The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a controversial bill Thursday that would allow private citizens and organizations to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages without facing punishment.
It does not have to be separate. No legally recognized marriage for anyone. You want marriage, go to a priest. No reason for gov to stick their nose in.
It is pretty much a violation of separation of church and state to take a religious term from a religious ritual like marriage and giving it legal weight.
Excuse me? Absolutely fucking not. You don’t get to concede my marriage, and to be frank, fuck you for even suggesting it.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Marriage is not a “contract”. A contract binds two parties to an agreement. Marriage binds many third parties to be obligated to recognize it for things like hospital visitation, privilege to not be forced to testify against one’s own spouse, “married filing jointly”, and hundreds more examples.
This argument you’re making right now is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I was having with people vocally and financially supporting band on same-sex marriage in the 2000s. I thought this braindead bigoted bullshit died in the 2010s, but here you are
I think you missed the main term in my response. Union. A union is a recognized formation of parts that work together for a common interest or purpose.
A “union” could be designated to have all rights and privileges that you lay out as only reserved for marriage. But a union could also go further. It could go into any level of granularity that the people of the union specify that might be ambiguous with typical “marriage rights”. If marriage defines everything then what’s the point of a prenup? Also, ALL of your examples can be superseded by other legal agreements, contracts, wills, etc. For example, a signed power of attorney takes priority of hospital decisions.
I’m making quite the opposite point on same-sex marriage.
No, I’m trying to get your family recognized nationwide by using a different term to remove the barrier to rights and privileges. I’m separating church and state. I’m suggesting the freedom to get “married” by whatever religion accepts people for who they are. I’m saying the government should recognize when two people decide to contribute to society as one.
You can do both is my point. Get a certificate of union from the government (establish rights) and then go get married by whomever you want. Again problem solved.
This is all so stupid. It’s the religious term “marriage” that they all fight for. Give it to them.
Instead government issues and recognizes contractual unions between two consenting adults.
Problem solved.
Separate but equal is not the solution you think it is.
It does not have to be separate. No legally recognized marriage for anyone. You want marriage, go to a priest. No reason for gov to stick their nose in.
It is pretty much a violation of separation of church and state to take a religious term from a religious ritual like marriage and giving it legal weight.
I think you made my point better than me.
Excuse me? Absolutely fucking not. You don’t get to concede my marriage, and to be frank, fuck you for even suggesting it.
Marriage is not a “contract”. A contract binds two parties to an agreement. Marriage binds many third parties to be obligated to recognize it for things like hospital visitation, privilege to not be forced to testify against one’s own spouse, “married filing jointly”, and hundreds more examples.
This argument you’re making right now is the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I was having with people vocally and financially supporting band on same-sex marriage in the 2000s. I thought this braindead bigoted bullshit died in the 2010s, but here you are
I think you missed the main term in my response. Union. A union is a recognized formation of parts that work together for a common interest or purpose.
A “union” could be designated to have all rights and privileges that you lay out as only reserved for marriage. But a union could also go further. It could go into any level of granularity that the people of the union specify that might be ambiguous with typical “marriage rights”. If marriage defines everything then what’s the point of a prenup? Also, ALL of your examples can be superseded by other legal agreements, contracts, wills, etc. For example, a signed power of attorney takes priority of hospital decisions.
I’m making quite the opposite point on same-sex marriage.
That’s a lot of “could” and “would” doing a lot of work while ultimately still in support of fascist bigoted bullshit.
All hypothetical shit when the actual, currently working concept of marriage already exists
Now you lost me. Are you saying the current system of marriage works and at the same time insisting I’m the one against same sex marriage?
Yes to both. Your original suggestion is to strip me and my husband of our marriage.
No, I’m trying to get your family recognized nationwide by using a different term to remove the barrier to rights and privileges. I’m separating church and state. I’m suggesting the freedom to get “married” by whatever religion accepts people for who they are. I’m saying the government should recognize when two people decide to contribute to society as one.
You can do both is my point. Get a certificate of union from the government (establish rights) and then go get married by whomever you want. Again problem solved.