Oddly enough, I actually agree with them on one point. Marriage has historically been a religious institution, and the state shouldn't be involved in it in any way. A lot of problems would be avoided if there was no state involvement in marriage, and the legal functions taken over with culturally neutral constructs.

I disagree. Marriage has historically been a social institution that strengthens the financial and political ties between families and clans. As such, the state has a very strong interest in defining and enforcing the rules of marriage for the good of society. There often is a religious aspect to marriage, but that's not its primary function.

Yeah, but it's more fun seeing religious people lose their shit.

I disagree it's been an historically religious institution. It's got the trappings of religion, sure, but from day one it's had more in common with corporate mergers and family property transfer/inheritance than getting God's okay to bump uglies.

Unless you want the courts tied up even more with squabbles over shared property, custody of children, inheritances, etc., "marriage" is as good a setup as any. If anything, blame the religious for insisting that the contractual pact be called "marriage" and that religious leaders arrangement of said pacts be on equal footing with going down to the courthouse and signing a piece of paper.

Okay, my choice of wording or conception was perhaps not ideal. I still think the point stands: the legal functions of marriage should be wholly divorced (no pun intended) from the abstract cultural trimmings of religion.

Ideally, for example, by just replacing all instances of the word "marriage" in the legal code with something else, like domestic partnership. A simple detail of semantics, no need to actually change the function of anything.

Of course it's never really that easy, but it does pull the leg out of one of the classic anti-gay-marriage arguments.

I agree. Separate the legal and cultural aspects. It will be easier to fine-tune the legal aspects without the cultural/religious baggage: "You think three people should be allowed to enter into a 'Civil Partnership'? Let's discuss the legal pros and cons without moral concerns". Then if people want to conduct a ceremony and say that God thinks they're married. that's fine. That's their business. And if somebody likes to believe they're married to the Eiffel tower or Springheel Glittermane the Friendly Cartoon Pony, that's fine too. Because the validity of the 'marriage' is something that only means anything to them, and those who subscribe to the same informal definition.

With that URL, I don't even have to click on it to get the joke.

For fucksake who cares? Maybe if we just ignore these people they'll stop being so publicly stupid.

I'm curious how a couple of Aussie bigots made international newfeeds with a worthless and private threat. Was it Zionists?

If I don't get an answer, I'll hammer my toe. Be sure my name is spelled correctly in headlines.

The guy works for a Christian group opposed to gay marriage. I suspect their PR people were involved. Get yourself an agent before you hammer your toe, is what I'm saying.

These people should not be allowed to breed

How long until Nick Jensen's Grinder account is discovered?

I think someone doesn't understand the meaning of, "threaten."

While the may think they're protesting the sanctity of their marriage, they may have forgotten the bureaucracy of this act. It is this equal bureaucratic treatment that the gays are looking for and not the approval of a skygod. So to divorce in such a way may in fact place this couple into bureaucratic jeopardy that only marriage legally provides for and protects the family's interests. So much for thinking about their kids.

Also, y'know, Christianity traditionally frowns upon divorce.

From their statements, I think they would argue that they will still be married in the eyes of God, just not in the eyes of the corrupt human legal system.

Not in the eyes of the Social Security Administration, or the entire legal system, so if they actually follow through here, they will earn some negative family Karma.
Most likely they're just blowing hot air, though, and won't do jack.

I'm not one hundred percent sure, but I think Australia is a lot like New Zealand in that being a de facto couple is enough to ensure you get the legal protections of marriage. Basically, once you've lived together for a certain time (about three years I think) the law acts as if you are married in terms of social security and property. So it's even more of a meaningless gesture.

Exactly. That's what I meant when I wrote, '"I think someone doesn't understand the meaning of, "threaten."'

I fell like gay marriage, in as much as it has anything at all to do with my straight marriage, actually makes it stronger. I feel like the marriage equality act here in NZ means that marriage isn't a prize for being straight, or an inducement to breed, but a recognition of relationships and property arrangements. Which is what my marriage is about.