10-year old Arkansas boy refuses to say pledgeFollow

What if we did this…?

America was a country established with the idea of a separation of Church and State. *cough*

What if we, the people for the people by the people, take all the local, state, and federal laws and wipe from them the term “marriage” and replace it with the term “civil union”?

We define “civil union” as between two individuals leaving out any sexual orientation. A “civil union” could only be carried out in front of a local/state/federal judge and would be used for census/taxation/etc purposes. Being a federal law, this “civil union” would be recognized at all levels of the legal system and across all state boundaries.

We define “marriage” as a religious function as directed by the leadership of said religion. The term “marriage” would carry no weight within the legal system.

So, what have we done? We’ve leveled the playing field by altering the terminology of our laws to provide equality to all our legal citizens. A “civil union” would be the only legal way to join two individuals.

If there is still an argument for the use of the term “marriage”, one would need to confront their religious orders and challenge said leadership.
If you happen to be Roman Catholic, good luck with that fight.



I would also move the nation’s capital to a bunker deep within the Rocky Mountains. I'd install all forms of ballistic and laser defenses to keep out the riff-raff. Just sayin’…

Honestly, that idea fails at both ends of the issue. The "problem" isn't really about whether or not a church wedding is allowed or mandated or whatever. The issue is specifically between the civil contract aspect of marriage and the state status aspect of marriage. Those are both managed by law, not religion.


Your idea just merges the latter two while renaming them to something else (which will **** off both groups btw), while keeping the label "marriage" exclusive to religious ceremonies (which is also meaningless and will **** folks off). It's kind of the worst solution possible really...

Unlikely. I can't recall a time wherein gbaji actually argues about this subject with regards to the church; the discrimination arrives through purely fraudulent economic means. Conflating him and that ilk with religious argument just gives him justification to increase his martyr status.

No. It's the strawman. Which explains why it's brought up again and again and again until everyone assumes that it must be the core and central issue at stake. And sure. There are certainly some religious folks convinced that if these legal changes pass, their churches will be forced to perform gay marriages or something. That hasn't happened, but of course churches have had their tax exempt status revoked for not allowing their buildings to be used for gay marriages, so maybe that's not so far fetched of a fear?


The point I have always made though is that just because there are bad reasons to hold a position on an issue does not invalidate the good reasons. If we're to make a reasoned and informed decision we should look at the best arguments for or against something, not pick the worst of the ones we oppose and the best of the ones we support. Doing it that way means you've already made up your mind, and you aren't actually making a decision based on facts, but manipulating the facts to defend your position after the fact.


I don't discuss the religious aspect of marriage because it's largely irrelevant to the specific cases we have had before us. Prop 8 didn't have anything to do with whether a religious organization had the freedom to choose to perform a gay marriage or to choose not to do so. Same deal with Question 1 in Maine. Both issues dealt specifically and exclusively with the state legislated criteria for the legal status of "marriage". Specifically, should that criteria include "one man and one woman", and is that criteria in violation of the state or US constitutions?

Since those were the issues, I've limited my arguments to discussing just the aspects of marriage in which the state laws intersect. Dunno. It just seemed reasonable...

But for the record, the religious aspect of marriage falls into the "social construct" of marriage. IMO there are three broad aspects of marriage:

1. Marriage as social construct. This has to do with the simple declaration of the relationship itself. Who you do this before and how is up to the couple. It could be with your family and friends. It could be with your church. It could be in the Chapel o'Love in Vegas. It's up to you and has no real legal weight. It's pretty much just social convention and whatever is expected or desire by you and your partner.

2. Marriage as civil contract. This is all the legal promises the couple makes to each other. They grant powers to each other in a legally enforcible way (ie: a contract). The state does have interest in this in that it will enforce the contract, but that's about it. What a couple chooses to do contractually is really their business. The state may require a minimum set of contracts to qualify for the third aspect, but other than that it's up to the couple. This is where most of the things we legally think of as "marriage" exist btw.

3. Marriage as state status. This is a status which the state creates to recognize specific relationships. Presumably it has some reason to recognize them and to create rewards for those who enter into them. This is the only component of marriage which is actually restricted by the state since this is the only component of marriage in which the state is actually obligated to do anything (other than enforce contracts which it does with any contract, right?). This is also the one thing which is really at issue in most gay marriage legal battles.


Clear enough? Religious marriages are in there, they just aren't relevant. Pretty much the entirety of the issues currently surrounding gay marriages deal with the boundaries and requirements between aspect 2 and aspect 3. The first one just isn't involved in any way at all.

But only half of them could marry him.

You were implying that I would make a similar argument to the one I disagreed with above. When pressed on the issue, you stated that I avoid speaking about religion with regard to marriage out of a desire to avoid the core issue.


Yes. I get that you were trying to make a broad point about separating an issue into component pieces, but that was such a ridiculously vague swipe at me that it's silly to respond to. Every argument involves that to some degree.

The boy needs to eat I guess.. specially healthy foods ^^

The point I was trying to make with "He's certainly never discussed the religious aspect of this at all":



I'm not talking about religions being forced to marry same-sex couples. I'm talking about people not wanting same-sex couples to get anything at all, simply because their religion says so. I'll also readily admit that I'm talking out my *** without specific numbers to pack this up, but this is also no simple issue to track. Someone could say they don't want same-sex marriage because "homosexuality is a choice." That doesn't really say where they got the idea from, but odds are it wasn't from their health class in eighth grade.



So you responded anyway? Not sure what your point is trying to be here other than "I nailed myself to this cross! The view is dismal! This was a silly idea but I am doing it anyway!"



I don't understand this general "LET'S BE REALLY NICE GUYS" attitude that's been popping up in The Asylum later from various posters who don't frequent here, and it's even more bizarre to see you say it. Do you really feel the need to start wailing in pseudo-terror while up there?

No, but it would help it at least one person had a good reason for taking a position. I've yet to see a good reason for standing against SSM.




I'm pretty sure people have refuted ALL of your arguments. They must have all been "the weakest argument"


On the other side, you making baseless blanket statements doesn't make them true, either. And no, it doesn't matter how right you think you are.