do you realize that marriage is a religious ordeal, and that being said all you people slinging mud saying seperation of church and state, the state has no right to grant you the "privledge" of marriage.
2006-09-09 14:08:26 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
IndyT
yet mine dalong with several others does not.
2006-09-09 14:42:57 · update #1
Well you've hit on the exact correct solution to the gay marriage debate! Congratulations.
We simply need to separate the religious ritual of marriage from the state sanctioned marriage. Then both gay and straight couples could be married in the eyes of the state, and enjoy equal protection under the law, as should be guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution.
On the other hand, each church or denomination of churches could decide for itself and its members for whom it would perform religious marriage ceremonies, or other types of commitments.
There is a UCC Minister In North Carolina who is, with the blessing of his flock, operating as if this were the law today. He performs ceremonies for both gay and straight couples, since his congregation has authorized this, but then he sends those who North Carolina law will allow a legal marriage (heterosexuals) to a magistrate or other official of the state for their legal marriage. I'm attaching a link to a sermon he delivered when they started this practice at his place of worship earlier this year!
2006-09-09 14:41:06 · answer #1 · answered by michael941260 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Christianity didn't sacralize marriage not until early middle age, before that it was considered (and in the pure form it still is) a contract between a man and a woman so the man have some rights over her wife (i.e. the man receives a dowry from the wife's parents) and some minor rights the wife has over his husband. We, gay people only want to legalize our unions as any marriage without religion consent, that's why in my country exists alongside the religious marriage the civil marriage where a judge preforms the contract, ah! and under the law of my country, religious marriage are considered civil marriages too (and automatically), and frankly I don't care if a priest, a rabbi or a Muslim Caddi aproves my relationship, I don't need their permission, only want our relationship recognized by law.
2006-09-09 22:19:49 · answer #2 · answered by apernett 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you go with your argument, then does that mean athiests should not be allowed to marry? How about Buddhists, should they be barred from matrimony? Marriage is NOT SOLELY a religious ordeal, nor is it a privilege... it is a RIGHT. It is about love for another person, regardless of the religion, along with the ability to enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage.
What it comes down to is that this country was founded on the basic ideal of separation of church and state. Regardless of whether or not you want to hear that, it is a fundamental fact. One religion's views of marriage can NOT be the basis for the laws of this country.
The Declaration of Independence states, "All men are created equal", not "all STRAIGHT men are created equal."
2006-09-09 23:22:54 · answer #3 · answered by pceej 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To get married, one must obtain a marraige license...Where do you suppose one gets such a thing?? Maybe from their local Catholic church?? No!!
Marraige has benefits for married couples as well, LEGAL benefits. Marraige is a LEGAL institution. Not everyone is married by a priest or pastor or whomever. I have two aunts who were married by a justice of the peace. He is a STATE worker.
Being married is a state institution. They set the guidelines, noone else. Religion is only read or used as a venue.
Marriage, much like voting, is a birthright. Driving, owning a weapon, those are privileges. Tests have to be taken for those. Marriage and voting? All you have to do is turn a certain age and BAM!! you can vote and marry.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that's the way it is.
2006-09-09 22:45:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If marriage is solely a religious deal then it should not be accompanied by tax credits or any other rights afforded by the government. These rights are granted by a civil instrumentality, the government, and are therefore separate from the Church. That's why we have civil marriages. Next question?
P.S. Coragryph is my hero!
2006-09-10 01:05:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The marriage contract is a legal document. It is recognized as a legally binding agreement between two consenting adults. If by virtue of marriage you did not get any special tax rights, any special insurance rates, then you would be correct. The fact is by virtue of marriage you have many many legal rights that are not granted to single persons. Therefore the marriage license is discriminatory if not granted to same sex couples.
Just one more thing, many gays are Christians and believe in the sanctity of their non-recognized marriage. They would like to have the church recognize their union and in fact many religious orders do recognize their union.. it is the state that does not.
2006-09-09 21:29:18 · answer #6 · answered by Silvatungfox 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Marriage exists in both religious context, and legal context.
No church can deny the law the right to use whatever terms it wants. At least not in the US. That's what the separtion of church and state means, and it's been US supreme law for over 130 years.
No church can deny the state the right to use generic words. And the law has decided that the term "marriage" will carry specific legal benefits. Because that's a legal decision, not a religious one, the church has no say in the matter.
2006-09-09 21:11:11 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Separation of church and state means that the state cannot organize a religion. They did this because of England and the Kings power of religion. And marriage is just the joining of two people anyone can do it. Religion didn't patent the idea.
I agree with you Tiffany G!!!
2006-09-09 21:13:00 · answer #8 · answered by NM0758 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is NOT a religious ordeal. Atheists get married all the time-what religion do they follow?
2006-09-09 23:14:23 · answer #9 · answered by Agent Double EL 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no valid reason that it shouldn't be allowed.
I have heard all kinds of arguments against it. I am going to take the time to go over each of them.
1. Why now?
-Because it is called progression just as our society progressed and decided that blacks had a soul and were considered human beings with the same civil rights. Also, there are finally hate crimes laws protecting gay ppl in their protest; whereas, these protections did not exist before.
2. This country was based on Christian values.
-Sure it was but once again those Christian values had errors just like in #1 that we, as a society, have corrected. Those corrections are based on unconstitutionally hindering a minority's civil rights.
3. Our forefathers meant for our laws to follow the church and the 1st admendment doesn't really say separation of church and state.
- I love this one because I love it when a person tries to tell me what the forefathers were thinking. Here is a quote by Thomas Jefferson on this issue, "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Pay close attention to that last line..."thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/churchstate.html
So there is it. That is what the forefathers WERE THINKING = separation of church and state.
4. Why do gays want special rights?
- This one is laughable. It is the heterosexuals that have the speical rights because they are straight. We want equal rights. We want the same inheritance rights, next of kin rights, health benefits rights, foreign spouse citizenship rights, tax dependent rights, etc....
We will gladly withdraw our argument/protest if heterosexual ppl will give up their special rights. They can still have their sacred marriages in their churches but just not be given special rights by the state that other tax-paying citizens are not allowed to have.
5. The majority is against gay marriage.
- First of all that statistic is incorrect. It is currently about 50/50. But even it were, that is completely invalid. We do not have a dictatorship where majority rules. Our country was designed to protect minority groups from mass control. If this were not the case, slavery would still exist and schools would still be separated, as well as, women not being allowed to vote.
6. It is not natural.
- How many of these ppl with this argument have performed oral sex? I'd be willing to bet the majority. Absurd argument and being gay is not about sex. It is about a the relationship and bond between two adults of the same sex.
7. Gay ppl will raise gay children.
- absurd. It has been proven that gay parents tend to raise more emotional children that tend to be more open-minded and secure with their own sexuality.
8. It will influence my children to be gay.
- Once again absurd. It is up to each parent to teach their values to their children. To teach their children what is right or wrong from what they believe. There are plenty of what we consider 'negative' influences in society that it is the parent's responsibility to discuss with their child. You can not hinder a tax-paying citizen's civil rights just because you don't want to take responsiblity for teaching your children your beliefs.
2006-09-09 21:46:57 · answer #10 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋