Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 8th Jul 2012 17:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 525890
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I agree on the position that it's the government's responsibility to register a union. What type of union it is and how it works, should not be the responsibility of the government.
This is how it works in The Netherlands. We have legal marriage, and ceremonial marriage.
The legal wedding is the only one that has legal meaning. It is performed by a government official, and has all the legal standing usually associated with marriage. Since the first article of our Constitution guarantees unconditional equality for all Dutch citizens, the legal marriage cannot exclude same-sex marriage.
The ceremonial wedding, which can be performed by a priest, rabbi, or whatever, has zero legal status. It has no legal meaning whatsoever. A couple which only holds a ceremonial wedding is not married as far as the state is concerned.
The end result is that religious couples usually do a quick legal wedding at city hall in the morning, only to hold a big ceremonial wedding at the church later that same day, with all the guests and egards. Couples who are not religious usually seek out a beautiful building or outdoor location, and 'rent' the government official, and turn the legal wedding into the big ordeal a wedding usually is. You can even do a quick legal wedding at city hall in the morning, and then a large non-religious ceremonial wedding at a beautiful location presided over by whomever.
The gives freedom to everybody, and ensures the clear separation between church and state - as it should be. This is 2012, this is no time for theocracies anymore.
This is how it works in The Netherlands. We have legal marriage, and ceremonial marriage.
Why can't both be legally recognized? As a Christian, I believe that marriage is a union before God. When my wife and I got married, it was done so in my church with our pastor conducting the marriage service. I do not believe that right should be taken away from anyone, no matter how things are done in a different country.
Of course, you can always go to the Justice of the Peace in the US and get married in the office without having any type of ceremony if you wish.
To take away my right, as a Christian, in which the traditional wedding no longer holds any legally recognized meaning isn't extending my rights - but taking them away.
Having said all of that - I have zero problem with two people of the same sex getting married to each other. That is their choice, and it is NOT up to me to say they shouldn't be able to do so. What they chose to do has zero effect upon me or my marriage, and I wish them all of the happiness in the world.





Member since:
2009-05-19
I agree on the position that it's the government's responsibility to register a union. What type of union it is and how it works, should not be the responsibility of the government.
That way, Arabs that want to have many wives can have many wives, gay men can be in a union with another gay man, a straight man can be in a union with another straight man(why not?) and so on. (I use "man" as a human, not male)
I mean, we already have corporations and each one of them is a legal person. Just extend something similar to people.
However, that Google shouldn't be doing it is not a reasonable position. Otherwise they should be in China and collaborating with PRC on filtering the web. While Brin is at Google, there will be this side to Google.
Edited 2012-07-08 23:02 UTC