From USA Today:
When the U.S. Supreme Court reopened the door for same-sex marriages in Indiana last week, Ryan Selby and Barry Cox thought their battle for recognition was over. ...
[W]hen Selby called the Social Security Administration the same day the Supreme Court let stand federal court rulings striking down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage, he thought they'd be able to honor his request to change his last name to his husband's.Instead, he was met with uncertainty.
"They said they didn't have any process in place," Selby said.
10 comments:
Good. This is such nonsense. If you allow same sex marriage in the name of "love" then you open the door to marrying close relatives, children, multiple people, and eventually animals. You think that's a joke, but it will happen someday.
I agree with O.P. Marriage is reasonably,religiously defined. Should we start calling black people white,and white people black. Everything does not pertain to every group of people.
They(gay folks)always compare interracial relationships or prohibition with their percieved struggles,but it was racist white males through law which prevented the interracial coupling not founded on religious grounds, government can always create it's own seperate definition.
They(gay folks)always compare themselves with interracial marriage prohibition or perhaps civil right struggles of blacks.
But laws that prevented interracial marriage were created and enforced by racist white males without the benefit of religious foundation or support for it.
@2:58 PM, October 18, 2014
I posted the second comment. I'm not well versed in religion. I do not believe in undue discrimination.
But to my knowledge there is no religious support for gay marriage in the bible,Quran,torah or other genuine religious text.
I may have overlooked the link/article posted but it did not cite any passage in any religious text that forbid interracial marriage. Interracial marriages were forbidden by racist white males in power to do so.
I also agree we the premise that nature or creation intended for a sexually healthy male and a sexual healthy female to reproduce together continuing the human race. Unlike gay relationships.
@3:55 Anti-miscegenation laws stem from religion, and are still argued today by extreme groups. A Google search can educate you regarding the role of religion in interracial relationship backlash. I will not be arguing against your opinions regarding gay marriage; I learned some time ago it's an exercise in futility and a waste of my time to do so. I only commented in an attempt to keep you from making such an obvious false claim regarding the role of religion in these specific civil matters.
If marriage is religious then let the churches decide who can get married. Of course, many of them will marry people of the same sex (and some will allow a man to marry multiple wives, which certainly has precedent in the Bible). What some of you above want is not for religions to define marriage, but for the government to use its power to legitimize only marriage that you think it is supported by "genuine religious texts". It's not the government's job to decide what religion is genuine or what their position is on marriage.
"If marriage is religious then let the churches decide who can get married".
I have posted before. Ancient religion has prescribed or defined marriage and ancient religions and their text should administer it.
The question is:What is marriage?
To my knowledge there is no support in any ancient religion to support gay so called marriage.
Of course gay folks and their supporters can always makeup a religion.
Perhaps nothing should have a meaning,according to some.
Why should the government decide which religions (such as "ancient") to use to define marriage, and if it did, how would it decide what their definitions are? I assume you would include Christianity and Judaism as ancient religions. Plenty of Christian and Jewish (and Buddhist and other) clergy think their religions allow same-sex marriage. Evidently you disagree, but I would think they would know a lot about their own religions.
By the way, there is support in ancient religious texts for polygamy, as well as slavery and genocide. Child sacrifice was practiced by some ancient religions. And with regard to marriage, ancient societies had just about every kind of arrangement. In some, there was no real marriage - a woman's relatives helped her raise her children, and the biological father was irrelevant (he would be helping raise his sisters' children). There were also some that allowed same-sex marriage.
The courts are asking states to come up with a rational reason, not a religious reason, to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. States have been unable to come up with any. You might know which religions are "correct" and how they define marriage, but it isn't the government's job to determine that.
The point is, is that the Social Security Administration does not change a person's name, that requires a court of proper jurisdiction. Once the name change is properly completed, SSA will issue a new card with the new name on it..
Shut up. Marriage legally speaking is about tangible benifits, meaning money. It takes money to live, that's the world we live in.
OK, this is out of hand. I'm doing what I should have done some time ago and shutting down further comments on this thread.
Post a Comment