The sanctity of marriage?

Question

Ok, there is something I don’t understand. Is there not a law that says that government and religion are to stay separate? I’m not asking sarcastically, or to make any point. I believe there is, but I honestly don’t know for sure. Assuming there is, how can bush say that we have to protect the sanctity of marriage? Isn’t that a reference to the Bible’s definition of marriage? If there isn’t a law saying that church and state are to be separate….A.) there should be, and B.) If we are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage, why don’t we shut down these places in Las Vegas where drunken vacationers go to get married by an Elvis impersonator, only to get divorced the next week? I mean, is that what we are protecting? And also, I know that the first amendment gives us all equal rights. How is limiting gay and lesbian’s to civil unions and commitment ceremonies equal, or fair. Is it not just like when we had segregated schools? That wasn’t fair, or equal. So, isn’t it kinda unconstitutional to tell homosexuals “You cant get married, but you can have the next best thing, because marriage is reserved for the heterosexual society“? I want to know peoples options on this regardless if you are for or against gay marriage. I only ask that your respectful, because I’m not looking to make anyone mad, or have anyone go off on a tangent. I’ve tried to word this so it wont offend anyone, and if it dose, I apologize. I’m just curious.

In response to tanja m answer, I do see your point, however, I wasn’t raised with a father figure. I was raised by my mom alone. I’m 16, and I see now it was, and I still hard for her to fill both sets of shoes. Is it not better for a child to be raised in a home with two loving parents, rather than a single parent home? Yet, single parents are still allowed. I have great respect for any parent, and especially (due to my closeness to the situation,) a single parent. We can analyze the affect of a child raised by two men, but then in all fairness, why don’t we analyze the physiological toll of a child raised by any single mom or dad?

Answer 1

The separation of church and state is a long standing debate that will never truly be resolved simply because the state would never let an entity be totally separate however powerful it might be simply because then it would lose control and that is one thing the state can never allow. The church is often used as a tool to push particular policies or justify certain responses to things in society. Never has this been more true then when it comes to so called civil unions. There are certain sections of society who will never move forward with the 'civil union' debate simply because they believe they are right and as what they believe to be right is diametrically opposed to furthering any kind of gay rights in the law there can never truly be a resolution. The law can be an *** and never more so than when it is the mouthpiece of a government that never has been particularly liberal nor particular consistent when it comes down to laying down it's beliefs or trying to represent the beliefs of other people.

Answer 2

You know, the first 1000 years or so, after the earthly life of Christ, marriages were not even performed in the church. Marriage is a civil contract between two people, which establishes property rights, inheritance rights and the lineage of children. Society has enlarged the rights attached to marriage over the years.

Homosexuality has always existed, but the concept of respectful homosexual love was really new in the 20th century. So it is taking some time for society to adjust to the idea. But you are right. When they attempt to use religious arguments to deal with the questions of this civil contract, they subvert their religion and they cross the line which is supposed to separate church and state.

My answer to it all is to eliminate marriage as a responsibility of the state. Allow all couples, gay or straight to enter into Civil Unions. Then allow each church to decide which of those unions they'd like to sanctify by a ceremony in their church. This way the right wingers and the Catholic Bishops could have their hetero-only policy, while gay and lesbian couples would seek out other denominations where their love is welcomed and honored. But in the public arena, we'd all be equal.

Answer 3

This really is sensitive question. I'm heterosexual woman, with 25 years of marriage and two children. I don't have an issue with homosexuality. (That's not something new; it's mentioned even in the Bible, more than once; it's just wasn't excepted, so it used to be hidden behaviour.)
But when I talk to people, I understand that there is one issue that prevents them to accept marriage between the persons of the same sex. That's the possibility of them raising children (adopted, or biological children of one of them). You must understand that. Child in his/her development needs the figure of the father and the figure of the mother (or at least psychology says so) and that line of thinking is deeply rooted. And it's not so without a reason. Imagine how confused that child would be. From the kindergarten, there's always "Mom and Dad" kind of talk. Yes, I know, you'll say that the child will understand when he/she is older, but until then, he/she will become a very bruised little person.
And this, I think, is the main reason why people are opposed to gay marriages. Legal right to get married is inevitably raising the question of adopting children or raising children one of the gay spouses already have. Or the question of in vitro insemination of gay women married to another gay women. There are too many vulnerable issues connected with this. You can't change overnight something that has thousands of years deep roots (and not only in Christianity, but in virtually all other religions).

Answer 4

I live in Texas.. In Austin. Austin is like an island of liberals in a sea of conservative.. It says in the constitution that the government cannot establish a religion. Meaning the government cannot say they are for Muslim or Christians or Jews. They have to treat them all with equality..But I do agree that politicians let religion influence their policy when it should not..I don't think gay marriage should have been banned. The only basis for "the sanctity of marriage" is religious.. I don't think it is fair at all. But there are so many conservative in our society that I don't think it will change for quite some time.. I think it would be better for gays and lesbians to get married.. It would promote fidelity between them.. Think of how the world would be if straight people could not get married.. There would be less consequences for cheating on a loved one. There would be less reasons for people to stay true to one another.. If you don't promise yourself to someone, and it doesn’t really mean anything to, then you can leave whenever you want. Think of all the single parents there would be and how meaningless a family would become.. I think it is discrimination.. I don't know.. You think our society would get past these things.. And people wouldn't care either way.. I don't see how it really effects them.. I think they only way to get past it is for a gay couple to go before the supreme court with their case, and to show how it is unconstitutional and discrimination to ban gay marriage.

Answer 5

I've never seen the big deal about gay marriage. I'm a Quaker, and my meeting held a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple. It was a beautiful ceremony.

For what it's worth, people who point to the Bible as a reason to disallow gay marriage should read a little more thoroughly and stop picking and choosing what they want to see - in Exodus, right near the 10 commandments, we're instructed how to treat our slaves - in great detail. Does that make slavery okay? What does that tell us about the Bible? Just trying to make people think, not trying to offend, either...

Answer 6

I've said before here that there for a long time has been no separation of church and state. Thank your moral majority for that. We now have the church state governing us, and I've shouted that in relation to this issue and used the war on terrorism as reference. We went into another country, over threw their religious based government. WTF is ours now? I agree with your points. We do have a church ran state, it the Moral Majority.

Answer 7

Well if that's the case (in response to Tanja's question) then straight people shouldn't marry unless they sign a form saying they intend to have kids. I think that's a load of bullshit personally.

Answer 8

Bush is a mindless puppet of the the Christian right, Most of who's members are former drunks and druggies, like himself.
Tammi Dee

Answer 9

The original intent of the founding Father's was that government shall not impose its will to dictate how people worship, or what they worship.

Answer 10

Bush is clueless. Just ignore anything he says. He repeats what others tell him and has no idea what's going on. He's a disaster.