Shouldn't the government only issue civil unions? So what's so bad about giving gay couples civil unions.

Question

The Church doesn't have to recognize it as a marriage.

Answer 1

That is the reason that so many religious types are fighting to keep this as a religious issue. Heterosexual marriage is the only civil ceremony which can be legally performed in a church by a representative of that church, not an elected official (though the Justice of the Peace or a ship's captain at sea in international waters will suffice). You can't adopt a child or divorce a spouse through a priest or reverend, now can you?

Yes, the government can issue civil unions to hetersexual couples without the involvement of the state. However, because homosexuality is not "recognized" by the church (which, in this instance becomes a special agency of the state that is not governed by state laws) there is all this brouhaha and filibuster preventing it.

You should also know that a mere civil union is nothing in comparison to actual marriage, which guarantees over 1,000 legal rights to heterosexual couples only, including rights to insurance settlements, children (yes, gays do have kids!), hospital visitation and burial rights--all the biggies. Civil unions can guarantee virtually none of these intrinsic human rights.

Answer 2

I agree with this--as long as civil unions and marriage are absolutely identical and indistinguishable in the eyes of the law. If marriage is a religious institution, the government has no right to be involved in it, and legislation should have no effect on it. If marriage is a legal institution, then it should not be withheld from a certain class of citizens, as this would suggest that they are second-class individuals without the same basic rights as everyone else.

Either way, there is no possible ethical or legal defense for the horrific withholding of important legal rights and benefits from gay and lesbian couples. How various religions view the institution of marriage is an irrelevant non-issue; what matters are people's basic rights, their health and happiness, the reaffirmation that they are as human as anyone else in this society.

As long as civil unions do not convey the full legal benefits of marriage, the government is either persecuting people based on their sexual orientation, becoming involved in the affairs of religion (and favoring a certain religious view over all others), or both. Either would be clearly unconstitutional and even more clearly immoral.

Answer 3

I know you don't believe this because I am a Christian but I have been saying this for years. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil union, common law marriage, whatever, people should be free to do what they want to. Surely since we already do anyway.

Answer 4

the bible says that a man and women should be married, the states have worked off that in creating some of the laws which in anyway you look at it is wrong. If you are not a religious person then the bible has no effect on your life, so why should it be allowed to effect you in love. By not giving gays the option to marry is telling them well its not OK to love the same sex, however it is OK to for you to marry a women even in it does not make you happy. OK so in order for someone to worship god, all you have to be is unhappy in life, that's sad. If i was gay i would not care if the church would recognize my marrage, well I'm straight and i still dint care if the church would recognize my marrage. If you love someone man or women gay or straight it is stupid not to prusue what you love because some book says is wrong. Make yourself happy in life, there is nothing wrong with gays getting married, and anyone that says otherwise needs to worry about themsevles and not get into personal relastionships of other people.

Answer 5

I understand and agree totally. I don't understand why civil unions have anything to do with sexuality. I'm a man and I want a civil union with a woman it should be the same as a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Answer 6

actually it already is like that. Ever since I can remember a man and woman could get married by signing the papers ar city hall. The Churches could refuse to do a marriage ceremony, refuse to recognize a marriage or what ever and often did so. Protestants and catholics very often refused to recognize interfaith marriage and considered children of such mixed marriage as illegitimate. This continues with many sects and between many religions. Check out the Jewish rules.
That the privilege of suffering this sort of prejudice should be extended to the gays in our country makes total sense. community makes

Answer 7

I know!

Oh well. You can count on another backlash by the Gays. It always is the case, isn't it?

I am a Christian and I don't see the point. The Fundies are totally attempting to pump morality into the fray, when if we look into it enough, there are no moral people on Earth-- in God's eyes anyway. ( That's because his standard is perfection, and we 'ain't' it! )

So, I am in the minority on this one. I really don't care if Gays marry. I think that it takes away from the message of the Gospel, driving a wedge between the message that we are supposed to be preaching, and replacing it with a moral division. It clearly gets in the way.

Answer 8

You are all overcomplicating this. No politician wants to seriously put forward the motion because it will be political suicide.

Marriage has always been a civil union. It is only in fairly recent history that the church has tried to claim it as a religious union.

Answer 9

Why do gay couples feel it is so important to be married or in a civil union? If they love each other and live together, why do they insist on having the label of "married" or "civil union?"

No one can stop them from living together, so why worry about the rest?

Answer 10

I don't see the need for the government to get involved in any civil unions!