LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Because it is polygamy and their are laws against that.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Frankly I don't really care, but I can definitely see someone trying it just as clearly as I can see someone else strongly objecting.

Ah but if the religious marriage has no force of law... then it's not. Only the civil marriage has any recognition and even one party marries someone else in a religious ceremony as far as the law would be concerned, they're not married.

Unless you want to get into children, inheritance, property rights, and all that mess, you just brought back fuedal bastard laws where the legal, civil family has all the rights and protections and the religious family isn't real because the state doesn't acknowledge it.

These very hairy and painful issues are just one of the complicated and frustrating reasons why polygamy is banned.

And then we get into child abuse. If religion says its okay to marry a 14 year old even though the state says no, just no. Its a good idea on paper but it doesn't pan out in reality.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Religious family? You mean the church? Again, how much say should they have?

That's an icky prospect to consider, but it'd still be illegal to consummate such a religious marriage, legally recognized or not. And—again, icky though it is to discuss—there's no law today that would stop some rogue religious leader from declaring that a 14-year-old was married in a legally non-binding way, long as the (legally nonexistent) marriage wasn't consummated. In other words, the legal landscape would be the same then as now.

And I'm not sure what you mean by your "feudal bastardy/polygamy" comparison. If you mean there's a risk that civil marriages could end up as widely disrespected shams, or mere cynical liaisons unrelated to holy matrimony, even inimical to it ... well, the clergymen in question would probably answer that objection with something like "Gee, we sure couldn't have that," and roll their eyes a tad.

edited 18th Nov '14 5:02:38 PM by Jhimmibhob

Why do you guys debate if seperation of religious and state recognized marriage would work? We know it does. In like all of Europe or so.

I frankly don't understand your issues with that. Religious marriages would have no legal bearings whatsoever anymore. Going to a priest will be as much a marriage as sacrifizing a cow to your dead dog if you want it to. People can already practice such a form of extra legal polygamy if they want to.

Common law makes that hazier than first blush.

But for the most part, they already are separate, just concurrent.

And you know what? I'm completely okay with that. Why? There is no requirement that you have a religious marriage, or a civil marriage, nor can I think of any reason why you need to ensure both, and at the very least, I'm sure some people practicing polyamory have private ceremonies for their group to wed each other in a non-legally-binding fashion.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

There are, right now, poly relationships: Sam is legally married to Pat, Robin is legally married to Chris, Sam and Robin live together and raise Robin's kids with Evelyn^* What?. I'm not sure how a ULC minister marrying Sam and Robin — and for all I know they can do that now — makes it more complicated.

There is, in the U.S., no legal taint of bastardry, which I think would avoid the feudal problem.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

Actually we do have laws against claiming to be married to a minor. Its a form of child abuse.

Again, the fact that having a religious marriage isn't the same as a legal one is a problem for the very reason I already mentioned.

Let's say Bob has a civil, legal marriage with Greg. They adopt children, pay taxes, and own property together. Bob has a religious marriage to Linda. They share resources. They have children. They are in every way a married couple except that they don't have the marriage license. That belongs to Greg.

Now, Bob is very ill. He ends up on life support. Greg decides to pull the plug and let Bob go. Does Linda have grounds to fight that? What about Bob's estate and the children he has with Linda? Unless he has a will that says otherwise, they get nothing and Greg and his kids get everything because they are the legal heirs because they have the legal marriage. How much ground would Linda have to contest that? None really. After all they were just a religious and cultural issue. They have no legal recognition.

This isn't any different then how bastard children were discarded and ignored in the fuedal system.

And if anyone wants to sit there and say "Yes, you can have a religious marriage so long as you don't consummate it." Then you're just being silly. Yes there are many people who could do that but there are a vast multitude of people who wouldn't.

Separate but equal is never, ever equal.

So no. I don't approve of two different marriages. There are too many ways humans in their infinite selfishness would abuse the hell out of that.

Now if you want to talk about opening polygamy to be legal, I am okay with that in theory so long as someone can devise a way to police it against abuse or neglect within a legal framework. Just because one group makes it work doesn't mean we can use that example as a legal safety net. I think that is the fundamental reason why it hasn't been legalized or even brought up. We haven't quite hashed out a method where everyone can agree that it is the most fair and accountable to all parties and any children involves.

We shouldn't force religious officials to have gay marriages if they don't want them. There are officials today who refuse to do interracial marriages. And while I think that's bigotry, they have that right.

But I don't think we should encourage two separate systems.

edited 19th Nov '14 9:24:49 PM by Gabrael

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Why on earth would one have a civil marriage to one person and a religious marriage to another person? I can not conceive of a situation where such a thing would make sense. And again, I want religious organizations to have as little power over legal matters as the law will allow. Doing otherwise is what got us into this situation in the first place.

Gab, how is your proposed situation any different from the current one? Anyone with multiple simultaneous, long term, romantic partners is going to have issues.

Say we've got Matt, he's married to Jane and they've got kids and everything, but Matt also has a long term partner in the form of Helen, they've also got kids and are a married couple in all but the legal sense.

You get the exact same situation, if Matt falls ill and dies, with the exact same problems. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where for whatever reason a person has multiple, simultaneous, long term, romantic partners.

The only difference between our two sceneries is Matt doesn't get to call his relationship with Helen a marriage in mine.

It's not like people are going to wake up and go "well until now I was holding out on having two long term, romantic relations on the go at the same time, but I guess I should now that I can call them both marriages."

Hell what churches are going to be willing to marry someone that's in a long term romantic relationship with someone other than their planned spouse?

edited 19th Nov '14 10:09:15 PM by SilasW

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Gab: Quite frankly, I want a religious marriage to have as little power as possible. What really matters is the legal marriage, and the more churches we can drive away from that the better. There is no perfect situation, and quite possibly we might not want Linda in your example to have the reins.^note For that matter, neither did Bob, because there are legal steps you can take to designate someone else with that kind of life and death power, above and beyond having a living will, and he obviously didn't do any of them. The only situation where I can see that kind of situation arising is in various forms of polyamory and polygamy, and in both cases, I don't want their rights to trump that of regular couples being protected from religious fuckery.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

"Not making sense" has historically had a 100% track record of stopping people doing shit precisely never.

edited 20th Nov '14 2:31:06 AM by Elfive

True but the people who are going to get into those kinds of situations are probably going to do so already as is. After all, why would not legally being able to call their 2nd relationship a marriage stop them?

edited 20th Nov '14 5:16:26 AM by SilasW

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

*Shrug* I dunno, just though it would be good practice to idiot-proof the thing.

I fail to see any benefit in preventing religious ministers from performing legal marriages across the board. The only effect it will have is to force anyone who wants to be legally married but also to have a religious ceremony to have two — the strictly legal one at the courthouse and the religious one, wherever. What purpose does that serve?

Religious marriage already has no legal standing unless the legal hoops are jumped properly: the license is properly acquired and signed, the two people are legally allowed to marry, and the various rules about fees, waiting times, blood tests, and witnesses are followed.

Remember, the Separation of Church and State goes both ways, by design: it's not only intended to keep religion out of the government, it's intended to also keep government out of religion. Also keep in mind that Christianity may be the largest religion in the US, but it's not the only one that would be affected by such a law.

edited 20th Nov '14 5:40:49 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

If we decided not to do anything that idiots could screw up, we may as well not have civilization, let alone marriages.

I fail to see how that's worse than the current situation where some people aren't allowed to get married.

edited 20th Nov '14 5:45:31 AM by Morgikit

The point Silas W is the legal precedence and authority.

Currently if someone has a second family, unless they have a will, the family without the marriage license have nothing. Even if they have a will, the legal family can always challenge it and the majority of the time the legal family wins. Children are entitled to child support regardless of marriage, but only if the opposing parent or custodial parent demands it. Should a person have children from a religious marriage and had been supporting them in part, then die, there is no legal precedence for making the estate of the deceased acknowledge or support the children from the religious marriage. They're SOL.

Currently, no religious minister of repute will give just a ceremonial marriage because they have the right to give legal marriages, which also means that should they knowingly marry someone who is already married, they are accountable. There is a measure of responsibility and accountability that legality gives. If we take that away, then there are no safeguards. It also allows legitimacy and authority that their marriage is valid and the right way to enter into that union. Both the law and the faiths win with that. And of course, the state provides civil authorities like elected officials to preside over marriages for those who do not wish to have a religious union.

If we say religious entities can do whatever ceremonies they want and be religiously married, then that does create issues in legal rights and responsibilities. Does the court have to acknowledge these marriages? Does the court have the right to regulate these marriages again, preventing child abuse or spousal responsibility? Honestly, it just seems like a loophole for polygamy.

The only thing wrong with our current system is that homosexual marriage isn't legal everywhere. Otherwise, there's nothing that needs to be changed.

edited 20th Nov '14 6:29:38 AM by Gabrael

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

How on earth can you challenge someone's will just because you don't like it? That makes no sodding sense. Disputing what it means is one thing, but actually overturning it?

The whole idea of not having a will if you've got inheritors who might argue is just weird to me. But that's my dad's profession showing, he does wills and probate for a living, so wills are kinda a commonplace thing.

That makes sense about priests then. Though logically I assume that priests who lacks a marriage licence (I assume you don't get one free if you go "I'm a priest of the church of XYZ") would have no potential responsibility if they performed a ceremonial marriage for someone? Also I'd assume that existing child abuse and contract laws would already cover the needed regulation. As unless a contract is made a priest saying some words can't change anything in a legal sense.

However you're perfectly right, the problem that needs fixing is legalising gay marriage, we don't need to split marriage into its legal and religious elements to do that.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

My father died without a will because he thought his family would honor his requests.

I should have a hearing date soon against my siblings and grandmother. You don't know how people will act all the time and trusting people who should know better is sometimes a mistake.

But no, wills are not concrete, especially if you can prove that the will was made under duress or something like that.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

That sucks. I guess I'm lucky that I'm liable to always have easy access to solicitors to help draft a will, what with my dad's profession and all.

And yeah duress and alternative interpretation seem to be the only ways around a will. Though interpretation can get bloody silly at times with badly written ones. My sisters are still having issues with the inheritance from their mother. Largely because her will seemed to assume that she and their step-dad would die at the same time, him being alive means the will is hard to read. Then there's silly little incidents you get, like the time a guy used a nickname in his will resulting in a big issue because the person he referred to as gran wasn't his grandmother, but the strict interpretation of the will as written would had had stuff go to his (deceased) grandmother and then down her inheritance tree.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

@Silas

You can challenge wills for a variety of reasons - for instance if you believe the testator is bequeathing assets he doesn't own, or if the will is unclear (depressingly common), unwitnessed, stupid, or if you believe the willmaker has been subject to undue influence from one of the beneficiaries of the will.

There are also various legal rules about who you can and can't bequeath to - in Scotland, for instance, you cannot disinherit your children or your wife.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

"some people aren't allowed to get married. " is a legal issue in those states, not a religious one. The Law says that they can't be legally married. In that case, it doesn't matter how mnay ministers,priests, imams, or whatever will perform religious ceremonies or won't, it's not a religious issue.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.