Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

miked10270 · 07-31-2003, 06:33 AM

Hi Cheerios,

I think that Bush is defining marriage as the union of 2 people for procreation and to provide a stable environment to raise the resultant children. All the "forsaking all others", & " 'til death do you part" stuff is effectively to that end.

Athiest, Buddhist & satanic Hetrosexual marriages still fulfil those basic requirements (although in the case of the satanic ones the stable environment bit may be a little loose.

Like it or not, America IS a largely christian country, by which I mean that the dominant religion is christianity, albeit with a significant tolerance of other personal & religious views. Bush's personal beliefs & views tend toward the traditional WASP America and if he wants to be re-elected he KNOWS that he'd be better following his own beliefs and pandering to the "Greater Bible-Belt" than the L/G Community (who probably all vote Democrat anyway).

I am aware that formal marriage, as opposed to co-habiting, carries VERY significant legal implications, particularly with regard to inheritance & "spousal" benefits. At present, all the legal implications of formal marriage are effectively denied to homosexual relationships regardless of the relationship's duration. This is a REAL injustice which is the issue that must be addressed.

One solution would be to allow homosexuals to marry (but it IS resisted strongly by church groups).

Another solution is a Legally Binding "committment ceremony which avoids the use of the word "Marriage". As such, it becomes a purely legislative matter, NOT a quasi-religious one.

In effect, any person qualifiedto perform a "Marriage" ceremony would also be permitted IF THEY WISHED & AGREED to perform a committment ceremony.

Actually, if this did come to pass, I wonder how long "Marriage" would last before being largely replaced (even in the hetrosexual community with "Committment".

Mike.

07-31-2003, 06:33 AM	#7 (permalink)
miked10270 Banned Location: Scotland	Hi Cheerios, I think that Bush is defining marriage as the union of 2 people for procreation and to provide a stable environment to raise the resultant children. All the "forsaking all others", & " 'til death do you part" stuff is effectively to that end. Athiest, Buddhist & satanic *Hetrosexual* marriages still fulfil those basic requirements (although in the case of the satanic ones the stable environment bit may be a little loose. Like it or not, America IS a largely christian country, by which I mean that the dominant religion is christianity, albeit with a significant tolerance of other personal & religious views. Bush's personal beliefs & views tend toward the traditional WASP America and if he wants to be re-elected he KNOWS that he'd be better following his own beliefs and pandering to the "Greater Bible-Belt" than the L/G Community (who probably all vote Democrat anyway). I am aware that formal marriage, as opposed to co-habiting, carries VERY significant legal implications, particularly with regard to inheritance & "spousal" benefits. At present, all the legal implications of formal marriage are effectively denied to homosexual relationships regardless of the relationship's duration. This is a REAL injustice which is the issue that must be addressed. One solution would be to allow homosexuals to marry (but it IS resisted strongly by church groups). Another solution is a Legally Binding "committment ceremony which avoids the use of the word "Marriage". As such, it becomes a purely legislative matter, *NOT* a quasi-religious one. In effect, any person qualifiedto perform a "Marriage" ceremony would also be permitted IF THEY WISHED & AGREED to perform a committment ceremony. Actually, if this did come to pass, I wonder how long "Marriage" would last before being largely replaced (even in the hetrosexual community with "Committment". Mike.