| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/17/2008 03:55:53 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Hey, that's not true at my church! It's the state that restricts marriage between same-sex couples. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 03:58:23 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
That's not universally true, as you must know. The times, they are a-changin'. Not true here, one of the oldest churches in Toronto (note last paragraph on that page). A picture of the church. A wiki article about the church. |
Yes, I was perhaps a bit all-encompassing. I would simply say that the term "marriage" could be left to the dictates of each person's own religion and keep it separate from civil and legal meaning. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:00:49 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, they're not ... |
I'd also wager that a California gay "marriage" would also not be able to file jointly on federal taxes, but I may be wrong on that. |
I think you'd lose that bet. If you are "married" under State law you are married in the eyes of the IRS. |
I bet I wouldn't. ;) "Under federal law, married same-sex couples cannot file joint federal income tax returns because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman." |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:01:11 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
That's not universally true, as you must know. The times, they are a-changin'. Not true here, one of the oldest churches in Toronto (note last paragraph on that page). A picture of the church. A wiki article about the church. |
Yes, I was perhaps a bit all-encompassing. I would simply say that the term "marriage" could be left to the dictates of each person's own religion and keep it separate from civil and legal meaning. |
That would mean you would vote against Proposition 8 on principle, since it is giving a civil and legal definition for marriage. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:01:38 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Well, they're not ... |
I'd also wager that a California gay "marriage" would also not be able to file jointly on federal taxes, but I may be wrong on that. |
I think you'd lose that bet. If you are "married" under State law you are married in the eyes of the IRS. |
He'd win the bet. You are wrong. Calling it a "marriage" in the State does NOT make it a "marriage" in the eyes of the IRS.
From the U.S. Internal Revenue Services 2007 Form 1040 Instructions:
"For federal tax purposes, a marriage means only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. A husband and wife filing jointly report their combined income and deduct their combined allowable expenses on one return. They can file a joint return even if only one had income or if they did not live together all year. However, both persons must sign the return. Once you file a joint return, you cannot choose to file separate returns for that year after the due date of the return." |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:05:54 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pjangel:
It amazes me how many people think that as "domestic partners" we as gay people have the same rights as "married" folks...
WE DON'T
Right now my partner and I are filling out paperwork for medical/insurance benefits and it specifically states that we have to be legally married... domestic partners must apply separately. That is just one small example of the type of issues that we run into on a daily basis. When we register as domestic partners we get some of the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple, but most definitely NOT all. |
This may be true outside California and I would be for advocating for your rights. I've always couched the idea they are equal within the context of California, or according to Louis, Canada. |
Again not correct... I lived in California for the past 2 years, just moved from there a month ago.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:07:25 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, I was perhaps a bit all-encompassing. I would simply say that the term "marriage" could be left to the dictates of each person's own religion and keep it separate from civil and legal meaning. |
It's only the "legal meaning" which the California State Supreme Court ruling affected, and the only thing Prop. 8 would address and overturn -- even a public referendum has no right to determine how any particular religion chooses to construct its practice ... current law (allowing any two consenting adults to enter into a marriage contract) is non-discriminatory and gender-neutral, as is required by the Constitution's equal-protection provisions. This proposition would specifically include a gender-discriminatory exclusion into the constitution.
Nothing in current law speaks to how any organized religion defines or celebrates marriage; participation in any religious ceremony is completely optional insofar as the state is concerned. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:10:22 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by From Article re:CA Supreme Court Ruling:
These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. |
Given this ruling from the CA Supreme Court, wouldn't any legislative effort in California to define marriage to between a man and a women be un-Constitutional (within California, that is)? How does Prop. 8 get around that? Or can it? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:10:24 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
That's not universally true, as you must know. The times, they are a-changin'. Not true here, one of the oldest churches in Toronto (note last paragraph on that page). A picture of the church. A wiki article about the church. |
Yes, I was perhaps a bit all-encompassing. I would simply say that the term "marriage" could be left to the dictates of each person's own religion and keep it separate from civil and legal meaning. |
Wait, no, why should the church have any exclusive claim to the word "marriage" and its derivatives?
If a church wants to cook up some fancy term for marriage and trademark it so that us heathens can't legally use it that's one thing, but to lay claim to a common word is silly.
I don't need a church to get married, just a partner crazy enough to marry me, some paperwork and an officiant (like a judge). |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:11:28 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by RonB:
He'd win the bet. You are wrong. Calling it a "marriage" in the State does NOT make it a "marriage" in the eyes of the IRS.
From the U.S. Internal Revenue Services 2007 Form 1040 Instructions: |
Once again, the only sure winners are the lawyers ... :-(
The US Constitution contains an equal-protection clause too -- to say that "these two legally-married persons can file jointly while these other two legally-married persons cannot" should fail that test. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:13:33 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by From Article re:CA Supreme Court Ruling:
These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. |
Given this ruling from the CA Supreme Court, wouldn't any legislative effort in California to define marriage to between a man and a women be un-Constitutional (within California, that is)? How does Prop. 8 get around that? Or can it? |
Prop. 8 is itself an amendment to the State Constitution -- writing discrimination right into the core principles of State governance. It was put forth specifically to remove the Court's basis for making that ruling.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 16:14:20. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:14:02 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by From Article re:CA Supreme Court Ruling:
These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. |
Given this ruling from the CA Supreme Court, wouldn't any legislative effort in California to define marriage to between a man and a women be un-Constitutional (within California, that is)? How does Prop. 8 get around that? Or can it? |
Prop. 8 is itself an amendment to the State Constitution -- writing discrimination right into the core principles of State governance. |
Ahh. I obviously missed that. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:19:14 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
He'd win the bet. You are wrong. Calling it a "marriage" in the State does NOT make it a "marriage" in the eyes of the IRS.
From the U.S. Internal Revenue Services 2007 Form 1040 Instructions: |
Once again, the only sure winners are the lawyers ... :-(
The US Constitution contains an equal-protection clause too -- to say that "these two legally-married persons can file jointly while these other two legally-married persons cannot" should fail that test. |
A perfect example of conflict between the Federal Government and the state's rights.
This sort of thing should have real Republicans outraged.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:19:18 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by pjangel:
Again not correct... I lived in California for the past 2 years, just moved from there a month ago. |
You can't just stop there. You need to tell me how. I must have been born in Missouri in a past life because I'm definitely a "show me" kind of guy. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:21:40 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
That would mean you would vote against Proposition 8 on principle, since it is giving a civil and legal definition for marriage. |
Haha, touche. Actually I really personally think these constitutional referendums are low on my list of priorities. As I mentioned many times above, I feel it's ultimately arbitrary. I think the will of the people should be heard with legal definition to the word. I think gay rights should be protected and I ultimately think we got off base by legalizing the term "marriage", but those were simple times back then and probably these issues weren't even fathomed.
Message edited by author 2008-10-17 16:21:57. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:25:03 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Dude, you cannot make blanket statements like this that simply are not true.
Unitarian Universalists routinely support gay rights and marry gay couples in their church, regardless of their state's particular views on the ceremony.
Your marriage in a state that does not recognize the UU church's stance doesn't make it any less of a valid religious ceremony, with the full blessing of its congregation. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:33:24 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Dude, you cannot make blanket statements like this that simply are not true.
Unitarian Universalists routinely support gay rights and marry gay couples in their church, regardless of their state's particular views on the ceremony.
Your marriage in a state that does not recognize the UU church's stance doesn't make it any less of a valid religious ceremony, with the full blessing of its congregation. |
Dude, you can't respond without reading all the posts above. :) I already pleaded mea culpa for this. Get with the program... ;) |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:34:46 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Dude, you cannot make blanket statements like this that simply are not true.
Unitarian Universalists routinely support gay rights and marry gay couples in their church, regardless of their state's particular views on the ceremony.
Your marriage in a state that does not recognize the UU church's stance doesn't make it any less of a valid religious ceremony, with the full blessing of its congregation. |
Dude, you can't respond without reading all the posts above. :) I already pleaded mea culpa for this. Get with the program... ;) |
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:37:09 PM · #344 |
I would hope that some of you might look at the core beliefs of the Unitarian Universalists and who we are and see if it makes any sense.
To me, obviously, it makes perfect sense, and I try very hard to uphold these principles I hold dear.
It also explains why when I feel the way I do about equality, I have a perfect place to call home in the UU church.
General beliefs of UUs
Unitarian Universalists (UUs) believe in complete but responsible freedom of speech, thought, belief, faith, and disposition. They believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any heritage, have any sexual orientation or gender identity, and hold beliefs from a variety of cultures or religions.
Concepts about deity are diverse among UUs. Some believe that there is no god (atheism); others believe in many gods (polytheism). Some believe that God is a metaphor for a transcendent reality (pantheism). Some believe in a female god (goddess), a passive god (Deism), a Christian god, or a god manifested in nature or the universe, as revealed by science. Many UUs reject the idea of deities and instead speak of the "spirit of life" that binds all life on earth. Unitarian Universalists support each person's search for truth and meaning in concepts of spirituality.
Principles and purposes
Although lacking an official creed or dogma, Unitarian Universalist congregations typically respect the Principles and Purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association. As with most actions in Unitarian Universalism, these were created in committee, and affirmed democratically by a vote of member congregations, proportional to their membership, taken at an annual General Assembly (a meeting of delegates from member congregations). The full Principles, Purposes and Sources can be found in the article on the Unitarian Universalist Association. The Principles are as follows:
"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:37:40 PM · #345 |
| The 1996 DOMA seemed to have odd bedfellows. It was passed with wide support (86-14 in the Senate) and signed by Clinton. I'm curious if mousie or whomever above was a "Silent Witness" whether they also advocate for the rights of polygamists as they are likewise discriminated under this act and actually are afforded no rights even under California's Domestic Partnership laws. I've heard a lot of lip service to polygamy here, but who's called their representative to defend these folks? |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:39:17 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Dude, you cannot make blanket statements like this that simply are not true.
Unitarian Universalists routinely support gay rights and marry gay couples in their church, regardless of their state's particular views on the ceremony.
Your marriage in a state that does not recognize the UU church's stance doesn't make it any less of a valid religious ceremony, with the full blessing of its congregation. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dude, you can't respond without reading all the posts above. :) I already pleaded mea culpa for this. Get with the program... ;) |
And my bad for that, BUT......
I said a couple pages ago that my church and another of the UU churches here in Pennsylvania have married gay couples......back when we were talking about whether there were gay couples who wanted to be married in a church |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:40:30 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Dude, you cannot make blanket statements like this that simply are not true.
Unitarian Universalists routinely support gay rights and marry gay couples in their church, regardless of their state's particular views on the ceremony.
Your marriage in a state that does not recognize the UU church's stance doesn't make it any less of a valid religious ceremony, with the full blessing of its congregation. |
Dude, you can't respond without reading all the posts above. :) I already pleaded mea culpa for this. Get with the program... ;) |
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude!!!!!!!!! |
I was doing the dude thing 'cause from another thread he makes me pay him a dollar every time I use the word specious.....8>) |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:42:11 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Dude, you cannot make blanket statements like this that simply are not true.
Unitarian Universalists routinely support gay rights and marry gay couples in their church, regardless of their state's particular views on the ceremony.
Your marriage in a state that does not recognize the UU church's stance doesn't make it any less of a valid religious ceremony, with the full blessing of its congregation. |
Dude, you can't respond without reading all the posts above. :) I already pleaded mea culpa for this. Get with the program... ;) |
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude!!!!!!!!! |
I was doing the dude thing 'cause from another thread he makes me pay him a dollar every time I use the word specious.....8>) |
Heh! Heh! Heh! He said "specious" Heh! Heh! Heh! |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:45:26 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the eyes of religion marriage only exists between men and women. |
Dude, you cannot make blanket statements like this that simply are not true.
Unitarian Universalists routinely support gay rights and marry gay couples in their church, regardless of their state's particular views on the ceremony.
Your marriage in a state that does not recognize the UU church's stance doesn't make it any less of a valid religious ceremony, with the full blessing of its congregation. |
Dude, you can't respond without reading all the posts above. :) I already pleaded mea culpa for this. Get with the program... ;) |
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude!!!!!!!!! |
I was doing the dude thing 'cause from another thread he makes me pay him a dollar every time I use the word specious.....8>) |
Heh! Heh! Heh! He said "specious" Heh! Heh! Heh! |
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!! |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 04:52:10 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've heard a lot of lip service to polygamy here, but who's called their representative to defend these folks? |
Polygamy is irrelevant to the current discussion, which concerns only the right of the state to discriminate on the basis of gender whether two persons can enter into a state-sanctioned contractual relationship, which confers certain rights and responsibilities on both the partners and the state. Nothing to do with three persons entering into a contract.
The state is free to limit the definition of "marriage" to a contract between two consenting adults, but should not be able to discriminate on the basis of gender, as is indeed also the case with all other state contracts.
This is like passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting women from being police officers or men from being nurses ... |
|
