Marriage is a legal contract first and foremost

[SHRED]

The State grants religion, or anyone, the 'privilege' of performing the ceremony second.

Why is this concept so difficult for some people to understand?
After all, you don't go to a church to get divorced.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker was correct in stating, "'Moral Disapproval Alone Is An Improper Basis On Which To Deny Rights".

---

[hobbit709]

1. Exactly

You get the license-from the STATE.
If you get a divorce it is granted by the STATE.
You can be married by a judge-a Government official.

[ixion]

2. Indeed. It is a contract between two people and the State

It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, in and of itself.

[david13]

16. It is a contract between the two people, period. Not 'and the state.'

The state is the regulator of it, it is registered with the state, with the county. But the state is not a party. It's like any other contract. A business partnership contract. The state can enforce it, if a party requests, but the content or nature of it is up to the parties.
Anyway, just a minor point. It was an excellent court ruling.
dc

[ixion]

17. Oh yes, the state is very much involved... why do you think you have to get their permission

to dissolve the contract?

As regulator/overseer/governor, they are very, very much involved, I assure you.

It's very easy to get a marriage license, and very difficult to dissolve one, and you have to drag all your dirty laundry out in front of a judge. The process is extremely demeaning, in my opinion, having gone through a very un-messy and systematic divorce in the early 90's.

[david13]

24. I am aware of all that. In fact, I have gone thru' about 500 of them,

up close and personal. So I know quite a bit about them.
What I am saying, is that the state is not a party to the contract. The state is a neutral repository of the contract. You do not have to get the consent of the state to marry. The consent of the 2 parties is all that is, and should be required. What prop 9 was saying, in essence, is that you have to get the permission of the church or the bible or some such to get married.
That was what was wrong with it, as I saw it.
The state is a repository of the registering of the marriage. They check to be sure the parties are of legal age of consent, and able to consent (not drunk or drugged, for instance) and then the registrar must, pro forma, rubber stamp the marriage. They do not have authority to say, oh, you must be of opposite sex, or the same skin color, or any such thing.
Their approval is not discretionary. It is 'pro forma' or a mere formality.
dc

[ixion]

25. We are in agreement on the idea of not needing the churches permission

You don't, as you said. However, you do need the governments permission, i.e. a Marriage License.

And I agree that the government is not a direct party in the contract, however, they are more than the registrar, as you must know after witnessing hundreds of divorces.

As I said, my divorce was very clean, and even at that, there were a few hours spent airing my personal life to a judge -- a person I don't know, nor care to -- and it is up to this person to decide the dissolution of the contract by sitting in judgment of the two parties. That is, in essence, a parental role, and most definitely the state judging your personal life.

Other than that minor point, though, I think we're basically agreeing on things. :toast:

[david13]

26. We are in agreement. The issue of the state's permission is where

we are not clear.
The state regulates the dissolution of marriage, as there is a state interest to do so. But that is a different issue from regulating the entry into the contract.
The whole idea is that the state cannot be in a position to give or withhold permission. But due to several concepts of state interest, they can regulate the getting out of it, or the divorce.
Part of the problem may be that you live in another state. In California, since 1974 the law has provided for 'no fault' dissolution of marriage. There are several reasons they went to that system. Since then, you only testify that you have 'irreconcilable differences' that have led to an irremedial breakdown of the marital relationship. Inquiry must be made, would counseling or delay in these proceedings reconcial those differences? If no, the Judge must, without question or delay, grant the dissolution of the marriage and restore the persons to a status of unmarried or single persons.
There is a 6 month waiting period, again based on state interest, but then it is final. Pro forma.
The nasty, if the parties make it nasty issues are, child custody and support; visitation, spousal support, and division of property or assets, and debts or obligations.
Inquiry into whether or not there are truly 'grounds' for the divorce or not is prohibited by law, and more than once I have seen Judges prohibit such questioning.
Clearly other states are different.
But in California the nasty fight may be over 1000 or more things, but not the status of the marital relationship.
And it's because a person who does not want to be married to some other person, has a right to not be married to that person.
I suppose I should also apologize to the op about getting off topic, but it really is relevant. Because if a same sex couple marries, adopt chidren, and start fighting like cats and dogs, they could end up in a messy divorce also. But in California, after the 6 month wait, they are out of the marital relationship and single again (with the right paperwork.)
dc

[uppityperson]

29. You've been married about 500 times? And people are a'feared of them gay marriages destroying the...

sanctity and all of that.

(sorry)

[david13]

30. Yuk yuk. Not quite. But that is another point of it. The sanctity

thing they talk about. Here in California and particularly certain areas here, the failure/divorce rate is 50%. Hardly a thing of sanctity.
dc

[SunsetDreams]

3. Great point.

It's a freaking stupid argument. Keep your morals and your church out of anybodies marriage!
Everyone has a a right to marry who they want to marry!

[hobbit709]

5. A few years back I got in an argument with someone over gay marriage.

He tried to tell me that marriage was a "holy sacrament".
My response was "As a former Pentecostal minister, who has been married and divorced three times, just what pat of 'Til death do us part' did you not understand?"
I added do you follow ALL of God's rules, or just the ones you happen to agree with? Hint-better start keeping kosher.
He doesn't talk to me much anymore.

[SunsetDreams]

8. Great response

"do you follow ALL of God's rules, or just the ones you happen to agree with?"

[Ian David]

4. If we allow gay people to get married, we'll use-up the world's marriage supply by 2025.

:sarcasm:

[ejpoeta]

6. imagine how pissed off those idiots would be if we passed a constitutional ammendment

banning religion. i could get behind that.

[xchrom]

7. It always amazed me how that little point never

Made it to the surface in the hysteria over marriage
Equality.

Yesterday was a win for the Rational
As much as it was a win for anything else.

[SHRED]

9. it amazes me this thread got a neg vote

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. You can have any individual be your partner in business. Why the double standard for a personal

partner?

[jberryhill]

12. You can drive that line of reasoning over a cliff, you know...

From what you said, then would you conclude that any business partner should also be eligible to be a spouse?

[jberryhill]

11. Some people simply have a limited understanding of spheres of authority

There are some people who have just grown up with the idea that there is an undifferentiated group of "the people in charge of stuff".

That's why they get upset over things like, "Why can't Arizona enforce immigration laws". They just don't get that some things are federal, some things are state, and some things overlap.

They think a marriage is something that is done in a church, and that somehow permitting gay marriage is telling churches what to do.

I can see how they slide into that. The big events they've seen as "marriage" all took place in churches. It's not like anyone dresses up and invites all their friends to the county clerk's office to get the actual license.

The historical mistake has been those states which have a two-step process of getting the license and then having it "solemnified", which some people think requires a church per se (even though states requiring solemnification are perfectly happy to have it done before a local judge or whatever).

I'm just guessing. I really don't know why people don't get that as far as the law is concerned, it is simply an assignment of a particular status.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

13. Good analysis

My position on this issue, and I don't personally have a dog in this fight, has always been that we should separate church and state on this matter. The state grants the license. The couple is free to choose who performs the ceremony. The churches are free to determine for whom they will perform ceremonies. If you belong to a church that won't do ceremonies for gay couples, then you must work to change that church.

The other argument I heard from the opposition when this issue was decided in CT was that marriage is for pro-creation so that excludes gays from marriage. Well, what about us post-menopausal women ? We can't procreate either. Does that mean that we don't have a right to get married ?

[jberryhill]

14. Your first paragraph is how the law works in most places

...but it's weird that people don't understand the mechanics.

My guess there is that marriage is not something that people do a whole lot, and they think their particular experience is normative.

The procreative argument has the flaw you mentioned. Interestingly, while some states permit first cousin marriages and some states do not, there is another category of states which will permit first cousin marriage ONLY upon proof of non-procreative potential (i.e. a verifiable medical condition).

So, the procreative argument is pretty silly when you consider there is a class of marriages which are only lawful if there is no possibility of procreation.

It gets a little weirder when you throw common law marriage states into the mix. No official act required at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Here is the thing.

Right now, and always in the US, all religious groups (not just churches) are free to hold or to refuse to hold any rite or ritual they wish. The 'church ceremony' has never been an issue, as gay couples have always had the right to do that ceremony, clergy has had the right to preform it, and many churches have and do host such ceremonies. Many others do not, never would, and could never be forced to under Constitution. This is how it is right now- the church up the street would do a ceremony anytime we wanted, it is the Federal Government that denies that right, and also the States save for MA and looks like CA.
The only party that is doing the wrong thing, the only party that has to change at all, is the government, the law. The churches will do as they do now, for they are free religiously.
So all of the rhetoric about churches, by which I am sure all of you mean 'religious congregations' not just Christian churches, it is nonsense, to related to the issue at all, to marry, anyone only needs the State. The religious part is theater and is a choice. It is a choice available right now to gay couples because of religious freedom. What is not available is equal protection under the secular law.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

19. Agreed. My point is the religious arguments/objections

that some groups keep bringing up are irrelevant. The theater, as you put it, is optional. The law does need to be changed. BTW, CT also allows same sex marriage now along with NH, ME and VT. Apparently RI is the only New England holdout. The times they are a changing !

[Starry Messenger]

15. I've had to explain it to people here on DU.

That was a stumper. Maybe there are a lot of people who also perform magical ceremonies when they fill out taxes and go to the DMV. Otherwise, I don't get the disconnect.

[LostinVA]

27. +1

[Starry Messenger]

28. I thought you'd enjoy that.

:D

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Retrograde]

22. The real reason behind the "protection of the family"

I'm listening to the discussion on KGO (San Francisco talk radio, mostly middle-of-the-road) and a pro prop-8 advocate inadvertently let slip the real reason why his group supported it: it makes sure fathers have rights to their children. There you have it, folks: it comes down to property and patriarchy in the end.

I've always liked the French model: a civil contract to take care of property and other legal issues, a religious ceremony to make the relatives happy.

[MicaelS]

23. Disconnect...

How does gay marriage and Prop 8 affect Father's right?

And, btw, I support Father's rights. I'm unmarried without kids, but if fathers can jailed for not paying child support, then mothers should be jailed for not allowing court ordered visitation. Women have been allowed to skate on this issue for too long. I have known men, who just gave up and quit trying to see their kids, because the ex-wife keep playing games every time he was supposed to see them.

"Ooh they don't want to see you." "They have Little League practice." "They're at my parents." "They have a dentist appointment." Excuse after excuse.

If women and men are supposed to be equal, then father's and mother's right should be equal. But no, it's the same old crap about courts bending over backwards to give the woman everything she want, while fucking the man over royally. And it is bullshit.