Why is our government taking on the decision of same sex marriage?

Question

Our government is seperation of church and state this is the church decision not the governments. I mean once the church's have their say about it then the government cannot intervene....hello it is somwhere in the constitution right?

Answer 1

The problem started a long time ago, when the government started giving tax breaks to married couples.

The whole problem is one of language. When a straight couple gets married in a church, they also sign a marriage license, so they are also entering into what is called a "civil marriage."

If the government had used the phrase "civil union" instead, from the get-go, none of this mess would be happening today.

Straight people would get married in church, and sign papers forming a government-backed civil union.

Gay people (and straight people not interested in the church part) would get a government-backed civil union only.

I think you'll find that most religious people's biggest objection to "gay marriage" is the use of the word "marriage." Changing the term without changing the legal definition takes a lot of the emotional fire out of it for religious people, and they are more likely to go along with it.

Of course, you have the REALLY religious people who are against ANY sort of ANYTHING for gay people, and so, since marriage is the issue of the day, they are against that. When some other aspect of gay rights comes up, these people will automatically be against that too, whatever it is.

Politicians are torn over the issue because, yes, some of them are very religious, but more to the point, some of them are more interested in staying in office than they are in making constitutional laws.... and there are more Christian voters than gay voters, if you know what I mean.

Personally, I'm fine with the terminology either way, so long as the legal part is exactly equivalent for straight and gay couples.

My lady and I already refer to each other as wife... we are just waiting for society and the government to catch up. :-)

Answer 2

The thing about a true separation of Church and State is that, not only does it require that the Church not directly intervene in Politics but that the politicians be not of religious persuasion. The difficulty is that, in a predominately Christian country - like the US, regardless of how well intentioned a politician is, they are constrained by the morals and mores by which they were brought up. So the Church's view gets in by the back door.

I'd like Randy's view more (about the State removing itself from the equation altogether), if the Anglican Communion wasn't about to split up over homosexual issues (bishops/marriage...) & The Roman Catholic Church, The Orthodox Churches, Islam etc. didn't rate homosexuality as anything other than a "cross to be borne - but not acted upon" (paraphrased from Pope John Paul II).

As things stand I reckon you've got more chance of getting the State to do what you want - rather than the majority of Churches - not to say there aren't liberal Churches or Traditions.

Answer 3

This is entire issue is pure politics. With all the real and manifest problems the country has, there is no good reason for this gay marriage issue to occupy so much of the administration's time and energy.

Mid-term elections are not far off. The large conservative party is trying to keep the support of the religious right. The administration has fallen flat on it's face on so many issues that it's credibility among people that think for themselves is almost non-existent. They need support any way they can get it. This "ban on same sex marriage" is just a smoke-screen designed to hide their multiple failures on so many levels, and another one of their political tricks.

They also know nothing can be done about a constitutional amendment in the Supreme Court and this is why they are pushing so hard in that direction.

Answer 4

You are correct, I have been concerned about this for some time.

The gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.

One of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.

Of course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.

On the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faith, which says it is ok to marry same sex couples?

The first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.

Everyone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.

Since I do not believe the government should be used to control religious belief -- I think that the government should recognize gay marriage, when performed by members of clergy -- and should create a civil union equivalent for those interested only in secular marriage.

Otherwise we should stop saying we don't have an establishment of religion.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

Answer 5

No actually; It doesn't matter What the church says - the government is suppose to make decision that are non biased and not INFLUENCED by the Church - they should be separate. The only reason our government is taking an issue with Gay Marriage is because WE let them. They need to be slapped and grounded and the public needs to STOP falling for their crap.

Mike C - I love the Common Law angle- That's rich!!!

Answer 6

You have the proper to a civil union however now not beneath the biblical regulation. If you separate a identical intercourse union from the bible and beneath God I consider the combat might now not be an drawback. I suppose 2 men and women have the proper to percentage the identical ordinary union legally, medically or even spiritually however whilst you use the bible for the ones rights it's incorrect. This additionally speaks to the argument that devout associations accepting executive bucks wish to hold their devout ideals and impose it at the public. The church does now not suppose in dependable intercourse practices however abstaining handiest, than you don't be given bucks which comes with regulations at the same time supplying offerings to the general public, you cannot have it each methods. If you wish to make use of the church and bible beneath God to undertaking rights than you're mis-utilizing what the bible stands for. This is simply how I see matters I do not suppose in taking someone's rights to being completely satisfied away however it's the way you pass approximately getting the outcome that you just wish!

Answer 7

No, the constitution says that the church can't interfere with the government, and the government can't interfere with the church. in reality, the church has such limited political power in and of itself, it resorts to preaching its message to the voters in its congregation, which is the only reason we don't have same-sex marriage on a national level. For heaven's sake, take your ignorance somewhere else.

Answer 8

Darthritus: You are incorrect. The constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. There is the Federal Marriage Protection Act that states that, but not the constitution.

The Senate recently debated putting it into the Constitution, but there wasn't even enough supporters to get a vote on it.

Answer 9

well, is mostly politics (you knew that)
If Xians and others were really concerned about the institute of marriage there would be not such concept of common-law marriage
of course this legal loop hole could be the way to allow same sex marriage
I am very against common-law marriage, who gives the govt the right to say I'm married by how long I have shared an address with a person of the OPPOSITE SEX?
I dream that some advocacy group uses the common-law marriage definition to get same sex couples the right of marriage
and to further extend my ironic vision, announce straight same sex room-mates to be declared common-law marriages !

Answer 10

Marriage is also defined as the union between man in woman in the constitution, but the fed gov, has decided to let the states decide, (thats the Republican way).Some states like Massahomoshits have decided otherwise