jdfreefly 1 #1 June 4, 2009 (OMFG! Not another gay marriage thread) Had a couple of gay house guests last weekend out here in beautiful San Francisco. They've been in a serious long term committed relationship for about as long as me and the wife have. As you can guess, they are not happy about the current state of affairs here in Cali wrt gay marriage. After a few drinks I came up with the idea of a new religion that specifically calls out marriage between a man and a man, or marriage between a woman and a woman, or even in rare cases between a man and a woman to be allowed in the church. You can harvest some of the finer points of all the major religions of the world: Stop killing each other Love those that would do you harm Don't cheat and lie Take care of the down trodden all that touchy feely jesus shit... Then you file a lawsuit that under the constitutional right to freedom of religion the US government must recognize marriages from this church if they are to recognize marriages from other churches. Seems like a bit of a slam dunk. If Hubbard can create a bullshit cult like his and get all the upside of being a church, why can't this work too? Who wants to join the church of daless? Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 37 #2 June 4, 2009 It's not the government that chooses which religions marriges to recognize. It's that government sets rules for marrige and you get to choose who does it. Mayor, ship captain, justice of the peace, county clerk, or religious leader. In MI it seems all you have to do is declare yourself a minister and follow the laws. So even if a church marries a same sex couple, without the government license it isn't recognized. Same with a Catholic marrage, Morman, Hindu, etc. So, you don't need to create a new religion. You need to create a new government. One that says we don't do marrage at all. We do civil unions between whoever wants to, m2f m2m, f2f. IF you wnat to be 'married' in what ever religious tradition you believe go do it. Separate 'marrige' from the legal, civil priviledges and laws and leave that hot button word to religious institutions. Too late for the this solution but it makes sense to me.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mswallin13 0 #3 June 4, 2009 +1!Matthew Wallin C-37899 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdfreefly 1 #4 June 4, 2009 I hear your point about the gov. not being involved in marriage, but as long as they are, and as long as marriage continues to be touted as a religious institution by those opposed to this...making it officially part of a religion and suing for religious discrimination really seems like a good idea to me. Let us now read from the book of Carlin: http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #5 June 4, 2009 QuoteThen you file a lawsuit that under the constitutional right to freedom of religion the US government must recognize marriages from this church if they are to recognize marriages from other churches. Interesting point. There are already churches - like the Unitarian Universalists - that perform same-sex marriages whether they are "legal" or not. It does seem like an infringement on freedom of religion when the government will not recognize these marriages (since it does recognize other church marriages). But then I suppose that when the government recognizes any marriages, they are recognized as legal marriages, not as religious marriages. The government is not preventing anyone from having religious marriage ceremonies. Yeah, I think that the religious freedom argument from this angle would be just as poor as the religious freedom argument from the same-sex marriage opponents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 June 4, 2009 Sorry but it's a non-starter. Trust me, I sympathize with the cause and wish all the best to those involved, but attacking it on the grounds of "freedom of religion" is not viable. If it were, then people would be starting all sorts of whacky churches to change all sorts of wacky laws. The US government only protects those religions it recognizes and it's going to be damn difficult to create a new one and get it recognized after the Scientology fiasco. L. Ron beat you to it and screwed it up for anyone that wants to do it now.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #7 June 4, 2009 Quote Sorry but it's a non-starter. Trust me, I sympathize with the cause and wish all the best to those involved, but attacking it on the grounds of "freedom of religion" is not viable. I just want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It would seem the Defense of Marriage Act might violate that particular amendment. By only allowing states the not recognize same sex marriages, and not inter-sex marriages, one might be able to argue that a marriage performed by religious clergy is "an establishment of religion," and that DOMA unfairly respects different religions (those who prohibit same sex marriage) without parity. One might also argue that a marriage is a peaceful assembly of two people. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
