Granting people the freedom to get married under lenient divorce regulations is consistent with the idea of social liberty. Prohibiting people from willingly getting married under strict divorce regulations is not.

I agree, but it seems we are in the minority.

In this thread, and in the greater argument at large, it seems that both sides are having a very heated emotional debate, and making things much more complicated than they are. Both sides seem to want to protect someone or something. And it seems more common on both sides to argue by analogy, rather than to directly address the issues.

I liked what you said earlier, that people should have the freedom to organize their legal and financial affairs as they see fit. If two men or two women want to get married, that's their business. If a heterosexual or a homosexual couple wants to get covenant married, that's their business. It really doesn't matter if they want to call their arrangement a "marriage" or a "civil union" or a "corn tortilla". They should be free to choose the content of the contract, the person(s) with whom they enter the contract, and the name by which they refer to the contract.

Could you get married before the existence of a state-issued marriage license? Or was there no such thing?

Also, you should look into "common law marriages" which are state-recognized marriages in the absence of a marriage license. These go by different rules and legal implications, depending on where you are. That such a thing exists is a reflection of the subordinate role of government in understanding "marriage."

What does this mean?

Does it make sense for the Catholic church to lobby to have their marriages recognized by every other private entity? For example, does it make sense a private company that is offering some sort of service to "married couples" be forced by law to recognize a Catholic marriage?

I also am not convinced that you are characterizing the provisions correctly. I believe that most of the provisions are that churches cannot be FORCED to PERFORM ceremonies.

Aaron:

Here's the religious exemption from the New York law:

RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW, RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A RELIGIOUS ENTITY AS DEFINED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THIS STATE, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF, BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBDIVISION, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES FOR THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE. ANY SUCH REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES SHALL NOT CREATE ANY CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OR RESULT IN ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PENALIZE, WITHHOLD BENEFITS, OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD12066-08-1

A. 8520 2
CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION.
2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGANIZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPERATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELIGION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED OR MAINTAINED.

3. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION THREE OF ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

These sorts of exemptions are typical of gay marriage laws.

As for what I mean by social acceptance, I mean that eventually gay people who are married would like it if they COULD get married in churches, if religious people would NOT claim that they didn't have a "real" marriage, and that in general people would not think of them as deviants or perverts or whatever. That's a long-term goal of the gay rights movement, just like a long-term goal of feminism is to get men to be less sexist and a long term goal of the civil rights movement was to get whites to be less racist. But it's a different goal than the legal one that the gay marriage fight centers on. Gays are for the most part willing to accept laws that preserve the right of people who don't like gays very much to not solemnize or recognize their marriages, so long as they get the equal rights under law.

As I said, people have different conceptions of social liberty. A lot of laws ARE premised on the idea that your present self shouldn't always be able to give up something your future self might want. I really am not trying to start a big debate about that; I am only noting that this isn't exactly an unheard-of justification for laws.

Aaron, are you a lawyer by any chance?

This is precisely what I noted.

This is different, but seems reasonable insofar as private entities can and should have control over their facilities.

Churches can refuse to perform/participate in ceremonies for heterosexual couples who they do not consider to be "acceptable" (for whatever reasons). If a church chose to perform ceremonies for gay couples, that's the choice of the church. I do not see why gays should get a special "we're doing it anyway" exemption that should override the church's decision. Do you?

Does it make sense that if enough blacks banded together and created a black-Korean coalition that suddenly they really are Korean?

I'm reminded of this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...22132120070531

I believe that ultimately eHarmony was not found to be in violation of any laws (they offered service X, and the gays were asking for service Y -- it's very similar to the "right to marry" dichotomy in that a gay man may still legally marry a woman, so that particular "right" has not been taken away in any sense), but settled because the PR calculation had determined that it would be better in the long run because the financial cost was too high to keep fighting (both direct and indirect costs). I believe that this is the sort of thing that the protections are intended to prevent.

Do you refer to heterosexuals as "the straights"? Just curious (in a non-sexual, straight way).

Does this mean that Catholic Churches don't want my blood when they are doing a blood drive? Should I never step into a Catholic Church again?

As opposed to "the heteros"? Is there a preferred term for a lazy general designation (some equivalent to "Asians" or any other ethnic term)?

[ ] "the gays"
[ ] "them Asians"
[ ] "those negroes"
[ ] "them there fence jumpers"

[ ] "the heteros"

I'll leave you alone before you break the [report] and [ignore] buttons itt.

No, but in all honesty, I do respect your opinion. Regardless of my smart-ass comments (or trolling if you prefer), I think you have presented your case in a very respectable manner. At least you keep your cool. And you really know how to use that floor. You have a mean chasse bro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasse

I started this thread, so I wish to thank everyone who has posted here, particularly those who have a viewpoint or opinion different from mine.

I know. My neighbor has a dog named "social liberty". But we all still know it's a dog.