If our government is supposed to be secular, then why should gay marriage be illegal?

Question

All of the bible thumpers, Bush included, seem to think that if the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, then so should our Constitution. But wasn't America founded by people looking to keep religion out of government? Gay marriage's detractors seem to have forgotten about the Separation of Church and State.

Answer 1

don't forget when they try to bring "science" into it too...

(done in my best yosemite sam voice) "being gay is sick and wrong. marriage is established so that a MAN and a WOMAN can procreate...make children. now how can a man and man do that? oh yeah, they can't."

well with that logic we would have to deny marriage to every woman who's gone through menopause or every man that is a eunuch, or every couple that doesn't want children.

now imagine THAT marriage application.

so can we please stop prying in ADULT'S sexual lives with other consenting ADULTS and just watch the game?

cheers!

Answer 2

Well, actually if government is secular, then there really shouldn't be male/female marriage, only civil unions. Marriage is derived from religion. I see their point, because in all religions, Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. The problem is, Marriage should only be on the record at church or whatever, and if you want the state to recognize it, you should have to have a state-sponsored civil union. Really the part that gets everybody in an uproar, is actually calling it a marriage. Marriage shouldn't be part of the government's function, it should only provide "civil unions." If you wanted to get married to someone, you would have to go to a religious institution to have that done, and therefore the institution would probably not allow gay marriage, but it wouldn't matter, because gays could just go to the courthouse and get a civil union. Marriage would only mean something to the churches etc.

What I am saying is that even a man and a woman should have to go to the courthouse and get a "civil union". If they wanted to be "married for the sake of their religion, they simply would go to their church and get married, and it would be nothing more than that, just like a batism or confirmation. What the country really should do is get rid of Marriage in the government, and call all unions wether it is between a man and woman, or man and man, a civil union. Then there should be no argument.

Answer 3

It seems everyone keeps getting separation of church and state wrong. It was meant to prevent the government from instituting an official church much like what was done in England by the King. Get it? No official religion. That being said the founders of the constitution regularly prayed when drafting it. Please get the facts straight before spouting off about Separation of Church and State. The colonists and pilgrims came here for freedom OF religion and not freedom FROM religion.

Oh yeah if you're wondering why gay marriage should be illegal try this on for size. It's because the majority of people are against it.

Answer 4

First, there is no seperation of church and state. The government cannot make a law imposing a state religion. Our government was founded by men trying to keep government from dictating religious beliefs, not keep religion out of government. That's it. That's really all there is to it. Trying to twist it around into something else is just silly, though it worked for a while.
Second, why should everyone be forced to redefine marraige? It has always meant the same thing. Why should it be changed? Why are gay and lesbian couples owed this?
Third, if changed, every business in the United States will suddenly OWE such couples benefits presently owed only to married couples (one man, one woman). The cost to business, SUDDENLY created, will put more businesses out of business than you can possibly imagine. This is the "hidden agenda" that scares the beejeebees out of almost anyone with any economics knowledge. Our economy will plummet as lawsuit after lawsuit occurs to gain equal benefits.

Finally, as to your original question: I agree.

If you stopped reading, you missed this part. It should be legal, but no couple should be allowed to gain benefits (of any orientation) for five years. Better yet, get rid of benefits. Many companies are doing this direction seeing where the gay agenda is going. Better not to get caught in the political wave and go under financially because the economy was not considered.

It's going to happen, but sudden change hurts everyone. Keep speaking up, but don't bash Bush for being cautious on this one. He has to represent everyone, including business.

The minority does not dictate to the majority, yet. Thank goodness. At the same time, watch for concessions that lead us toward greater equality. That's the way to change that helps us all, and don't let up the pressure, but it supportive of the United States. The system works, we're just fine-tuning it.

Answer 5

The answer is no, our country was founded to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. Religious persecution by the state is why people fled to the America's

Separation of church and state was designed to protect the church from the state, not to exclude members of the church from the state. Article VI of the constitution specifically bars any religious test as a qualification of any office of the United States.

Additionally, there is no bar or ban on religion or religious people in the government, nor is there a ban on religious influence on government. All our constitution says is that we shall make no LAW establishing a (state)religion.

Answer 6

Firstly, I don't have any problems or issues whatsoever about gay unions and I think the controversy over gay unions all over the western world will seen quaint and antiquated in a few decades. I believe to some extent the use of the word "marriage" causes some of the general public problems as this term is so strongly seen as both heterosexual and in many cultures ultimately a religious, not a civil, act. This is just a comment on words and the curious american habit of so called secular government separating church and state. Why does it say "In god we trust" on so much american state ephemera such as your money and your national anthem if state and church are indeed separate? God and a statement of belief in any mythos implies that they are not actually separated, if that was the case there would be no references whatsoever to any religious beliefs or creeds or gods.

So long as people don't negatively affect me they have the right to live their lives as they please and I find the concept of "normal" curious when it is actually looked at in reality.

Answer 7

Nope, we had something called no establishment of religion, which means that people should not be limited to worshipping in ONE fashion. This had nothing to do with keeping religion out of our government. If so, why would we PAY a Chaplain to start Congress each day? hy is there a picture of the 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court?

In fact, "separation of Church and state" NEVER appears in our Constitution. And read ANY founding document, and you will see references to God all over the place.

Marriage is a religious institution. If you want to be gay, be gay. But, leave our institutions alone.

Also, another thing to think about. Why do gay people want to be married? So, they can save money on medical coverage. Guess who foots the bill?

Answer 8

No the government did not keep religion out, it was very serious including prayer at the Congress, using a bible to swear in Presidents, and all of the colleges were all Christian.

And the constitution only protects the church from the state, not the state from the church ( read your constitution)

Next laws are passed by the will of the people, all people including Christians, Muslims and Jews all who oppose Gay marriage.

And those gay perverts wish to try to prove a seperation that never existed. Read your constitution, and you will know that there is nothing to stop religious people from voiceing thier demand for laws. And as long as they don't start a national religion, they are legal.

Next of course is the fact almost all laws are based on moral values of Christians

Answer 9

I'm not a Bible Thumper....but I think that if a home can be provided for a child or children with 2 parents ...be it the same gender...and the home is full of love and security for the child...and both parents are there and give their 180% to the relationship and their child's well-being...What is wrong with that? We have alot of kids in foster homes from broken homes ..with a Father (male) and Mother (female) where there is alot of domestic violence....Is that better? as for church and state...it has been separate for a long time. I am not an Advocate for the gay/lesbian rights...I am an Advocate for Children....and I am straight...

Answer 10

I believe the reason we still see segregation in marriage is the same reason we ever saw segregation in marriage. People allow the way they hate to rule their decision making abilities. Not long back we saw a different kind of segregation in marriage, racial segregation. This was fueled by the hate felt by a majority of the population, today we have the hate for homosexuality being expressed once again by the majority. The good news is that I do believe that we will overcome this oppressive segregation just as we did before and that homosexual Americans will not be denied basic rights forever.

Answer 11

Our government was overrun approximately 100 years ago with people from the religious right wing that have no respect neither for the seperation of church and state nor for the rights of others. These people think that they are morally superior and keep legislating morality as such.

Take for example Prohibition, the legalization of "dangerous drugs", age of consent (people normally used to get married at an age that would get you thrown into prison for child rape now), I could go on and on.

This is nothing more than the religious wrong (because they are defanately not right) performing their latest attack on freedom in the USA.