for many people so I’m really not sure how that it working well.

It’s not about the views of evangelical Christians. It’s about the law. The law does not give the power to the courts to write new law. The joke legal grounds of Roe v Wade is the same that several others cases are based on. There is a good chance they won’t stand up to a tough review. If vacated we need to set up a new system or we run a major risk of a lot of people having a lot of hurt and confusion.
 
Top