Tom Toles for December 16, 2012

This should be left up to the church, not the government, at any level of government. If the government doesn’t want same sex marriage, then you shouldn’t be able to be married by a judge.

Thank you for this comment – although perhaps it is too rational for “jonesb” , “antiquetracman”, and their ilk. I live in Switzerland, and here, as in much of Europe, the only ceremony which counts is the one performed by the secular official at the Town Hall. Some people wish a religious ceremony in addition, for decoration, so to speak, and so they have a second “wedding” in a church, synagogue, or whatever, sometimes the next day, sometimes weeks or months later, but only the secular Town Hall marriage has legal significance. No one seems to mind this arrrangement.

Before 1776, here in Virginia, only baptised persons could own land or be citizens. Today baptism confers no such legal privilege. I am not aware that the institution has suffered in consequence. In the marriage debate, there are two institutions conflated: a legally privileged and binding relationship, and a religiously sanctified union. Both are called marriage, and that is the whole problem. Separate the two, and the problem goes away. You want marriage left entirely to the churches and temples? Fine! Then marriage will have the same legal status as baptism: none. It will confer no legal privileges or status. The law will recognize only “domestic partnerships” established by legal contract at the courthouse. You can have a marriage AND a partnership or one or the other. Or you can accept that the minister of MY church has just as much right to perform a same-sex marriage (which my church happens to approve and yours reject) as your minister has the right to perform a marriage between formerly divorced people, or between people of different races or religions (which your church happens to approve and another reject). The law as it stands forbids my church to perform some marriages which our faith allows. Would you accept a law that restricted your church in that way? This is simple justice: either “marriage” has to give up all it’s legal privileges, or the term has to embrace all domestic unions, including those my church would honor.

Before 1776, here in Virginia, only baptised persons could own land or be citizens. Today baptism confers no such legal privilege. I am not aware that the institution has suffered in consequence. In the marriage debate, there are two institutions conflated: a legally privileged and binding relationship, and a religiously sanctified union. Both are called marriage, and that is the whole problem. Separate the two, and the problem goes away. You want marriage left entirely to the churches and temples? Fine! Then marriage will have the same legal status as baptism: none. It will confer no legal privileges or status. The law will recognize only “domestic partnerships” established by legal contract at the courthouse. You can have a marriage AND a partnership or one or the other. Or you can accept that the minister of MY church has just as much right to perform a same-sex marriage (which my church happens to approve and yours reject) as your minister has the right to perform a marriage between formerly divorced people, or between people of different races or religions (which your church happens to approve and another reject). The law as it stands forbids my church to perform some marriages which our faith allows. Would you accept a law that restricted your church in that way? This is simple justice: either “marriage” has to give up all it’s legal privileges, or the term has to embrace all domestic unions, including those my church would honor.

masterskrain and Doughfoot please keep up the needed civil dialogue. antiquetracman note that some of your comments show a lack of most would call good christian spirit. Not being a good christian I call your statement evil minded.

Winner!

Praise His noodly goodness.

Hehehe. Apparently, nowhere near your world! And I’d happily support multiple versions of human marriage. Free your mind, brother.

Mr. Ima, the crazy ends when you do. Let people who love each other get married, and enjoy the legal protection of their relationship without the government’s heavy hand interfering to tell Americans who they can and cannot love. If that’s not a conservative value, there’s no such thing as a conservative value.

My sincere hope is that crazy ends when you begin to keep your thoughts to yourself.

May you be touched by His noodley appendage!

A better question would be where does the crazy start?

The crazy ends when bigots like you die off. Glad I could help.

What has been going on for “thousands of years” is irrelevant to the Constitution of a SECULAR government established within the last few centuries. Human sacrifice and witch burning went on for thousands of years, too, but we didn’t include those. We also eliminated monarchy as a form of government and that had been all the rage for millennia right up until our Constitution was written. So your arguments along those lines don’t even stand up to minimal scrutiny.And since we are fortunate in having secular governance, churches don’t make the laws. So they can’t determine what consenting adults can or can’t do (FYI, Ima, animals are NOT consenting adults, nor or gays “crazy.” Feel free to make your case for polygamy/polyandry, though).So if your goal is to make second class citizens of gays, agnostics, atheists, etc because of your intolerance of those who don’t share your particular house deity, your going in the right direction. But if you believe in the Constitution of these United States, pray to your house deity that Scalia is able to rally enough other primitive minds around him to protect your “thousands-of-years old” exclusive priviledges for a short time longer.

In your head Ima, in your head…that’s where it ends

““What GOD has joined together, let not MAN put asunder”. Ministers were preforming marriages before GOVERNMENT ever got involved and started REGULATING everything.”

Would you say a Buddhist marriage is not a marriage because no god is invoked during the ceremony? Would you say that all couples married over many, many years by Justices of the Peace in this country are not married? Were Roman marriages not marriages because their gods were different from yours?

In the Jewish faith, circumcision has religious significance. Among Gentiles, it’s often done for medical/hygienic reasons (not that I want to get into the argument about its advisability). In practical terms, the effect is the same. Would you support a Jewish demand that circumcision of Gentiles be banned?

The State can apply the word “marriage” to anything it sees fit, and if the churches don’t like sharing the word, let THEM come up with something new and exclusive (they can even get it copyrighted if the like).

Two consenting adults. your pet goat cannot consent to marrying you.

The idea of denying two adults that love one another the right to marry is wrong, period. This is EXACTLY the same as the old bigots that railed against interracial marriage. Or cross denomination marriageThink about that ‘b’ word, all you antis.

Wait a few years and this will be a dead topic. In Canada (and in many other places) it’s already dead. The US, as so often, is just a little slow.

if marriage is so sacred, one name…kim kardashian.

I think lma is spreading Santorum.

“Marriage” in our Western culture was originally for royalty to seal political alliances. Since all major countries were headed by Catholic rulers, they asked the Catholic Church to give the religious seal of approval. Later it was also for the merchant class to seal their alliances/business interests. This relationship continued with the Reformation churches, and down to this day. The common folk, however, usually did not marry, but chose to live together, with the relationship eventually being legally recognized under the term “common law”. That term is still in effect in many areas today. It is only within the last several hundred years that “marriage” as practiced today became the norm.

For all the 1 man, 1 woman folks: What is a Man and what is a Woman? The states do not agree on who is a woman, and who is a man. Some states recognize gender-reassignment surgery, some do not. Some use chromosomes, some genitalia. As a result there are persons who in Ohio are only permitted to marry men, but who in Kansas are only permitted to marry women. According to the laws right now in force! Welcome to the 21st Century!

I got married (instead of living together) to get my tax benefits and visitor rights and inheritance rights — by a justice of the peace. We signed a nice piece of legal paper. My gay and lesbian friends just want to be allowed to do the same thing. If they can’t get a Priest to marry them in the Priest’s particular God’s eyes — then let them get a nice civil marriage.

Mr. Ima, get real. Dogs can’t consent, and a cat never would.

Refreshing sanity, my friend. But it’s lonely out here!

Why even start?

Doughfoot: What about multiple partner marriages? You ideas sound good but might lead to men and women “marrying” two or more partners: women, men, or a mix of the two; all at the same time. Since there probably are churches where this situation would be sanctioned, then why not? Since, as you suggest, marriage would confer no special legal status, having more that one “spouse” of whatever gender, should be legal, no?

Ruff: wasn’t meant to be a direct reply to you, but a history lesson for Ima, etc. I agree with you on your point about about Europe, and think that’s what we should do here.

Rx71: If no more legal privileges were bestowed by “marriage” than by “baptism” then what domestic arrangements people make would be entirely for them to decide. The law would have nothing to say about it. This would be the abolition of marriage as the law knows it. Marriage equality is simply a slight broadening of an ancient institution to take into account a broader and wiser understanding of human nature. Really, abolishing marriage altogether is the more “liberal” option, while extending marriage to nearly any pair of consenting adults is really a “conservative” option. Retaining the old rules (“because that’s the way its always been”) is just the silly option.

The real lie here is redifining a request for equal rights as “redifining” marriage. What it really is, is a statement of “I’ve got mine, Jack, and I’ll be happy to control you and deny it to you.”