Several Christians stated in another question that marriage is a religious concept... (read details)?

Question

and that if gays want legal rights, they should just get civil unions or something, and leave Marriage alone.

This begs the question -- does this mean that Marriage as a religious ceremony is distinct from Marriage as a legal proceeding?

If marriage is religious, and some religions DO define marriage in such a way amenable to gay marriage (I myself have attended multiple handfastings for two gay men), then in a land where freedom of religion is held as sacrosanct by the First Amendment, should we not consider forbidding gay marriage as a violation of the First Amendment?

Or do we need to separate the religious aspect entirely from the religious aspect, say by having the Law *ONLY* handle Civil Union, and the Religion *ONLY* handle the Marriage?

This is how it is handled in the UK -- the ceremony in the Registar's office is forbidden from having religious overtones.

What are your views on making this distinction between the religious and legalistic aspects of it?

Hey rachel. Long time no see. I'm kinda with you on that, but I'm really just trying to get at exactly what people think of as the nature of marriage by bringing up a definition that many people object to. I frankly think way too much is made over the word, and not nearly enough about the legal rights.

Scott B: Over 40 states now have amendments to their constitutions that not only define Marriage as a man and a woman, but also specifically forbid any legal recognition of homosexual pairings by any name.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1997 (I THINK 97... not sure) defined marriage as Man and Woman, and specifically forbids the federal government from extending the priviledges and considerations of marriage to any legal union of two men or women (ie: I could not marry my homosexual foreign lover and then claim him as my spouse for immigration purposes).

The USA still has a long way to go even in just the 'civil union' idea.

gorgeous, I would never hate you, but I do disagree ... one can be anti-abortion/anti-choice for logical reasons and not religious ones -- I'm proof of it. ;)

TTC: I understand your concern -- I was Christian once myself. But by defining marriage exclusively by the Christian defintion, we are interfering with other religions who define it differently. A hindu friend once told me that certain hindu sects consider humanity to have THREE genders -- Males, Females, and males who play the female role, and that under this system, a male who marries a male who plays the other role... is not even considered homosexual, and that the marriage is valid.

The proposed split, I think, would allow all religions to define marriage how they see fit, instead of having the government define it.

Me & my lover wish to get married -- we go to a Baptist minister. He laughs in our face, as is his religious right. We go to a pagan minister friend, who is elated and honored. So we go to the county clerk and ask for a marriage license - and are told "we process civil unions here, marriage is a religious matter."

This allows all religons their definition.

SlyOne -- your duty to the laws of the USA is a rendering unto Caesar, and is predicated on the principles upon which this nation (not the colonies) were founded, of which the equality of ALL expressions of faith, or lack thereof, are equal.

Your duty to God's law is personal, and you are free to express that personal faith however you see fit.

Even Jesus of Nazareth taught the difference.

Classy, no one is saying a Christian minister would have to, by law, officiate such a marriage. I know a Catholic heterosexual couple who's priest refused to marry them because they refused to do the pre-marriage counseling and courses his church required of him. He didn't break the law to refuse to marry them. It was a religious concern.

If a minister does not support a marriage, he/she is under no obligation under law to officiate it against his or her will. Not a straight marriage, not a gay marriage.

Classy, you're still missing the point. You're trying to assert that gays would demand churches marry them -- the churches don't have to. And if the church won't, the gay couple can either go for a civil ceremony OR find another minister willing to do it.

This in no way would step on any religion's faith. If a religion didn't support gay marriage, fine, those ministers don't have to do them.

And I know of no gay religions or organizations that feel heterosexuals should not be allowed to get married.

Answer 1

That's just it... they're taking out the Civil Unions and claiming they can't even have that. It's pathetic and shows just how much hatred certain groups really do have for others. The only thing Religion can sanction as far as Marriage is concerned are those who are Married according to that Religion. But Marriage in the US is a Gov't Institute. Not even Christians Marriages can be recognized by the Gov't till they obtain a Marriage License from the Court House first. Then they go to their church to get married. So this BS that it's sanctioned by Religion is just that... BS. The whole "man and woman" marriage idea is in mainstream religions.... but their religions are not the only ones. Paganism accepts Gay Marriage for the most part (hell, even some of our sects are mainly Gay - Dianic Wicca is, Usually, Lesbians and only allow women into their groups).

It's a poor attempt to get what they want set into the Constitution... when it is, in fact, against the Constitution. The Constitution does not establish that Marriage is only between man and women.... Mainstream Religion does. So if they make a law in regards to that, then they violate Freedom of Religion for one thing, by forcing their Religious definition of marriage onto the rest of us. What about making laws in regards to Religion.... would this not fall under that category, that one should not make laws in respect to Religion or to keep another from practicing their own Religion the way they see fit? What if the gay couple getting married is Pagan??????

As you can see, topics like this really piss me off. It's a bunch of power hungry assholes trying to run everyone else's life while they can't even keep their own **** straight.

Answer 2

Marriage began as a religious sacrament. Where the government went wrong was in adopting the word marriage for the license. I would propose that all couples receive a "certificate of civil union." If they are to be married, then that will be performed by their church and the church can issue a marriage certificate if they wish to. As far as the state is concerned, the couples are all equal under the law and can have any ceremony they want, performed by a person legally eligible to join them either through a civil or religious ceremony.

Answer 3

I think we are making the whole thing so confusing. According to this definition I am not married --I'm a married hetersexual but who doesn't believe in God and got married by a civil servant on a beach---no religious component at all and I don't see marriage as a religious thing. Yet the government recognizes me as a married person and I have the legal documents. I honestly don't see the grounds for denying gay couples this same benefit/right. The historical roots of marriage were not based in religion but unfortunatley it started as more of a property rights transfer, women were property of their husband until they married and became property of the husband. Today we have evolved a different understanding but it is by no means a unified one. Some see it as God's sanction and others of us just as a pledge of commitment and intent we make to someone we love.

If however, it would solve this issue and give all people the right to marry the person they loved then I would happily adopt the changes. Even if in the distinction my own marriage might have to wear a different label (I'm civilly unioned not married or whatever). My relationship is big enough to transcend a label and we both know what our committment means to us. I do see what is happening as religious discrimination because I don't see how else it is justified. I can see certain churches not being required to accept or marry gay people based on their beliefs but not a nationwide ban. The notion that gay people getting married is going to weaken my own marriage is bizarre to me.

Answer 4

Religion used to BE the law. The Roman Catholics were in power, and if you didn't believe as they did, they would kill you. This was before Martin Luther, (not King), during the times of reformation. That's why there are Protestant religions. They've protested against the Catholic beliefs. Many of the government practices involve religion. Putting your hand over the bible in court and swearing to tell the truth, one nation under God in the pledge of allegiance, in God we trust on our money, and marriage. It is an institution ordained by the church for the purpose of procreation. A gay couple can not procreate, so this is oxymoronic. Separation of church and state only applies to certain things, usually involving a large number of people; like schools, and public buildings, but not marriage, usually. Albeit that many gay couples now adopt, the institution of marriage, by definition, would indicate a husband and wife having intercourse and creating a life together.
There is a legal aspect to marriage too, but marriage is more than just a contract. If it was just about that piece of paper, why are there such high divorce rates? If it is just a legal action to you, then it wouldn't matter where you are married, in a church or city hall. The problems arise, when you try to mix something that is not of the norm, with something that is considered to be the norm in religion. Most people's last/only sanctuary. Religion can't tred on the law, but time and time again the law changes to tred on and block what people believe in. It makes no sense. If people are now free to believe in whatever they want, how fair is it to force their belief system on others in their place of worship?
Do religions force themselves upon and into the places that gays worship each other? Certainly not. I feel that fair is fair. Don't try to hone in on our religious institutions, and we won't step foot into their places of worshiping each other.

Answer 5

your point has merit. For me it goes beyond religion itself. It is a matter of nothing is sacred of its origin anymore. I don't have a problem with how UK is handling it. Church is already separate from state so without thinking too long on this I would say, yes, I would agree to your proposal with the option of being able to change my mind after more thought. This is after all a quick response to a serious quesiton. Every day the origin and rights of christians are being removed and redefined. As a gay you must understand how this feels and how much we want our rights as much as you do. Our term Merry Christmas is a dirty word. Removal of prayers from school has become a disgrace for those who desire that freedom. The list goes on and on. And now you want our right to the defination of marriage. Doesn't seem like gays are the only ones being picked on

Answer 6

I think that it is only fair for the law to recognize "Civil Union" or "Domestic Partnership" and let marriage be a religious ceremony that people can participate in if they choose. I don't want to take any vows before the lord just so people can feel that my man and I are a "real couple".

There should not be any special tax benefits or Social Security benefits extended to followers of religion; nor should non-religious people be denied these benefits (gay people for example - let them marry each other).

Answer 7

In the US, marriage with a male and a female can be EITHER civil or religious. The only problem with gay marriages in the religious terms is that most religions do not accept gay practices. Many scriptures are against gays because they say that marriage should only be between "man and woman".

Answer 8

Ofcourse. It is so dirty, unholy and abnormal. I cant imagine how people can stand two people of the same gender being couples. Perhaps, California should give men and women the right to marry their pet hampster, but I think the gerbil's insurance would be higher! The stupidity of our nation is going tooooooo far.... ps. God made man and WOman. Penis and vagina. Yes, I'm not supposed to say it but I said it - I have no choice.

Answer 9

Thank you for your opinion. I have said for years that if Christians did not want the government to change the definition of marriage, then control of that issue should never have been put in the hands of the government, as a government made by men is subject to impartiality to the fallacies of men. "The United States was founded as a Christian nation" is often a phrase I hear, but God is not the president, and we cannot have the Bible as our Constitution, else it nullifies God's reasons for creating humanity with free will. I likely disagree with you religously, but I think we agree that it is not my place nor yours to tell the other what may or may not be done outside of violating another's physical rights. This is an example of people, Christians in this case, allowing the government to do for them what they should have done themselves. If this was to stay a Christian nation (and btw, I hate using that label for myself because of today's "Christians" and their bovine ways) then it should have been because of how people conducted themselves on a personal level, not because of what our government will fine or jail its citizens for.

Answer 10

I disapprove of gay anything on strictly personal grounds, but I would have no problem with states giving gays certain rights if that's what a majority of the people in that state wanted.

My church won't ever take that step, and I'm ok with that too.