Mini-DOMAs: "This is, objectively, madness."

[stebo0728]

Guess we need someone name "Not Sure" to figure it all out for us.

[IBCoupe]

That I'll buy.

So if I understand you correctly, you and your spouse could get married in a synagogue, and your marriage would be defined as a primarily religious affair, with that set of criteria.

And my spouse and I decide to go get hitched by the JP, in a strictly civil arrangement, with the rights and privileges that come with that.

Now, let's say we both split from our respective spouses - are we in for a very different set of experiences (legally / civilly)?

I'm saying that each of us will have entered into the institution of marriage. Each of us will enjoy identical rights and privileges. In the view of the State, there will be no difference. Whether a particular marriage is religious ultimately has value only to the people in it. There's no need to try and institutionalize it.

I could get married in a synagogue with a religious ceremony. Maybe that gives my marriage special meaning to me. Maybe it doesn't. But the religious benefit is something that the State shouldn't be trying to establish. I'm arguing that it should be just the way it is: you can get married in a church if you abide by the law and their terms. You can get married by the state so long as you abide by the law.

[IBCoupe]

Where does "Common Law Marriage" fit into this?

As I recall, in California, if you live with someone (albeit not same sex?) for more than 7 years, you are effectively married according to the State ... from the perspective of joint property ownership, taxes, and the like.

If this is still true (and I don't know this), how does this impact the discussion in this thread?

Z

As I understand it, you'd still have to elect it. It's not something that happens automatically andwithout your consent.

[IBCoupe]

It is, as I said, a mess.

And people can point fingers at DOMA (or its opponents) all day long, but none of them have presented viable alternative options.

No, there's been a viable alternative presented all along: eliminate the gender requirement on marriage, and give everybody a healthy dose of MYODB. Problem solved.

[IBCoupe]

Guess we need someone name "Not Sure" to figure it all out for us.

LUKE WILSON, WHERE ARE YOU

[HashiriyaS14]

No one should be able to get "married" in the eyes of the state.

The state should provide nothing but equal, secular civil unions for everyone, regardless of orientation. If you want to get "married", that's between you, your spouse, and your church (or synagogue, or luciferian temple, or whatever). Government has no place there.

[AZhitman]

No, there's been a viable alternative presented all along: eliminate the gender requirement on marriage

...including for churches and clergy?

[IBCoupe]

Hash, what's the difference between the State providing legal benefits to every marriage versus the state providing benefits to every "civil union?" Why construct an arbitrary second institution?

Greg, clergy and churches aren't the state. They're not required now to performs service they don't want to and wouldn't ever be. You guys are making this way too complicated.