Homosexuals Only, Please: Equal Rights or Clerical Recognition?

Question

As a Christian, I believe homosexual behavior is sinful, but I DON'T condemn anyone for it, since I'm a sinner too.

As an American, I believe homosexual Americans should have all the same CIVIL rights as any other citizen.

So here's my question: As long as all your rights are guaranteed and protected by the government, does it matter to you folks whether you are "married" in the eyes of the church, or only parties to a legally-valid "civil union"? I ask this because I read where a homosexual Episcopalian minister was holding out for religious recognition of his civil union. He said the words "civil union" left him cold.

I'm trying to understand your views, so no hateful replies, please.

Answer 1

Thank you for an intellligent question. You get a star. Second. I myself am not a Christian, so maybe I'm not the best person to give an opinion. That being said, my opin, is mine, I don't portend to speak for the population as a whole.

Here's what I would like to see. That every gay person be afforded every single right that is afforded to a heterosexual person when he/she gets married. Some things that I can think of are....
Taxes, insurance, next of kin rights in hospital situations, contracts, etc.

I couldn't care less what the church says or does, civil union, if it included all that I mentioned, would be fine. But that's just me.

Answer 2

First of all, no one is a spokesperson for the whole community. My personal views are that
1)More people need to be able to make the distinction you just did. Congratulations on recognizing the difference between the multiple meanings of the word "marriage".
2)If the LEGALITY part is called "civil unions" for us, it should be called "civil unions" for everyone. Otherwise you're setting up two supposedly parallel "seperate but equal" institutions, and I"m sure you'll agree with me that that doesn't fly. Also, civil unions are currently only on the state level, so they are already not "equal". Assuming that there was true equality going on on a legal level though, I'm happy.


I personally am not a religious person. I'm not atheist, but I feel like if there is a God, or tao, or whatever, it's not having a direct impact on my life right now. And that may change in the future, but what I'm getting at is that any fights for religious equality are NOT my fight. There are people who were raised catholic who simply do not agree with the direction the catholic church is heading. I could weigh in on my views (I was also raised catholic and went to a catholic school, so they'd be relatively educated views), but ultimately it doesn't really matter what I think. Not my place to say anything. As for having SOME kind of religious recognition, the big national push right now for marriage equality is not religious in nature, generally speaking, simply because there already exist churches that are happy to bless same sex unions. We don't NEED to fight for that because we've already got it. No one's trying to make all the other religions have their g(G)od(s) bless the union.

BUT, if you're job is to perform legal unions, I don't think that your religion is an excuse to stop doing your job. When people are allowed to do that, then we get areas that are de facto still illegalizing same sex marriage, because it is impossible for a couple to find someone who will perform the ceremony.

Answer 3

I myself believe the whole "marrige versus civil union" debate is one of semantics; they are two words for basically the same thing, but look at how much trouble it stirs up to use them interchangeably!

If I had a choice right now between civil unions across the U.S. or to continue fighting for 'marriage' everywhere, I'd take the civil unions, no doubt about it. But I do believe that civil union is a second-class citizen sort of phrase that changes the equality of the institution, and they really should have the same name.

Hope that helps!

Answer 4

I don't see the word "marriage" as specifically tied to christian couples. Islamic couples get "married." Jewish couples get "married." Pagan couples get "married." Making up a separate word for same-sex unions so that christians can have that word makes no sense in a country where opposite-sex couples of different religions can get "married."

Also, as long as the LGBT communities have equal freedom and protection in this country I don't care what other religious institutions think.

Answer 5

Thank you for your educated question.
I believe that many same-sex partners tend to feel the the term "civil union" implies a type of tolerance issued by the government(s). If you look at it this way... a state I.D. is not the same as a drivers license.Sure both are forms of identification, but one carries a much broader scope of privilege.
Most gay folks feel that if they are good enough to pay tax,than they are good enough to have the same rights as everyone else !

Answer 6

I agree with Cando. I don't care what you call it.... In my eyes, and in the eyes of my partner, I know that I am monogamously married, utterly in love for fifteen years, a parent and truly blessed by God.

I just want CIVIL RIGHTS for myself and for my family. So to all the fundamentalists out there who take the Bible literally... I say: God bless, and keep the word "marriage" if you want. It's just a word. Just don't deny another human being of the same civil rights that you have. PEACE.

Answer 7

As a Christian (as are all my gay/lesbian and straight friends, and my partner), I know that God created and loves us all, and I'm not sinful for being the way He created me.

As an American, labeling it "civil union" instead of "marriage" is still separate but NOT equal! It still makes it sound second-class and not as valid. I am in a loving, committed, monogamous relationship. We are registered domestic partners, and we've had a commitment ceremony. But we also wish to enjoy the same equal, legal rights as any other American.

Love is love....live and let live!

Answer 8

Wow, maximum of you're completely lacking the factor. The question replace into asked to easily see what others think of roughly it. She's no longer attacking or helping gay marriage, she's basically proposing a sparkling technical impediment. besides, that's an exceedingly, very exciting factor. I had by no potential theory approximately it that way earlier. contained regarding marriage, confident, gays have equivalent rights. yet everyone's acceptance of those "equivalent" rights imposed on gays has forgotten between the main prolific words in American history. If we deny gays the excellent to marry, we are denying them the ---pursuit of happiness--- that straights have. would that's too various a protracted shot to assert that denying gays the excellent to marry is genuinely anti-American? i do no longer think of so.

Answer 9

I admire your belief of faith and your stand on rights of all Americans. The one thing that does stick in my head is this thing that people of faith have about religous marriage.

Some churches and temples do believe that religous marriage of same sex couples is valid in the eyes of G-d. My feeling on the stance is this, all citizens of the US should be required by law to have a civil marriage in order to have it legal in the eyse of the government. After that, leave it up to the churches and temples and whatever to decide for themselves what is right for them. Make sense?

Answer 10

As a Christian myself, I tend to believe that Christians 'concentrate' on gay related issues more than the real important issues. I never thing about gayness being an issue, but apparently everyone else does.

I can honestly tell you that I don't even need to sign a piece of paper to be 'married' to my partner of 8 years, what counts to me is to be able, for instance, to be considered 'a close family member' when I go to visit him at the hospital, and among many other things, that only the word 'Marriage' includes, to be able to file joint taxes, and wills as related family.