In response to:

To Save Traditional Marriage, End State Involvement in Marriage

GatoLuchador Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:45 PM
Perhaps we should have separate religious courts in the States like they do in Israel. Those courts would have jurisdiction over the marriage contracts of their followers and no secular court would have the right to overturn their decisions. Secular courts can go back to recognizing civil unions. Then, if gay people want their relationships labeled as "marriages", they would have to join a willing church and subject themselves to its jurisdiction.
David3036 Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:57 PM
The word "marriage" does not belong to religious institutions. It is just as much a legal term as it is a religious one. All this arguing over the use of a single word is just silly semantic BS.
Cambermeister Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:03 PM
But David3036, your son said it was about the semantics and nothing else.
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:13 PM
And the semantics matter in courts of law because - stop me if I'm moving too fast for you (again) - the law is WRITTEN using lots and lots of WORDS!
GatoLuchador Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:16 PM
Excuse me? Now, marriage is not a religious institution? I thought one of the main arguments made loudly by the gay community is that the traditional definition of marriage has no secular basis. That's a switch.

I think my suggestion enhances the government's role as preserver as oppose to destroyer. In fact, my suggestion would even accomodate polygamists. So, a Mormon or a Muslim would be free to have several wives and it's none of the government's business. But your marriage would come under your church's jurisdiction.
Birdman III Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:21 PM
"That's a switch."

You will notice the Liberals change their minds like the change their underwear... once a week.
David3036 Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:38 PM
Polygamists already practice their concept of marriage and are not proseucuted because only one wife is a legal spouse -- the others are "spiritual" wives. Thre are no laws agains living with or bedding with as many people as you want, of either sex.

The legal status is the relevant one. Do you want 3 wives claiming a Social Security suvivor benefit when one man dies? Do you want a soldier claiming free healthcare benefits for for two or three wives?
Birdman III Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:47 PM
"... one wife is a legal spouse -- the others are "spiritual" wives..." And there you have it ... David is confused. A wife is legal. Now he must redefine 'wife'. Watch this as it unravels.
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 6:24 PM
"Now, marriage is not a religious institution?"

Not from a legal standpoint.

Ask the *justice of the peace* if you don't believe me.
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 6:25 PM
"You will notice the Liberals change their minds ..."

I'm libertarian.

Wonder what else you got wrong?

No?

That would certainly explain a lot, wouldn't it?
GatoLuchador Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:56 PM
Incidentally, this would decouple secular law from religious law and actually give churches more real power -- the force of govt -- but only over the willing followers. Maybe it should be done in other areas.

Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become...