Federal Appeals Court Rules California's Ban on Gay Marriage Is Unconstitution

[BT]

But how does the church get into position to decide what marraige is ok? Isn't marraige secular?

Marriage historically has been a church function. The US constitution doesn't even mention it.

[kimba1]

If the church is in charge of marraige, then wouldn't it have the power to say all other marraiges are invalid
Ex-catholic,muslim ,etc.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Marriage has mostly been the province of the states. Every state has regulations regarding marriage.

The Federal Government refused to admit Utah to the Union unless the Mormon Church rejected plural marriages. It is pretty certain that Utah did not pass any laws declaring children born of second, third or ninth wives as being illegitimate.

One by one, the states will legalize same sex marriages. Perhaps some will hold out longer than others, as Arizona did over the MLK holiday. But I would estimate that by 2040, gay marriages will be recognized everywhere.
The Feds will still have to declare that the IRS marriage deduction can apply to gay marriages.

There is no chance of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Every year, more of those old fogies who disapprove will die, and every year their children and grandchildren will be more tolerant, the same as occurred with interracial marriages and segregation.

[Plane]

People marry even where there is no government.
   What is the government intrest in encouraging the practice?
     Is marriage not a religious practice?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is a religious rite, but it is also a civil institution as well.

In Mexico, those who get married get married twice: once by the government and once by the Church, since neither recognizes the other.

In any event, gay marriage will be increasing legal in the future. Some churches will recognize it, others will not.
Just like the case in divorce.

[kimba1]

hmm if you think about it right now gay marraige maybe  sort of legal anyway because the US acknowledge alot of other types of marraiges without the concent of church or government. from taxes to various business. Thier  might be no law from PREVENTING gay couples getting marraige status tax wise. Immigration doesn`t have any limitation of types of marraiges.
true the types of marraige I`m talking about are all hetero,but it might still apply. In england non-british marraige by it`s citizen are not legal. ex. mick jaggar/jerry hall.
I don`t recall anybody getting married oversea ever having to redo it locally.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Immigration doesn`t have any limitation of types of marraiges.

===================================
Polygamous marriages, most notably among Muslims, are not recognized. No one can sponsor the visa of a wife if they are married to another wife.

I don't know what immigration would do in the case of someone like ibn Saud, who had 72 children.

Saudi royals, of course, never apply for US citizenship.

[BSB]

Frankly I don't see what religion has to do with marriage. Marriage is about property rights, equal access, etc. What does the church have to do with those secular protections?

Institutions like the Catholic Church are relics whose time has come and gone.

BSB

[sirs]

Frankly I don't see what religion has to do with marriage. Marriage is about property rights, equal access, etc. What does the church have to do with those secular protections?

You actually have that bass-ackwards.  If anything marriage is all about the religious union of man & woman.  Has been for centuries.  If you want to seperate the religious union from the legal "access & protections", merely seperate them.  Leave marriage the dominion of the church, while the state does the legal recognition component.  Call it a civil union, if you wish

What some folks might want to opine as relics, others see as a foundation of their faith.  Best leave each other alone.  So repeatith the 1st amendment of the Constituion of the United States.  One would think a former military veteren could grasp that point

Sirs