Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Also, private contracts are not always sufficient. For example, there have been cases where someone is in the hospital and their unmarried partner is denied visitation rights, even though they have a private contract granting them (often because the family doesn't approve of their relationship and bans their partner from visiting). Granting legal recognition to their marriage avoids those kind of problems by removing all doubt about whether the legal contract does what it needs to do. You can just say "we're married" and follow the standard marriage rules instead of having to bring a bunch of lawyers to argue about it.

A living will does this as well. And is cheaper.

A living will can be extremely costly when it comes to inheriting great amounts of money - depending on your country of course. In Germany, it's a horrible injustice. If you're married, your partner can inherit up to 500.000€ without paying taxes. If you're not it's 20.000€. Had something like this happening to me in the recent past where I had a living will with someone I was very close to (platonic) and inherited a huge amount of money. There are ways to get around the greedy state trying to go for your money, but they aren't open for everyone and it's annoying and a lot of work.

 sebster wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
And the usual suspects plead ignorance

To be fair to Whembly, he's complained about no-fault divorce a fair few times before, going back a few years. I don't think his interest in the issue has anything to do with anything the Republican party is doing.

Thanks bro.


As I was discussing this with other folks privately... I just don't see any movements from the conservative sphere on changing anything on divorce laws. There will be some serious civil war within the movement if that really picks up steam. Just don't fall into that trap that all conservatives are religious (I'm not) and all religious folks are conservatives.

I mean, I'm in Ouze's camp when he stated:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.

I have a difficult time fathoming the mindset that would want to eliminate "no fault divorce". It's the very pinnacle of government intrusion into a private union.

And you know how I'm so anti-government anything with respect to cultural things.

Here's a little bit of information from where I'm coming from...

I've been thru divorce... and I had a great lawyer. She took the time to deal with my issues and candidly told me that the card is stacked against me. She said that the wives are incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. I was extremely lucky that my ex didn't push the issue (which stems from her guilt in failed marriage).

However, let me add that I don't know what the real solution should be. Maybe our current laws is "as good as its going to get" as these laws are tempered with the ideal of "what's best for the childrens".

*shrug*

I'm just a little more opinionated on this subject as a divorcee and having lost a friend of mine who killed himself because he was depressed (which started when his wife divorced him and just took... everything.).

I'm not perfect. Handsome... yes, perfect? No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Yep, because whembly was giving a similar opinion before the move in Republican position on the issue.

That assumes the GOP is quite a bit more monolithic than it really is. (Also, MRA did not come out of nowhere.) I can assure you that this is nothing new for Republicans. What is new, as I mentioned, is substituting a critique of no fault divorce for the increasingly unpopular and uncompelling critique of gay marriage. And even then, it's only new as a matter of crystallizing as actual policy proposals in state houses and gubernatorial campaigns. I first heard about this tactic hanging around conservative wonks-to-be about 5-6 years ago and lo and behold here it is.

Meh...

That may be the case. I'll do some research on this in a bit.

I just don't see how it'll gain any traction.

@Manchu: I feel honored that you think I'm such a spoke person for the conservative movement. If that's what you think... I'll just treat that as a badge of honor.

 whembly wrote:
I feel honored that you think I'm such a spoke person for the conservative movement. If that's what you think... I'll just treat that as a badge of honor.

I don't think you're a GOP spokesperson; I think you uncritically accept right-wing propaganda -- for personal reasons or whatever, I don't really care -- and parrot it on this board.

 whembly wrote:
I just don't see how it'll gain any traction.

Traction? This is from a party that has overcommitted to opposing gay marriage. Plus, Q Branch is still working out the glitches in the lab as it were. Republicans and Democrats are both using the states to experiment with policy initiatives. And furthermore we're talking about ideology in addition to policy. Just because you can't get a bill passed doesn't mean you (a) stop believing it and (b) stop using it to rile up constituents who also believe in it.

 Ouze wrote:
I was married by a lawyer in his office to my wife with 2 witnesses, not a bible or member of the clergy to be seen. I think my marriage counts as "real".

I don't know what he's on about. In Texas and many states (especially in the West where it was common that there were few people around to begin with) "common law" marriage is indeed "real" marriage.

In Texas if you hold yourself out to the public as married you are indeed married in the view of a judge.

Interesting. You hold yourself out as married against all others, you occupy land and hold it against all others. OMG MARRIAGE IS ADVERSE POSSESSION!!! It all makes sense now...

 whembly wrote:
She said that the wives are incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. I was extremely lucky that my ex didn't push the issue (which stems from her guilt in failed marriage).

Did you consider that your lawyer was selling her services to you?

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I feel honored that you think I'm such a spoke person for the conservative movement. If that's what you think... I'll just treat that as a badge of honor.

I don't think you're a GOP spokesperson; I think you uncritically accept right-wing propaganda -- for personal reasons or whatever, I don't really care -- and parrot it on this board.

Conservative... not GOP. Get that straight boyo.

 whembly wrote:
I just don't see how it'll gain any traction.

Traction? This is from a party that has overcommitted to opposing gay marriage. Plus, Q Branch is still working out the glitches in the lab as it were. Republicans and Democrats are both using the states to experiment with policy initiatives. And furthermore we're talking about ideology in addition to policy. Just because you can't get a bill passed doesn't mean you (a) stop believing it and (b) stop using it to rile up constituents who also believe in it.

*meh*

To me, it's sorta like those who wants more regulation on 2nd amendment. Nothing of significant will really happen. Likewise to divorce laws.

Conservative, yeah right.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
She said that the wives are incentivized to divorce by the alimony retirement plan racket, the anti-male divorce industrial complex, and the practical guarantee of child custody. I was extremely lucky that my ex didn't push the issue (which stems from her guilt in failed marriage).

Did you consider that your lawyer was selling her services to you?

Sure...

Keep in mind, we discussed different tactic and outcomes. I was really preparing for a court fight and she was doing her job in tempering projected outcomes.

For example, I made more than half than she did. In the state of MO, she can ask the court for a share of that half.

I said "No... not happening".

The three main reasons for the argument against same-sex marriage are:

1. Religious reasons - WAY too many sources to even list, to evangelical Christians gays are worse than satanist

2: Icky factor - two girls no problem, two guys eww, Its really a maturity issue.

3: Psychological harm to a child raised by two same sex parents - the real damage come from the child being bullied by the other classmates in school for having same sex parents

 sebster wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
I know, this seems a bit of a stretch to people for whom spirituality is not daily part of their lives or don't believe in any god but these people are guaranteed the same rights under the constitution as the rest of us.

When you understand their constitutional rights and learn the history of just how intertwined government and religion have been, you can understand how they can believe the term marriage is in their purview. Basically there is enough evidence there for them to make the case.

The religious get as much say in government, but no more than anyone else..

By this reply, it almost seems as if you feel that the "religious" have crossed some boundary.

Is this how you feel? Do you feel that they have exceeded what should be allotted to them and that they need to be heeled in? To be shown the error in their thinking?
Just trying to understand your tone here.

sebster wrote:
And there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that there was a ever a purely religious inspired version of marriage seperate from property laws and inheritance. None. That is fiction.

Really, you trying to suck me into a "true scottsman" argument? Its things like this that can make any attempt at a discussion with you an unpleasant chore.

sebster wrote:
And even if there was such a thing at one time, we know that here, in this world, marriage is not a purely religious thing. You can go and get married without involving any church or spirituality at all. And not only is such a thing recognised by the state as a marriage, it's recognised as a marriage by religious people. The idea that religious people would say 'oh you're married per the law but it wasn't in a church I recognise so it isn't really a marriage and you're stealing my word' is laughable.

And that's what this whole argument about religion owning a word is, laughable..

Not about owning a word, It is about the concept of marriage having become more than just a business contract. Marriage by definition is an intimate relationship. Now, intimacy is something shared between two people who have become very close The federal government has no business inserting itself a couples intimate life.

Now to answer your example of a church not recognizing a marriage.
The churches have done just that in the past, Not married by our standards then you are not legally married. And it would stick. What is telling in such situations is that religious marriage ceremonies have a better track record of being approved in the majority of states than does many
of the local (individual state) ceremonies.

States not recognizing another states version of getting married is still quite common. And it is not just over same sex marriage. It is often over different states having differing ages of consent and differing legal requirements for marriage. And there are other things that can throw a wrench in the interstate recognition of a marriage/civil union.


Honestly, I feel the entire system is inefficient, cumbersome and in need of an overhaul, because the concept of marriage has become this romantic religious ritual that usually occurs or is pictured occurring in a place of worship. The government doesn't need to be regulating romance, it needs to be helping set forth the expected financial and childcare duties.
Where the government is concerned, it should be handing out domestic union contracts where the couple agree to who does what and where the money goes. As a contract, both parties can ask to come back on a regular basis to renegotiate needed changes.

These re-negotiations would go a long way towards stopping divorces that are traumatizing to both the kids and the couple..

This new system I advocate would require prospective couples to take a primer on what are the legal benefits and hazards of "Contractually Uniting" are. Then they have to actually hammer out a contract that details who is expected to cover what percent of the costs and what happens when kids enter the picture. There should also be a provision for re-negotiating specific items and who gets what should they decide to dissolve the domestic union.

Yes, this would cost a little money but would save so much more in the long run. Oh well, enough rambling from me on this point.

sebster wrote:

focusedfire wrote:There are other things that complicate the issue such as the Catholic church's long history of providing for the needy with religious based(tax exempt) services(food banks and medical care). Under current anti-discrimination laws, these charities would lose there protections and will likely fail if Gay marriage becomes US law....that is unless the Catholic church caves to secular pressure on a definite no-no in their holy book.

'definite no-no' makes a big assumption about how complex and prone to interpretation the bible is. There was a time, of course, when slavery was defended through a reading of the bible, while other christians argued against slavery with other verses of their own. Ultimately, when one side finally won that debate, the other side just slowly disappeared from view, and generations later it was bizarre to think that Christians could have ever argued that slavery was good and proper and Christian.

No reason to think this will be any different.

Here is a "Big" reason to think it is different different. Nowhere in the bible/torah did it say to go out and gather slaves, but it clearly stated that "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination".

You see, to those that have never read the bible, they think that it is this big book of don'ts because of all of the crappy tv evangelists. Honestly, there are very few things strictly proscribed in the bible. The Ten Commandments, cleanliness violations, don't eat the apple and who not to have sex with are pretty much it. The old and new testament are books much more about "doing" the right thing than they are about the "don't do this".

This is why many Judeo-Christians and also Muslims are dead set against the idea, this is one of the few specific no-no's.


Now, a case can be made much more easily for lesbian marriages. Why?, you ask.
Because, Leviticus Chapt 18 spells out who can get together with who, has a ridiculous amount of detail.....except that there is nothing about woman laying with another woman.
Apparently, God is down with the lesbians, just as long as they do not violate the no sodomy rule(no toys).

Another case could be made for gay men to be married under the Bible if they vowed to never be intimate(Have relations). The second they did such, the marriage would most likely be null and void according to the churches.


Really, the smart move is to just let go of a word whose definition and imagery has become so intermingled with the religious ritual that takes place in a house of worship. Pick another word, make it the "governmental standard" that applies to benefits and let the religious have their rituals as they see fit.
We have done it with other controversial words(words that have legitimate meanings and uses but because they have become associated with a contentious subject, the government stops using the word.

While I'm not a fan of political correctness, it does exist as a part of our society. I think, it would be appropriate if this tool of censorship by the reactionary types was actually put to a good use for once.

Peregrine wrote:
When I, a devout atheist, die I will have some kind of funeral ceremony and it will have nothing to do with religion.

Oh, the sweet, sweet irony of this statement.

Peregrine wrote:
You tried to claim that because a particular religion has rituals around marriage and funerals those things are owned by religion. And that is simply wrong.

Not necessarily wrong, when you consider that up until a few decades back marriages, funerals and burial services were often done by the local church's/synagogues/mosques/ect...or their clergy, completely independent of the government.

That is the kicker. If these rites were "supposed" to be the sole province of the secular government then the various religions and their clergy would never have been granted this right in the first place.

 focusedfire wrote:

Not necessarily wrong, when you consider that up until a few decades back marriages, funerals and burial services were often done by the local church's/synagogues/mosques/ect...or their clergy, completely independent of the government.

That is the kicker. If these rites were "supposed" to be the sole province of the secular government then the various religions and their clergy would never have been granted this right in the first place.

They still are "often" done by local religious bodies... That doesn't mean that funerals or marriages are the sole domain of religion. Clergy have been "granted" the rights to conduct rites by the state, because to do so the opposite would be to infringe, limit or otherwise violate the people's 1st amendment rights.

Basically, funerals, marriages and the like are not the "sole province" of the government nor the religious body, and almost never have been.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:

Not necessarily wrong, when you consider that up until a few decades back marriages, funerals and burial services were often done by the local church's/synagogues/mosques/ect...or their clergy, completely independent of the government.

That is the kicker. If these rites were "supposed" to be the sole province of the secular government then the various religions and their clergy would never have been granted this right in the first place.

They still are "often" done by local religious bodies... That doesn't mean that funerals or marriages are the sole domain of religion. Clergy have been "granted" the rights to conduct rites by the state, because to do so the opposite would be to infringe, limit or otherwise violate the people's 1st amendment rights.

Basically, funerals, marriages and the like are not the "sole province" of the government nor the religious body, and almost never have been.

Seems we might be in agreement here. We have just seem to be approaching the same point from opposite ends. The point that I have been arguing is that due to history and to societal perception, the marriage (and funeral) rites have a legitimate association with religion.
This association is so strong that the word marriage will always be legally "tainted" with religion. Now, I am not saying that marriage is solely a religious term, because to do so would be absurd.

Why absurd? Because, when to people join together in marriage it is more than just property rites, bloodlines, taxes and even religion. Marriage is a big concept that deals with the most private and intimate portion of the lives of those who engage in the practice. This is why I am against any "one size fits all law". That it would be more efficient for the government to set up a method of regulating the things that should be in its purview, namely,(taxation, property rights and legal parental rights/duties). And that all things intimate and spiritual should be left to either the couple or the religions, namely(their beliefs, philosophy, private lives, spirituality and spiritual & emotional welfare of the children).


This is where we get to the part that leads to my current stance.

a) Governments and Religions have differing purposes for their involvement in what is commonly called marriage.
b) The Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment as to meaning that it is to be a wall between church and state or more commonly phrased as "separation of church and state"
c) This interpretation has been used by some secularists as cause to crusade against the government and religions sharing any form of a connection.
d) Because various religions and government have to keep everything separate then this would by default include marriage.
e) Due to the legal need to be "separate" then each will have to have their own "separate" terminology. This is because both using the same word will create an unending legal battle(SCOTUS job security?).
and
f) If there has to be separate words, guess who wins. Yep, like you pointed out above, telling the various religions that they cannot "marry" would be unconstitutional.

From a legal stand point, the "churches and the "state" having 2 differing words for what is their purview is not only logical, as long as we use "separation of church and state" as the legal default, it is inevitable.

Imo, the problem does not come from the Bill of Rights but from:
An overly board interpretation that is often applied at times where we need to be looking at the original wording.
and
Various governmental agencies attempting to legislate something that they were never clearly given the right to


Also, there is another amendment at play here that most forget about. It is the reason why the Supreme Court usually kicks this issue back down to lesser courts. It is the 10th amendment.
This is also the amendment that will most likely be the grounds to appeal for the recent SCOTUS decisions that struck down several defense of marriage laws.

Cookie cutter interpretation is only good for cookies

I will keep myself from this discussion, but now that I can post again, I just want to apologise for a previous comment I made here.
I do not hate homosexuals or anything like that. My argument came out worse and stronger-worded than intended.
I have a very annoying tendency to speak in hyperbole, which occasionally gets me into trouble.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

 focusedfire wrote:
This association is so strong that the word marriage will always be legally "tainted" with religion. Now, I am not saying that marriage is solely a religious term, because to do so would be absurd.

So it is not solely a religious term, but it cannot be a legal term at the federal level? Yeah, I've heard that argument before. It ignores the importance of the term in federal jurisprudence, and the importance of the concept in federal law; basically forcing the federal government to bend over backwards for certain states.

Something you doubtlessly want.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I will keep myself from this discussion, but now that I can post again, I just want to apologise for a previous comment I made here.
I do not hate homosexuals or anything like that. My argument came out worse and stronger-worded than intended.
I have a very annoying tendency to speak in hyperbole, which occasionally gets me into trouble.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

I don't know what you said, but it'd be good if you didn't go down the homophobia route and end up being a twisted homophobe later in life.

 dogma wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
This association is so strong that the word marriage will always be legally "tainted" with religion. Now, I am not saying that marriage is solely a religious term, because to do so would be absurd.

So it is not solely a religious term, but it cannot be a legal term at the federal level? Yeah, I've heard that argument before. It ignores the importance of the term in federal jurisprudence, and the importance of the concept in federal law; basically forcing the federal government to bend over backwards for certain states.

Something you doubtlessly want.

Soooo, it is ok to ignore the entire history of the word in terms of how it is applied in federal jurisprudence, just so long as some group gets to stick it to the religio's. Got it.

Really, your argument here seems to be, "you guys can't change how the word is legally used but our side can". Is this irony or just plain hypocrisy?


As to your allusion to what I want? My desires are irrelevant, finding an equitable compromise that clarifies the roles of government and religion are what matter.

Telling Gays that they can't have federal benefits is wrong.

Telling the religious that they don't have constitutional rights to follow their religion AND telling them that they will suffer sanctions for following the tenets of said religion(refusing to marry gay couples) is just as wrong.

What I propose is an equitable solution.

What you want is an "in your face" and "take that" victory over the conservatives and religious right.

Which is the better way to govern? Equitably or maliciously?


Earlier, I asked what are basically these same questions of your close bud Sebster and now ask you:

Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights?
Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?

That was a weird incomprehensible rant there...

focusedfire, I have no idea what you tried to say.

Dogma was arguing that to remove the word from governmental use was to ignore its use in/ its jurisprudence.

My reply is from the stance that to change the legal definition to include gays is to also ignore its historical use in jurisprudence.

Hence my stance and question of "Why is it wrong for one group and right for another?".
That Dogma is arguing to hold the religio's to a standard that he/she is unwilling to hold non-religious too.

If a group is refusing the compromise that gives everyone what they have been fighting for, then you have to question the motive. My stance is that if a group refuses to compromise based upon an "in your face" attitude, that they are in the wrong.

In the '90s the conservatives were wrong to not accept the domestic union compromise and that the gays are now wrong for the same reason.

Any subsequent questions or statements made to dogma are based upon his/her long posting history and seeking clarification as to how dogma sees the oppositions position on the matter.

 focusedfire wrote:
Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights? Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?

I do. Religious instiutions are businesses, and should be taxed as such.

Why should I be forced to subsidize a business, especially one I find to be morally questionable?

 focusedfire wrote:

Hence my stance and question of "Why is it wrong for one group and right for another?".
That Dogma is arguing to hold the religio's to a standard that he/she is unwilling to hold non-religious too.

Thing is, in my mind, Government has more "right" to the usage of the word than the "religious" as, lets face it most of the noise coming from the religious camp is of Christian, Mormon or similar faiths.... The word "marriage" has been used since long before even Judaism was a thing, and every known language, past or present has a word for it.

If the Spartans had a different word for "man love" or a "homosexual marriage" then it has been lost to time. The point is, no one group has any more right to a simple word than another, excepting in the legal sense of the Government's role as a "guardian of equality" (ie, they're supposed to support equality and equal rights, regardless of what a small/large portion of society screams about).

 jasper76 wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights? Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?

I do. Religious instiutions are businesses, and should be taxed as such.

Why should I be forced to subsidize a business, especially one I find to be morally questionable?

Interesting argument though I disagree with the blanketing use.

First there is a difference betwen the religious and the religions. One is a person exercising their freedom of religion while the other is a man made structure whose purpose is to provide a structured place of worship(churches).

Second, I would argue that there is a "big" difference between being a tax exempt "non-profit" business and astate or federally subsidized social welfare program.
Non-profits "do not take", subsidized groups do.

Is there some instance of subsidization? Yeah, but I don't believe that you want to argue against federal insurers paying christian and Jewish hospitals or supporting the some of the most efficient medical charities(Saint Judes?....Though I believe St Judes may be 100% private funding these days).

And last, I would ask you to answer the question again, noting that I asked about the "religious" as opposed to religions".

 focusedfire wrote:
And last, I would ask you to answer the question again, noting that I asked about the "religious" as opposed to religions".

I think there's a murky area here, because IIRC there are instances of the law preventing child abuse from the religious (ex. refusing medical treatment for your child, forced marriages, etc).

However, I think alot of what children are exposed to at the hands of their parents or clergy that is now totally legal is in fact child abuse, it is just not classified that way because no politician has the will to call a spade a spade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 focusedfire wrote:
Is there some instance of subsidization? Yeah, but I don't believe that you want to argue against federal insurers paying christian and Jewish hospitals or supporting the some of the most efficient medical charities(Saint Judes?....Though I believe St Judes may be 100% private funding these days).

By virtue of not paying taxes alone, every religious institution that claims tax exemption in the country is subsidized.

 jasper76 wrote:


By virtue of not paying taxes alone, every religious institution in the country is subsidized.

Not true at all... So they don't pay an income tax.

Well, if they have a building/property... they pay a property tax
Many-most of them that have a building are paying a mortgage or lease for that facility, which usually entail taxes as well.
They run on electricity and have water running to them, so they pay utility bills.
They also have insurance for liability purposes.
Quite often, they have more than 2 employees which means salaries and payroll taxes


And they have to take care of all of that purely through the goodwill of the people who show up on Sundays/Wednesdays/Saturdays (or whenever they meet)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Thing is, in my mind, Government has more "right" to the usage of the word than the "religious" as, lets face it most of the noise coming from the religious camp is of Christian, Mormon or similar faiths.... The word "marriage" has been used since long before even Judaism was a thing, and every known language, past or present has a word for it.

If the Spartans had a different word for "man love" or a "homosexual marriage" then it has been lost to time. The point is, no one group has any more right to a simple word than another, excepting in the legal sense of the Government's role as a "guardian of equality" (ie, they're supposed to support equality and equal rights, regardless of what a small/large portion of society screams about).

My point is that the word "marriage" is a french based word that is also used in english. The act of domestic unions "pre-dates the word".
Another issue that compounds the problem is that the US has never established a national language, which from a legal standpoint is insane.
There are many iterations and synonyms that have little or no connection to religion. Using one of these could easily be done at the time that we finally codify our "legal" language.

As to the government protecting equality, we have already discovered that discrimination against one group in favour of another doesn't work.
If the government is truly going to "equally" protect peoples rights then continuing on a path that is guaranteed to create an inequality is, at best, counter-productive.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not true at all... So they don't pay an income tax.

Well I don't want to get caught up in a symantic argument. If you don't think that federal income tax exemption is a subsidy, than there's no need to argue the point.

 focusedfire wrote:

As to the government protecting equality, we have already discovered that discrimination against one group in favour of another doesn't work.
If the government is truly going to "equally" protect peoples rights then continuing on a path that is guaranteed to create an inequality is, at best, counter-productive.

How would "granting" marriage rights to same sex couples be "guaranteed to create an inequality" ??

jasper76 wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
And last, I would ask you to answer the question again, noting that I asked about the "religious" as opposed to religions".

I think there's a murky area here, because IIRC there are instances of the law preventing child abuse from the religious (ex. refusing medical treatment for your child, forced marriages, etc).

However, I think alot of what children are exposed to at the hands of their parents or clergy that is now totally legal is in fact child abuse, it is just not classified that way because no politician has the will to call a spade a spade.

Well, You did a good job of dancing around a direct answer. Though the last sentence gives me what I was looking for.....

Still would like a more direct answer to the original questions, though I understand why you might want to avoid such.

jasper76 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not true at all... So they don't pay an income tax.

Well I don't want to get caught up in a symantic argument. If you don't think that federal income tax exemption is a subsidy, than there's no need to argue the point.

Not semantics, rather legal definition and proper use of the words. Do you have any idea of just how much worse the US's debt problem would be if we allowed tax-exempt to be conflated with subsidies?

 jasper76 wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
And last, I would ask you to answer the question again, noting that I asked about the "religious" as opposed to religions".

I think there's a murky area here, because IIRC there are instances of the law preventing child abuse from the religious (ex. refusing medical treatment for your child, forced marriages, etc).

However, I think alot of what children are exposed to at the hands of their parents or clergy that is now totally legal is in fact child abuse, it is just not classified that way because no politician has the will to call a spade a spade.

Care to clarify yourself here?

OK, leaving behind whether tax exemption is a subsidy, in fact or in practice, here are direct answers to original questions:

 focusedfire wrote:
Do you feel that the religious in this country have exceeded what should be their allotted rights?

Yes, I do. Religious people should not have the right to abuse children behind the shield of their religious belies.

 focusedfire wrote:
Do you feel that the religious need to be better educated as to what position they play in our society?

Yes, I believe that there is a prevelant attitude in the United States that the religious are morally superior to everyone else, and that their beliefs should be shielded from criticism and given an exalted place in the public arena.