Is marriage a state or religous or state institution?

Question

If it's a religious institution, than the gov. has no bisness saying if Gay/ Lesbian marriage is right.

If it's a state institution than it's a discrimination aginst Gays/ Lesbians.

Answer 1

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about "gay" marriage. It's about commitment and relationships. It's about family. It's about love. It is NOT about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses that are issued by the State.

By definition, all 'marriages' are civil unions from the stand point that they are granted specific legal rights as the result of being issued a license from the State. If this were not so, then couples could be married by the church without going through this civil licensing procedure.

Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for homosexual couples in their congregations, I have no problem with this at all. This is not about matters of faith, but matters of LAW.

Since the Constitution is still the supreme LAW of this land, then the real question should not be “should it be allowed”, to which the answer is clearly “yes”, but rather, what is the proper vehicle in a civic society to allow same-sex couples the same amount of participation and protection in that society. Be it “marriage”, “civil union”, or some other term, same-sex couples deserve the same legal benefits and protections, as well as the basic human dignity and acceptance that those protections and benefits convey, that heterosexual couples are given as an unquestioned, unconditional right.

Answer 2

There are 2 varieties of 'marriage'. The religious and the civil form. All marriages have a civil factor and that's a criminal contract, at the instant between a guy and a woman. This contract, like a number of contracts, is signed and filed with the close by government. it is this contract that ought to be desolved in the time of the courts while 2 human beings get divorced. that's the CIVIL marriage it particularly is especially between a guy and a woman. The religious form of marriage does not require the involvment of the government and can be entered into and disolved by using what ever rules and customs are linked with the religion of those in contact be they christian, hindu, buddist or muslim. There are christian ministers which will carry out the wedding ceremony ceremony for homosexuals and heterosexuals. 'gay Marriage' isn't 'unlawful' from a religous attitude, yet only from a civil attitude. And yet, that's those of religion that keep getting the undesirable rap. in my view, i've got under no circumstances understood why absolutely everyone would ever contain the government in any very own dating. until infants and their safety is in contact, the government can kiss my butt. i gets a minister and we will get married. it particularly is marriage, no longer some government stamp of approval. despite if, for my area, marriage is and could be between a guy and a woman only. i don't sense strongly approximately this, yet what's the adaptation between 'gay marriage' and my being married to my father or my labrador. i like the two and am commited to the two. you elect gay marriage? high quality. How do you outline marriage. that's the two huge open and anybody can marry absolutely everyone or something or that's between a guy and a woman.

Answer 3

I feel that marriage is a state institution.... if its not the why aren't all "marriages" performed by an religious figure from whatever denomination or religion. A question that one may poder is the if the government wants to amend the constitution to deny same sex couples the right to marry based on the philosophy marriage is to be defined as a man and woman because it is instituted by God, then does that mean anyone not married by a religious officiant, but by a magistrate, judge clerk of court, etc(not ordained by a church of some sort) are not married? Does that make thier union null and void...?

Answer 4

Marriage is both a religious and state institution. However, when it comes the the government, the biggest concern is the conferring of rights to married people that cohabiting single people cannot receive.

There are over 900 rights and responsibilities that federal law establishes on married people. However, since many if not most marriages are conducted by ministers, the churches believe they have a stake in this debate.

It will never happen, but I wish that the states would get out of the marriage business all together and offer civil unions to all straight and gay couples. People who were married in the church could say they were married, and if a justice-of-the-peace oversaw your commitment, you could say you were c.u.'ed.

As I said it will never happen, but I can dream, can't I?

Answer 5

There are two separate institutions to be considered here. Religious marriage and civil marriage are two different entities. Oddly, religious marriages are recognized and sanctioned by the government, yet civil marriages are often not respected by the the Holy people of a religion. Personally I think that should be considered a problem in the scope of separation of Church and State. A religious marriage is performed, recognized and sanctified by the Church and should have nothing to do with civil marriage. Likewise in reverse. One should have nothing to do with the other. An act committed in a chuch should not be sanctioned by law just because a church recognizes it, just as churches do not recognize or accept all acts supported by law.

Answer 6

It's all a matter of how each state defines marriage. Most states express that marriage is a bond between a man and woman. When the laws were written, the gay life-style was strictly a closet thing. I say it's all a result of the declining morals in today's society. A spin-off of being proud of who you are.

Answer 7

It appears to be, at this time, all of the above, except in certain enlightened states, such as Massachusetts. Legally, one can be married in a court house without any relligious interference, however, if the statutes of the state specify marriage as a union of two people of different genders, than it isn't a LEGAL marriage.
Note: I support the rights of all people to marry the persons they love, but I don't think that the laws are t here yet. I hope that they are soon!

Answer 8

The fundamental problem is, right now the word "marriage" refers to both. That having been said, the current fight is for inclusion in the legal end of it. It is inappropriate and unacceptable to create a different legal status (say, "civil union") for ONLY same-sex couples while maintaining civil marriage for opposite-sex couples. Seperate but equal doesn't work, as you've said. I have a guess, though, that the opponents would throw a fit and say "See, we told you so; destroying marriage!" if the government stopped calling it that, though. There ARE religions that will marry same-sex couples, so there is a reason for same-sex couples to have access to legal MARRIAGE. I don't really care which of the two options happens, so long as its equal for all involved.

Answer 9

It's a religious institution which the state sanctions.

However, to answer the discrimination argument: It is still, according to most state constitutions, permissible to discriminate by gender in certain cases. For example, a man can be arrested for walking into a ladies' restroom. Marriage is one of these cases in which gender discrimination is still constitutional in most states, so the discrimination argument is invalid.

Answer 10

It is both. In Canada you can be legally married (in front of the justice of the peace). It is a legal marriage - but it is not a religious marriage. The Catholic Church would never allow that of course but the Anglican, I believe, does. So you can, in certain places like Canada (especially Québec) have a civil union followed by a religiously approved marriage