Mormons who have been married in the Temple can divorce with approval from the First Presidency of the church.
Susan
I didn’t mean to imply that anyone is “stupid”, and if that’s how it sounded, I apologize. I was trying to say that if people only hear arguments from one side of an issue, then they can’t make an informed decision.
Personally, I really like the idea of removing all government involvement in “marriage”, keeping it in the realm of religion. If married folks (of any religion) want legal rights together, get a civil union. If unmarried folks (of any or no religion) want legal rights together, get a civil union.
It’s a piece of paper that allows social security benefits to couples, makes joint tax filing possible or easier (depending where you live), allows courts to determine proper child visitation and custody, and a few hundred other things. It’s a piece of paper, but a very important piece of paper, I think.
Apology accepted. Yes, I agree 100% with you about getting government out of marriage. Politicians will never support it however, because that would mean a loss of tax revenue. Sure Libertarians will support it, but they have virtually no power at the state and federal levels.
I know. I didn’t mean to say that gay people won’t get divorces when they are allowed to marry. I know they will, at about the same rate as straight people. What I meant to say is that it seems strange to me for people who have been divorced multiple times complain about gay people “mocking the institution of marriage.”
If that even makes sense, I’ve been kinda “spacey” lately. 
So let’s get rid of all that, and then it truly WILL be a piece of paper. Not that it will be any less significant mind you. Taking an oath should be one of the most solemn and profound things you ever do, regardless of legal or religious attachments.
Never been divorced, but…while I’d agree that the prevalence of divorce suggests “mockery,” I don’t think you can tag each example of divorce that way.
While I cannot feel,first person, what it’s like to experience gay issues anymore than I can know the black experience, or the native american experience, etc…I feel, at this point in my life, that if I were in that boat I’d be happy to be able to have a legal union with the rights pertaining to such a union. The name “marriage” would not be something I’d knock myself out trying to obtain. The meaning of anyone’s committment is a personal thing between them.
It sounds like we’re all in agreement here: get government out of marriages! I say we march!!!
Tramp, Tramp, Tramp,
The boys are marching!
Oops, wrong era… 
How could we get rid of all of that (social security benefits, child custody issues, tax filing)? Wouldn’t that be extremely hard to do?
Theoretically, it’s simple: tie all those legal aspects to civil unions, remove them from marriage.
Realistically, it would be extremely hard to do.
Oh, ok. I think we’d have to do it on a federal level and make it apply equally to all states instead of a state-by-state level because social security and a few other less-important benifits are, by nature, federal programs, and current civil unions in states like Vermont are not “equal” with marriage because the federal government doesn’t recognize them as equal as such.
It would be very complicated to do it that way.
That makes sense except for the issue of some benefits which cannot be had in state or civil unions, like social security moneys to the spouse and children, and other tax issues and join ownerships of federal stuff and certain jobs. Social Security is a federal program and is only available per the federal definitions, regulations, etc., which means “married partner.” The word, “marriage,” is also important in a few of these important issues that cannot be granted by a civil union.
From my perspective, I am opposed to divorce, and then I am double opposed to remarriage. Marriage is a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman till death. It is a sacred relation, with serious and solemn vows.
It is too often entered into lightly. Individuals overtaken in carnal desires, wind up married for the wrong reasons, and then are unwilling to go the distance.
The big problem now is, the “majority” is ignoring, or changing, those parts of the Federal and State Constitutions they find unappealing.
That’s bass-ackwards from the original intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution to protect the rights of the minorities and the individual. You can’t get a smaller minority than 1.
Re: the topic. I would assert that “marriage” is a religious institution. (though the term may be used differently in legislative documentation). So the term (and anything having to do with religion) should not be used in legislation.
Call it a “Civil Union” if the laws of the state recognize the commitments made and oaths taken. But then you can’t discriminate, based on gender, and on who participates in the union with whom.
Does anyone else see some real irony in that? Civil Rights being somehow contrary to Religion? Not in my upbringing!
I was mildly against gay marriage for a long time, but for civil unions. I’m not religious, I was against gay marriage for linguistic reasons. It’s always meant joining a men and woman. It would be quite possible to grant gay couples all the rights that het couples have without calling it marriage.
Then San Francisco started marrying gay couples, and I heard a bunch of interviews with them. One point one of them made was, saparate but equal (marriage vs. unions) is never equal. That kinda made sense, but it was something another guy said. Being able to marry his partner was EXTREMELY important to him. And I got to thinking, it makes no difference to me whether they’re married or not, but it’s EVERYTHING to them. So many people can be made so happy, and here I was quibbling over a word.
I’m so glad you figured that out. Way too many people are stuck back where you were, and not putting as much thought and heart into as you have. Thanks!!
I have a question, Walden. Seeing that you are opposed to divorce but also gay marriage, would you reccomend that the married gay couples in Massachusets, Canada, the Netherlands, parts of Scandinavia, etc., get divorced?
I understand that you are opposed to gay marriage, but should gay couples who are already married get divorced or stay married?
Ditto.