Since it's seemingly tougher and tougher for a gay couple to legally Marry, why not fight to create a new?

Question

Clause or Different name for marrige wich allows the same rights?

Our Country is having problems with the Term Marrige (and the religious implications), I am christian yes but I don't see the point in discrimination no one is here for me to judge.

I am aware that as a straight person I can marry who I want so please I ask don't come on here and tell me what I already know.

.This question was promted by the latest ruling in California that Baned homosexual Marriges. Is there any other solution other than appealing until all of you are are doing Geriatric exercises on the Discovery channel

But if it was named something else. I know there are Civil Unions and Partnerships in that fight to create the same rights as a married couple with a different name. As long as The Word Marrige is the term, it's going to be like ice skating uphill for you Guy's/ Gals. A little progress here and there for you guys but probably never enough.

Answer 1

a gay marriage by any other name is still a gay marriage.

Answer 2

I can tell you it wont fly in Canada our government has a mandate to put it down and unfortunately it's about to happen, as far as Civil Unions and partnerships are concerned the Government will grant that, but the same rights as a married couple, good luck on that one, Mr Harper will call for a public vote on it and you don't have to be a brain surgeon to know the out come. I believe religion will become the door that will not open for Gays and lesbians. we truly are living in a world gone mad.

Answer 3

I don't think that it would be easier.

It's pretty clear that there are a LOT of groups that don't want gay and lesbian couples to have RIGHTS period, whether the union is called marriage or not.

Personally, I believe that ALL couples (regardless of gender)should have civil unions as the document that confers legal rights. If they, then, wanted to get a marriage certificate from their preferred house of worship, great. It simply would carry no force in law.

Answer 4

I probable discovered the starting up and increasing action toughest. I rush through in simple terms about each and every scene in the course of the first draft, so with the very establishing scene, except for no longer understanding precisely the position and the thanks to commence it, i imagine my widely used purpose develop into to SHOVE each and every ounce of characterisation into the first few paragraphs. *Slaps self.* stupid, stupid female. From even as i began, the starting up has more suitable. And, like I suggested, I rush through each and every thing so that's confusing to develop pressure, and that is a few thing i have had to consciously bypass again and kind out even as modifying. i like to jot down wrestle, action scenes, even with the actuality that. probable they should be speedy, lol. i'm gaining understand-how of the thanks to %.. on the extent i'm at now, i don't understand how undesirable my characterisation is, and that i have lately began to be demanding about the intensity of my tale. modifying is between the perfect elements, in my opinion! that's large to construct on some thing you've began to create. In end, the starting up develop into the hardest because of my impatience.

Answer 5

But it shouldn't be easier to get out of than a marriage. Maybe....NO they should be married. Why is marriage only between a man and woman. There is no law requiring people to have babies so WHY!!!!

FIGHT THE POWER!!!!! Holland has not gone to hell in a hand basket!!!!

Answer 6

Haven't most of us "bent" our whole lives in an attempt to conform to what we thought society wanted? Why play games w/ the semantics of it all. Yes, I want to marry my man someday--in a MARRIAGE ceremony, professing our love for each other in the presence of everyone that matters to us!

Answer 7

if you take away marriage from the situation then no religion should but heads, just remove the religious factor from it, call it a gay union or something.

Answer 8

because that would still make us separate, and NOT equal! we're only asking to have the same rights as any other committed couple in this country.

Answer 9

Some states have already passed laws against that as well.
No, I'm not going to stop until we can MARRY.

Answer 10

I personally dont want the state in my marriage.

Marriage: It is what it is...
(not necessarily what you think it is...)

According the the US Supreme Court, forming "PARTNERSHIPS" is a RIGHT of the Common Law, antecedent to government; & not subject to regulation thereof.

The concept of "marriage" (domestic partnerships) is as old as civilization. The current battle over the issue in the US & other countries is a result of many confusions working together to overthrow natural law in favor of some statutory attempt to work an abomination of law into the acceptance of the public psyche. The term "Marriage" is a word with several meanings ... and depending on the meaning - the execution at law will vary. So, this document will attempt to clarify the term, explain the origin of "State marriage" & put the issue into proper theological context. What you'll discover is that the commonly held beliefs about what marriage is - are mostly based on myths about the law; And that once you understand the actual legal history of the Government's posturing, - you'll see that the Devil is indeed in the details. If there is a single issue I can think of that will damn the likes of Religious Reich, -- it is on this subject of "Marriage".
According to Black's Law Dictionary:

... a "License" is a permission slip to do something that would normally be unlawful

... a "Marriage License" is a document that "allows" miscegenation (inter-racial marriages).

So, here's the question for those who may be seeing a seeming contradiction: If the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a Common Law RIGHT that cannot be regulated by government, - how is it that government issues "licenses" to do what the Supremes say can't be regulated? It's because what the government CALLS 'MARRIAGE' - is actually something quite abominable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'Devil got his foothold' back after the Civil War. Prior to the 14th amendment, Blacks were seen in the eyes of the law as "different" than white. Different Flesh. Sound absurd? Up into the 1960's, those favoring segregation often made identical assertions -- including several high profile politicians who were recorded saying it. Because the law-makers of so many states did not question such bigoted assertions, there came to be "laws" in place that made interracial marriages illegal -- under the premise that Blacks were not recognized w. the rights of Citizens' -- & that Blacks were not "men" in the same way as were "white-men".

Ironically, in a recent article on 'beliefnet' - called Slouching Toward Chimeras, -the writer asked the rhetorical question of "What happens to the near-human hybrid"? Of course, his queries were hypothetical in his mind. However - if you look at his questions, you'll see that they relate to legal issues already raised in the US - not over Chimeras - but about Blacks!
"Fusing a human and chimpanzee embryo–a feat researchers say is quite feasible–could produce a creature so human that questions regarding its moral and legal status would throw 4,000 years of human ethics into utter chaos.

Would such a creature enjoy human rights and protections under the law? For example, it’s possible that such a creature could cross the species barrier and mate with a human. Would society allow inter-species conjugation? Would a humanzee have to pass some kind of “humanness” test to win its freedom? Would it be forced into doing menial labor or be used to perform dangerous activities?"

Am I alone in feeling that the laws passed & battles fought over the LIE that blacks "weren't quite human" represents the epitome of evil? And it's those very lies & resulting "miscegenation laws" that define "marriage" on the state & federal level today! Anyone who applies for a government marriage license is asking permission to marry another species! That's HOW the government can "regulate" it. If people understood that marriage is a civil RIGHT - then government would lose ALL regulatory control. So, to deceive people, the state pushes something IT CALLS "MARRIAGE", which is really based on an ABOMINATION! This understanding of Law give a whole new understanding to Romans chapter 1. Many people refer to the quote I'm about to cite as a "gay-clobber passage". Oh really? Read & make up your own mind:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator..." - Rom 1:22-25a

People who call government - God: Cursed! The state "marriage license" is but one facet of this sin. A man who asks another mere-man for what is a RIGHT - professes by the asking - that he himself is less than a man! It is idolatry! But you reader: Make up your own mind!

Miscegenation proponents often quote from the Bible -- where God forbade intermarrying among the Israelites. What those who quote such "scriptures" fail to clarify is WHY God forbade it - as if God was concerned about "racial purity". It turns out, that it wasn't about race at all, -- but about pagan religions being introduced into Judaism's culture by the associations of married relatives. The truth is made crystal-clear in texts like: 1KI 11:1 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter--Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

Therefore, the "miscegenation laws" were based on these false premises:

that Blacks were not "mankind", (I can't express how this lie sickens me!)

and the teaching that God was opposed to mixed race marriages. (In violation of the establishment clause.)


I would add that the separation clause in the 1st Amendment raises a legitimate issue of Constitutionality about such Mala-Prohibita laws -- but I know of no court where such an argument was ever raised . After the Civil War, people who had a spine & decided to marry interracially moved clumsily through the political process, and "Marriage Licenses" were issued as the "solution" to those who wished to marry "outside of their race". This is "how" government got a foothold into regulating what was actually a RIGHT of the Common Law. Exceptions via "license" were made to the standing miscegenation laws at the time (an unconstitutional set of laws based on lies).
This is also where the judgment of God should become a serious issue. After all, if a person BELIEVES that marrying "interracially" is marrying "other flesh", then what you essentially have is a person's own conscience declaring that they are guilty of the sin of Sodom, -- as it is written: "Even as Sedom and `Amorah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." STRANGE FLESH? The Greek term is: "σαρκὸς ἑτέρας" -- HETERO, SARKOS. Notice the term is "HETERO". Many scholars generally agree that Sodom idolized sexual relations with angels -- perhaps as a religious cult. This activity,- by the very definition in the text about Sodom's sin, - is HETERO-SEXUAL (Sex with the 'Other' - 'Strange flesh' - 'men with angels' - 'mating other kinds').".
I want to be very clear here. The text is NOT condemning interracial marriages. The text is condemning sex with HETERO SARKOS (other/different flesh). God made Adam; & the descendants of all humanity are from him. There is NO actual HETERO-SARKOS among men. Men are (1) kind of flesh ... as it is written: "But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." - I Cor 15

Grasp this: God judges by the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb 4:12). If a person believes that an act they do is wrong; - Then for them, - it is wrong (because by doing the act, they violate their own conscience)! This is the reason that the Apostle Paul spent a great deal of time building people up and explaining to them the "WHY" ... so that men would have strong consciences that granted them liberty to act, - because their consciences were not tossed about by whimsical teachings ... like "miscegenation laws". Paul taught wonderful "heresies" like: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male & female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - Gal 3:28 Yeah, Paul taught that RACE, CLASS, & GENDER collapsed into a singularity in Christ! However, people who don't believe that will be judged by the same measure they use to judge others! It is written: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." - Mt 7:2

To recap:

Modern Marriage Licenses have their foundations in miscegenation laws.

Miscegenation laws consider the races to be "different flesh".

A "Marriage License" is a government permit to mate "different flesh" / "HETERO SARKOS". (Not that interracial flesh is "different", but that was the BELIEF at the time those laws were passed)...

A Sin of Sodom was the pursuit of "HETERO SARKOS"

So then, the form of "MARRIAGE" that requires a State License is defined by LAW, to be a form of union that was specifically declared to be the Sin of Sodom!

Men are judged by the measure they use to judge... so those pushing State marriage licenses while yelling "sodomite" at others - are themselves, - the 'sodomites'! How's that for divine irony?

Do you see where the "fundamentalists" like those pushing for a "Constitutional Marriage Amendment" may be in deep trouble with God? Contemplate it in the back of your mind and read on...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N S E R T :

"But the Spirit says clearly that in later times some will be turned away from the faith, giving their minds to spirits of deceit, and the teachings of demons; -- Through the false ways of men whose words are untrue, whose consciences are seared as with a heated iron; -- Who keep men from being married and from taking food which God made to be taken with praise by those who have faith and true knowledge. Because everything which God has made is good, and nothing is evil, if it is taken with praise: For it is made holy by the word of God and by prayer." - Apostle Paul


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his 1st letter to Timothy, Paul points out the habits of end-time false religion. Huh ... would you look at that: "Who keep men from being married" The word for "married" in the Greek is "Gam-'e-oh" & it means EITHER GENDER! The 2nd part I've highlighted has (2) scriptural connotations: First, it symbolizes communion (food taken with praise that has been made sanctified). Second, it relates to men who have strong faith vs. those of weak -- because Paul hit on the exact issue in Romans 14. Churches that don't allow men to marry or take communion (eat certain foods); -- Do we have a 'match' in the modern? If your 'church' matches the pattern -- then it's doctrines are demonic (say "evil"). It's time to come out from among them -- don't you think?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know what some of you are thinking: "State Marriage Licenses ... The Sin of Sodom!?", -- surely that's a stretch! In light of the New Covenant of the Gospel, -- it is a fascinating dynamic! Do you need another "witness" to the accuracy of this assessment? I will give another.

It is written: "`And a man who gives his lying with a beast is certainly put to death, and the beast ye do slay. `And a woman who draws near unto any beast to lie with it--thou hast even slain the woman and the beast; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them." - LEV 20:15-16

Of course, this is the Law of Moses forbidding intimacy with "other flesh". However, Paul wrote that the Law is SPIRITUAL, meaning that there is a metaphysical explanation for this law that transcends the direct implications of the text. Want a hint as to the "bigger meaning"? OK. It is written: "I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this. "So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: `The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth." - DA 7:15-17

Do you recall above where I quoted Paul as he spoke of "different kinds of flesh". Well, I've shown you in Daniel where "Beasts are Kingdoms". According to Paul, they too are "flesh", as it is written: "And there are bodies of heaven and bodies of earth, but the glory of the one is different from that of the other.".

So then ... who are the PARTIES to the STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE?
Answer:

You,

your Spouse,

and the STATE!

According to the Scripture in Daniel, governments are BEASTS.
According to Moses, people who intimately couple with BEASTS are to be put to death & the BEAST is to be slain!
The sin of HETERO SARKOS: is the mating of the intimate life affairs of man (made in the image of God) with that of a government (a proverbial "Beast" ridden by men)! Did you ever wonder what legal basis the state has to rule in a divorce or determine child custody? It's the "Marriage license" that gives the STATE a legal interest Without that, a common-law court, not "family court" is the only legal recourse.
Would you have sex with a snake between you & your "spouse"? Then why would you sheath your genitals in a "license" issued by a "servant government" - to obey its terms regarding the upbringing of your household?


Will the "Real MARRIAGE" please stand up?

Technically, "REAL Marriage" is a Common Law, Domestic Partnership. That's all it is. Trying to make it something more is a violation of the US Constitution (& common sense). The US Constitution forbids "Titles of Nobility". This means that a person/s may not be elevated in status above any Citizen by title, and that human rights are guaranteed equally to all. Part of the problem with current "State Marriage" is that a body of laws have sprung up around it to grant certain privileges to a class of people who possess the State License of Marriage. This is merely a "Title of Nobility" being bestowed upon a partnership. It may be an established practice, but it does not make it any less unconstitutional. To a Christian like myself, I see this as nothing more than a proverbial "Bowl of pottage" to coerce the unknowing into giving up their birthright for a "bowl of soup" in the now (which is about all you can afford with Social Security spousal survivor benefits).

Ironically then: The "REAL" marriages being conducted today are like those done by the MCC -- where vows are exchanged publicly WITHOUT the STATE license! Before God, these are holy! The Common Law recognizes them as the domestic partnerships they are!
However, those "Marriages" that are sealed with the STATE "License", are Scripturally: ABOMINATIONS -- the very Sin of Sodom! And yet, the "Religious Reich" wants to clutch State "Marriage" with both hands -- as if they have something desirable they don't want to share! They love a curse; & by feigning to "deny" it to others -- the principle of coveting takes hold!
Don't be deceived! What the Religious Reich claims as "sacred exclusivity", is Satan's-counterfeit for what g0ys have had all along via civil-unions!

The prophet Isaiah said: "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isa 5:20 Indeed!

Marriage Amendment for the U.S. Constitution?
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
-- Patrick Henry


So, I suggest that we let George W. & Jerry F. have their phony "Amendment"! Let them horde this wickedness to their "HETERO-SEXUAL"-constituents! Let those who indiscriminately call us "Sodomites" (simply because we are men who love men), - clench tightly in their grasp upon their deathbeds a legal document, signed, notarized, & bearing legal-witness to the fact that THEY are the "SODOMITES"! Let them stand before God at the end of days - awestruck - as men damned by the very measure they mercilessly judged others with; -- & let that measure declare with proper seals, signatures & salutations: - that they were the very thing they claimed to have detested in their "holy hypocrisy"!
Let Hayman build his gallows!

You may ask, "Who will be judged?". The answer was already given: Those who judge others in light of the license! You see, there are many people who could care less about the government's "marriage permission slip", -- and many of these people live with another person without the document (as did almost everyone prior to the 20th century). Very often, the Religious Reich accuses such people of "shacking up" & "living in sin" - "FORNICATORS". While that "might" be the case; -- I think the bigger question is: "Who are you to judge the relationship of another?".
I.E: I had an uncle who had a "live in housekeeper". They lived together until he died. The family (a bunch of 'pagans' by the standards of Pat Robertson), did not raise an issue as to the estate. As far as they were concerned, my uncle & his housekeeper had been "married" -- even without the permission slip. An oddity today, -- a century ago, this perspective was the norm! Had the family had the name "Falwell", - can you imagine the fight in probate court over the estate of this Common-Law widow! Jesus said of the legalists of his day: "As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." - MK 12:38-40 Jesus was exposing the deeds of the wealthy religious teachers of his day. The term "lengthy prayers" is a legal expression meaning they spend lots of time in court. This is precisely the means they use to devour widows houses through probate.

"But unknowing members of my family & friends have marriage licenses! What of them?", you may ask. Same answer. Do they judge other's right-standing based on the paper? Do they judge their "righteousness" by it? Would they deny any of the "benefits they perceive" the documents grants, -- to another who does not have the document? By the measure they judge will they be judged! This is the beauty of the Covenant of Grace: "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" - Romans 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TELL ME MORE!"

Nothing damns a man much better than his own testimony. It would be a shame to miss the Kingdom of God by 6 inches. Let me point you to a brilliant website that has some fantastic insight -- written by someone whom I believe misses the Kingdom by about 6". This site is penned by a well-intentioned & brilliant FUNDAMENTALIST. I include the link for several reasons, & because I am not co-dependant on you hearing another "opinion" -- especially from a site who speaks prejudices against same-sex unions so blatantly. Read what this anti-gay researcher writes about "marriage". And then, as you read, keep in the back of your mind that his opinions about same-sex relationships are formed by his inability to let go of the gender-issue (Gal 3:28) & distill the real issues down to their basis. What you'll conclude is likely what I've written here; -- & you'll see by this man's own words that those persons "fighting to protect civil marriage", are indeed -- fighting to protect the sin of Sodom! Ironic, but a testimony to the deadliness of hate.

http://famguardian.org/index.htm
Some Brilliant Stuff Here

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/FamilyLaw/FamilyLaw.htm

One final note: The site above has some essay's on "homo-sexuality". The use of the term to label people with is evidence that the writers do not understand the very Scriptures they purport to explain; -- But in addition to that, you'll notice that much of what is "described" is stereotype of the BPT (& as G0YS.ORG points out: The BPT does indeed have a problem with abusing people in the name of 'pleasure').


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW: David & Jonathan in the Bible, were indeed "Civilly Union'd'"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------