Nor should they be involved in marriages all.

Who do you think has been marrying non-religious people for the last couple of centuries?  Ever hear of a Justice of the Peace?  Government HAS been involved in marriage for as long as we have been a industrial nation.

Are all marriages that were not performed in a church null-and-void in your eyes?

People have been robbing banks for a long time too.  Doesn't make it right.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and we should honor the separation of church and state.

The only involvement government should have is enforcing the contract under a civil union.

who cares who performs a marriage and I don't think Mark does either, If people want to be together let them if they want some official binding  let them have some form of ceremony if they are religious then in a church if they are not and just want to get together an say I do then done

So divorce would be left up to what?  Do we go back to the ancient ritual where a man could say, "I divorce you" three times, kick the woman into the street with the kids and keep all the money and the house?

Yours is not a practical solution when marriage involves so many legal ramifications. Child support.  Division of property.  Citizenship rights. Taxes.  It's just not a twentieth century reality to say the State has no legal involvement in marriage (hetro or same-sex).

Marriage has been a State ceremony since the times of the Roman Empire as well.
What of the people who want to honor that history.  Are your wishes more important than theirs?

My Grandparents were married by a Justice of the Peace in a Court House in New York.  Is that tradition less worthy than yours?

Hell, now that I come to think of it, the ancestors on my Grandmother's side were married by Tribal Elders (tribal government) for centuries before any pointy hatted Church dude showed up in this country.

I'm for government getting out of the marriage business, too, but that statement doesn't make sense. Society-recognized marriages have been prevalent in all kinds of human cultures. Doesn't need a religion to exist.

Neither my wishes nor yours are at issue.  The issue is the Constitutional authority and I see none.

All kinds of human cultures have practiced a religion and marriage was a part of it.

The 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If a state has laws that contravene equal protection (and state-sanctioned marriage certain provides protections) then that state is acting unconstitutionally.

Marriage is usually part of a section of religion rites and regulations.

Marriage also doesn't need religion to exist, as seen in many cultures, including our own. I mean, atheists can get married.

Equal Protection Clause.  If marriage is not a legally binding contract in the eyes of the State, then rights of Citizenship cannot be granted through marriage.  If a man decided he no longer liked his foreign born wife - he could simply have her deported through divorce.  That wife would never have the protections of Citizenship.

So you admit that marriage has a very long history outside of religion as well.

You're putting the cart before the horse.  Where does the Constitution give the States or the Federal government authority over marriages outside of contract enforcement?

They are arguing the wrong issue.

I said just the opposite.

It's not difficult at all.  Don't get a marriage license.

Of course if you would rather enter into a contract with the State and give them jurisdiction over your lives and the lives of your children that would be your prerogative.

Then you can prove that Tribal Elders never conducted a marriage ceremony.  You can prove that no one has ever been married through a contract that was not religious down though the ages.

If "common law" marriage is just two people living together over a period of years - how does that involve religion.  That has a history that goes back to the Ancient Greeks.

It's a difficult problem. Why should I have to forego a financial benefit that others gain? So are you proposing eliminating the "Married Filing Jointly" tax category?

I suppose the Supreme Court could say, "All legislation regarding marriage is unconstitutional." Shrug. We'll see. It would involve overturning McCulloch v. Maryland. I'm not sure they want to do that.

In the meantime, while federal and state governments do have laws that concern marriage, if they are in contravention to the 14th Amendment, they should be deemed unconstitutional on that basis.

Government certainly seems to have no problem making sure that any nativity scene on any property that could even remotely be considered public is removed/banned post haste.
As for tax rates...a civil contract is just that, whatever perks or liabilities that come with it will be whatever the government thinks they can get away with.

Corporations, businesses, even sole proprietors deal with changing tax issues depending on how they conduct business all the time.

Drop the word marriage, it's a contract.

A few years ago, Emory’s Michael C. Carlos Museum hosted a fascinating exhibit based on the papyrus legal records of a family which lived in Egypt in the 5th Century BC.

The papyri were the legal documents of a couple, Ananiah, a Jewish temple official, and his wife Tamut, an Egyptian woman who’d been sold into slavery as a child. They lived on the island of Elephantine in the Nile, in a time when Egypt was part of the Persian Empire and Jewish mercenaries guarded its southern border.

As it is today, relationships could be complicated back then. When she married Ananiah on July 3, 449 BC, Tamut was owned by another man, Meshullam, who didn’t free her or her daughter for another 22 years. Things worked out, though. Later papyri record Ananiah giving Tamut part ownership of their house, selling a house to his son-in-law and making payments on a wedding gift for their daughter.

The records are a striking contrast of the bizarre with the familiar. The conventions of legalese have changed so little over the millenia that a modern-day lawyer would feel completely at home with these contracts. But the concept of marriage around which these legal proceedings revolve appears to have been radically different from ours today.

The contract between Ananiah and Tamut is so detailed that it specifies on which side of the stairs each is to walk up and down. But as far as the state was concerned, marriage contracts like theirs – the notarized enumeration of what one party could take the other to court for, if things didn’t work out – was all the marriage was. Since Ananiah was a religious leader, there may have been a ceremony to sanctify the marriage within the Jewish community on the island, but over the whole of Egyptian society, the state’s involvement in defining, protecting and preserving marriage was quite limited and specific to each coupling.~Tom Baxter, journalist and political correspondent

"Your Agenda".  Thats a BS phrase that homophobes cast around when they try and hide their bigotry.

Their is no "special" rights when same-sex marriage would apply equally to allowing straight men and women the right to marry into a same-sex relationship if they desire. 

The reality is marriage has "special rights" associated with it.  A married couple gains rights of Citizenship for foreign born individuals.  Special tax status. Probate rights.  Property rights.

We are talking over a hundred years of laws written with the special rights of marriage built into the language.  Those special rights are denied American Citizens who meet all other requirements save gender.  And the 14th Amendment guarantees Equal Protection of those rights - not a "straight person only" class of citizen.

Homophobe, that's a BS insult used to demonize those whose position you cannot dispute any other way.  Were I to preface my comments by calling anyone a faggot I would be jumped on immediately.

It's bigotry that certain segments of or society, and leaders, see as reasonable.  Doesn't make it any less hatespeech or bigotry.

So congrats.

Your mistaken.

All of which are due to the nature of the contract, not what it'
s called.

Boo-hoo, government changes the words used when making legal definitions all the time. This is just one more time. As for the rest of this part, you are once again mistaken.

CPJustice.org

Our mission is to equip citizens, develop leaders, and shape policy in pursuit of our purpose to serve God, advance justice, and transform public life.

Name the "special right" that a gay US Citizen would gain over a hetro US Citizen if same sex marriage is made law.

thats not the point of doma

the federal government generally grants privileges (not rights) for people that voluntarily subject themselves to marriage licenses

but the trial comes from a tax consequence that a legally married couple experienced for not being recognized by the feds. consequences are intended to be evenly applied to all persons (I know, doesn't pass the laugh test, but here it is in front of SCOTUS)

Pay attention here.

Here we have a classic example of The Genetic Fallacy being used as an argument.

The Genetic Fallacy is a logical fallacy where a conclusion is suggested solely on the basis of origin.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.

They should call it the Got Nothing Argument.

I wish Christians had been vocal about their objection to civil marriage before extending it to same sex couples became a political issue. It would make your position seem more sincere.

And your argument is a "got nothing" when it comes to "special rights" and "gay agenda", yet you continually wave these flags around as if they have meaning to anyone but yourself.

Again, name the special right that same-sex marriage would confer on gay American Citizens that would not equally apply to straight citizens.

Not our business until it became a civil issue.

Or have you changed sides and think Christianity should play a much more active role in government?

I propose no income tax but that's another thread.

Let's be clear here then shall we, so you don't have to claim I haven't addressed this issue again.

Your objection is that gays are not allowed to marry the person they love.  Correct?

I wish you'd known me most my life.

No - that has been resolved with states permitting same-sex couples to marry.  DOMA prevents the American Citizens who are legally married in certain states from receiving the same marriage benefits (US Citizenship, Property Rights, Social Security benefits) that hetro couples receive.  A clear violation of Equal Protection.

THAT is the issue for me.  Your issue seem to be these imaginary "special rights".

So again.  Name the "special right" that American Citizens would gain over other American Citizens if same-sex marriage is allowed.

It takes little more than common sense to see the difference between the characteristics of an auto race and a church. On the other hand, the only distinction between a heterosexual and homosexual marriage is the sexual identity of the parties. That distinction is diminished by the fact that, in both instances, there are 'two consenting adults', the important legal concerns being 'adult' and 'consent', with 'two' a lesser but still relevant matter.

The only sleight of hand in play is the conservative religious notion that the quality or character of love between a same sex couple is different than an other sex couple. Of course, there is only a small and shrinking group falling for it because, as magicians tricks go, it's actually quite sloppy.

Pointing out an arguer's basic bias and, therefore, foregone conclusion is a valid observation.

A Got Nothing Argument would look something like this: "Your mistaken."



At the end of the day:

State and federal laws have provision regarding marriages. Unless those laws are struck down in toto, which seems unlikely, then to the extent those laws do not provide protections in conformance with the 14th Amendment, they should be struck down.

That would be the conservative, strict-construction approach.