Should the government declare Marriage a religious rite, and make civil unions the law of the land?

Question

My suggestion is that if the government got out of the marriage business and said that civil unions will replace marriage as law, then churches would be free to choose whom or whom not to marry. It seems to me that the very word marriage is what has people up in arms.

Answer 1

No!!!

Allow me to explain.

Civil unions - as they stand now - give significantly less rights than a marriage. They are not a viable alternative. For example the civil unions in CT have 117 less rights than a marriage.

ie: no federal tax benefits, no adoption, no legitamacy beyond the State border....and I can go on and on.

If a civil union had as many rights as a marriage I would agree with you. Until then, merely complying with a civil union is setting up a double standard and saying that glbt's should be second class citizens.

Answer 2

Seems like most people do get nervous about the word, marriage. Weird. It's just a word!

Marriage in the U.S. isn't a religious institution. By that, I mean, if you get married in a church, it's not legal without the permission of the government (license). But if you get married by a judge or justice of the peace, it's legal without any church involvement. And it's still called marriage.

And because marriage is not a religious institution (legally), I don't know why religious arguments even need to enter the picture, you know?

Answer 3

The only reason people are up in arms about it is because they were told that it was some sort of attack on their own marriage. Really, gay people getting married has nothing to do with straight people getting married, and if straight people want to get up in arms about the institution of marriage, they should look at the divorce rate among straight couples.

The thing is, marriage hasn't just been a religious thing for a long time. It's true what a lot of the "family" groups are saying; marriage, while being between two people, does contribute to society somewhat. That is, it has effects on society outside of religion. This means that every member of society should be able to benifit from the same rights offered by marriage. Gay marriages offer the same thing to society as straight ones, including what should be a stable place to raise children (as advocated by the "family" groups as to why gay marriage should be banned). There's just as much, if not more instability among families of straight couples as there is by gay couples. Also, changing it's name to civil unions is just silly, because many straight couples get "married" without ever stepping foot in a church anyway.

If they want to make marriage a religious thing, then it has to be the same for straight couples. If a straight couple wanted to get "married" but didn't want to do it through the church, they should then have to get a "civil union" like other Gay Couples. Also, if there is a church that allows Gay people, they should be able to get married through it. (Not all religions, even branches of the same religion, believe the same things about gay people and gay marriage. Which church should we listen to about the rules for marriage?)

While marriages for straight people can be carried out by the state, then the same should be given to gay couples.

Answer 4

I agree this is the best solution for a democratic society.

Nothing else will really be as equal.

Every other alternative will upset somebody.

Truth is the people who are against gay marriage won't like this either. The reason is because they don't really care about the "religious" reasons they give, they just need SOMETHING to back up their hatred and bigotry. There are just some people who don't think gay people should even be allowed to live, let alone live as equals to straight people. Those people don't want us to have ANY rights... not just marriage.

Answer 5

I totally agree! I said that years ago. But as things stand now in the US with the extent of our separation of church and state the federal government and/or any state can legalize gay marriage and no church will be forced to perform the marriages. Things are different in Canada because the churches there do have to follow their equivalent of state or federal law.

Answer 6

I don't think state/federal government needs to give any official recognition to marriage. I see no cause that it promotes. There are already separate laws relating to apparently related issues such as raising children, cohabitation, bankruptcy etc. - if there's a problem with those laws....fix them. But lets get out of the marriage business all together.

BTW - did I mention that I'm 43yo & single ?

Answer 7

You are right about the word "marriage". And the solution you present is also probably the best one. But that challenges "tradition" arguably even more than expanding legal marriage to include same-sex couples. Might be harder to pass the required legislation is all. But logically speaking, that really is the best solution (which is the surest sign it'll never happen).

Answer 8

If this is a step toward making the rights regarding unions the same for everyone, then why not?

I think the word marriage is perfectly fine for two people of the same sex who love each other. But I'm not "married" to it. [Heh heh - get it? originality points here :o)]

Answer 9

Legalize gay marriage. This is a free country. It should be free for everyone, not just the self-righteous, "Godfearing", hypocritic, judgemental, pseudoreligious right-wingers. Legalize it, legalize pot, legalize smoking in bars, legalize freedom of expression the way it was intended.

Answer 10

I have been advocating this for years.
It is an abomination to have the government involved with my marriage to my wife.