Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vexingsilence t1_jdew558 wrote

Reply to comment by FlyingLemurs76 in I found this map, I don't live in NH (Florida but family might move), whats going on in New Hampshire regarding Transgender people (I'm trans) by Inannazami

Marriage isn't exclusively a state institution. I don't believe there's any law that says you can't call yourself married unless it was a state recognized marriage. Just because the state latched on, doesn't mean it's not a matter of belief for many people.

1

FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdeybe9 wrote

There are benefits that come from being married in the eyes of the state which is what the issue of gay marriage is predicated upon, not to force the religious concept of marriage to include nontraditional concepts. Implied rights are easier given than relinquished, so we can't just remove all state sanctioned benefits of marriage to promote equality.

The Church is still able to deny facilitating the marriage in the eyes of God. It is worth noting that with the decreasing participation in organized religion, it has become increasingly tolerant (on the whole) of marginalized groups which is a trend I expect to continue.

4

vexingsilence t1_jdgooiu wrote

>There are benefits that come from being married in the eyes of the state which is what the issue of gay marriage is predicated upon

Right, which as I said elsewhere, could have been handed over to individuals to determine for themselves. Custody of children, medical proxy, inheritance, and so on. Would be a lot more flexible to not even have a concept of marriage and just let people determine these things as they wish. Maybe designate a default person if one doesn't want to spend time on it. But nah, lets double down on this concept of marriage so we can clog the courts with an ever increasing number of divorces and family squabbles.

But again, this was about pushing beliefs. If I remember right, NH had civil unions before marriages. But that wasn't enough, because.. it was a different term. The left wanted to enforce the belief by using the same term, there was no other reason to push at that point. It had the same legal recognition and rights.

1

FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdgy71g wrote

No, there were and are legal distinctions between civil union and marriage defined at the federal level

0

vexingsilence t1_jdi11tk wrote

This was many years ago, but as I recall, the feds were accommodating civil unions.

0

FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdjq1ww wrote

Irrelevant as were are significant benefits granted by the state by marriage that are not extended to civil unions.

0

vexingsilence t1_jdlfsaj wrote

English not your first language?

0

FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdlue0h wrote

It is actually. Are you from NH originally? Our schools are usually pretty good about teaching critical thinking skills, but I suppose you could have been homeschooled or something.

0