Should the law be changed to keep the Church out of state and federal marriage laws?

Question

It is my opinion that a "marriage" belongs in church and a "civil union" belongs in the court-house. This would allow gays to marry according to the law (and receive all benefits they are entitled to) without infringing upon the church's sensitivities. I also believe that NOT changing the law is allowing the church to legislate morality...a violation of our constitutional rights. What do you think?

Answer 1

first off, the law should allow homosexual couples to get married

i think a marraige service should be offered by the government in the case that a church refuses to marry a homosexual couple. everyone deserves the benifits (misery) of marriage.

i think the church should be more accepting because isnt that what they stand for? love and happiness? does it really matter in what form that happiness and love come in?

and if the church wont marry them then a government sponsered program can do it for them. thats just how i think...fair and equal.

Answer 2

Government should absolutely be out of the marriage business. Both sides of the current argument are basically radicals. Both sides demanding the other side be forced to see things and live by their view. If we did as the questioner suggests we would be much better for it. The argument a few people have made, that gay people may not be able to find a church to marry them is also fiction. There are many many hundreds of different churches that would marry a homosexual couple. It's kindof a liberal myth that any church is automatically a gay hating collection of angry rednecks. If we just changed marriage at the federal level to civil unions for everyone the "problem" essentially solves itself except for the most radical loney toons on either side. If you think about it logically, the only argument I can see against civil unions is from either radical Christians or radical atheists who don't want any church to be involved in their lives in any way. They essentially, want to turn the government into god. That has already been tried in the Soviet Union, and North Korea.... It doesn't work and it's against everything this country was founded on. We can't keep letting people be such hypocrites. Civil Liberty and personal freedom are for all Americans not just select groups, either rich white guys or homosexual activists. You don't get to force everyone to think how you want them to. Live and let live and leave Marriage to the churches as it should be.

Answer 3

Since by definition "Marriage" is a church function, it should be the other way around...the state should stay out of the church functions. Calling it a civil union, is sort of like saying, "I'm not a dog, I'm a canine." Its the same thing, and simply a way of going around the law, to obtain rights and privilages restricted to marriages.
The constitution, despite the many changes, was founded on the principal of religious freedom...so the violations are attempts to change the original intent to satisfiy people who have no wish to abide by its laws.
Entitlement to privalages and such that are for married couples, is sort of a mis-statement. Since "gay" marriages are not allowed, there can be no entitlement. That is like saying I deserve a law degree, even though I refuse to go to college.
I have always agreed that the church and state should stay seperated, but when I see people trying to get flags removed from the school rooms of American schools because they might hurt the sensibilites of illegal students, I find that the state is no longer even trying to hold to basic laws.
Changing a church marriage to a civil union, is no different...and both are wrong.

Answer 4

The bad thing about today's society is that there is no objective moral code. People make it up for themselves and society sactions if not encourages this.

Society by definition means we live together and interact with each other. Therefore there needs to be a common set of rules. You don't have to look too hard at our society to realise it is not working.

What the Christian Church offers is a good objective framework for life. Marriage is a key part of this. It is disappointing that a minority of well publicised but sinful people have tainted the reputation of the Church, but lets not "throw the baby out with the bath water". if anything the failings of these individuals goes to further highlight the need for us as a society to adopt the Church's moral code.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of life, despite what the media says. It is a lifestyle adopted by about 8 - 10% of western populations (and, interestingly, virtually no one in Muslim or Asian cultures) and of this number something like 80% are victims of sexual or other abuse. 2 wrongs do not make a right. Victims of abuse need to be helped to resolve the issues coming from this, which are dreadful. They do not need to fall into an inappropriate lifestyle

Answer 5

Not all churches reject gays. Some are very welcoming. There's many Christian/spiritual gays, so for gays to marry in certain churches wouldn't infringe on anyone's sensitivities. There's even a gay friendly church here in Bakersfield (which is pretty conservative). I'm not religious, but if my girlfriend/fiancee wanted to marry in a church, I would for her.

Answer 6

no, please read your constitution, there is nothing to stop all christians from using thier right to vote and to lobby political groups as citizens to have thier values represented.

All of the laws are based on someones moral viewpoint, so much better the christians than the pagan or pervert.

We are indeed about to loose our constitituional right, because Christians are loosing thier rights. There is not a seperation of Christians from rights, merley the government cannot establish a national religion and is not suppose to pass laws restricting religion, there is nothing to say Christians can not ralley and get laws passed.

Answer 7

No, and the reason is an editorial I saw recently giving the fact the marriages performs by clergy were not binding because of their religious duties, but that clergy are given civil authorization to perform marriages as agents of the state. That is they have to adhere to having valid marriage licenses, etc.

Answer 8

first off, the law should allow homosexual couples to get married... without the changing of the term to that of a "civil union" other than that.... I so agree with you

Answer 9

i am going to surely replace the regulation on gay marriage. An Australian who pays their taxes might want to no longer be discriminated antagonistic to for any reason; even if that is transforming into a member of the protection rigidity or desirous to get married, or some thing else. yet i assume if i became given in undemanding words one regulation... i'd pick to create a clean regulation. i'd make it unlawful to promote cigarettes in the different position except a organization-owned cigarette save. So no cigarettes offered in pubs, or supermarkets, or 7-11s or some thing — no longer even duty-loose. in undemanding words in organization-owned cigarette shops. So in case you pick a packet of Marlboro, you're going to have tocontinual over to Phillip Morris to purchase them, or wish the producer has a save someplace on your section. I HATE dirty, filthy those who smoke. They stink, and their butts muddle drains and footpaths. the in undemanding words position i am going to get a medical prescription crammed is on the close by pharmacy. i imagine the authorities might want to section in an same element with cigarettes; wherein you won't be able to easily purchase a packet everywhere, yet in undemanding words in chosen shops. and easily no longer in everywhere that sells food or groceries.

Answer 10

I totally agree with you. But why stop there? How about we get the Church out of politics and schools as well? If only we could...