Couldn't the whole issue be avoided if the Government just got out of marriage entirely and left it to churches?
All the legal benefits could remain under a civil contract of a different name, like some states already do but only for gays.
Why not just have Civil Unions for everyone who wants them, then churches can decide whom they do or don't want to MARRY?
2007-03-08 11:10:38 · 11 answers · asked by A Box of Signs 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because we have a president who doesn't understand the concept of Church and State being seperate. According to him, his god tells him to do stuff.
2007-03-08 11:13:26 · answer #1 · answered by PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL TEEN! 4 · 3⤊ 7⤋
Your advantageous consisting of your ideals. The church of england is against gay marriage yet there are a lot of human beings interior the church of england who're gay themselves or who have self assurance gay marriage could ensue. in order that your conscious, purely given which you have been Christened interior the Church of england, it does not advise you would be able to desire to stick to all of there ideals (purely stick to what the Bible teaches as you comprehend it), there are lots of people who go against the church, in different church homes aswell as that one. additionally, in case you do not visit church and don't stay a christian existence form, believing as you do won't remember the two way.
2016-10-17 22:01:01 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have rules of law [marriage one of them], per the Constitution, to promote the "general welfare" not the "particular welfare" for any combination of people who think they should be able to marry.
=============================================
Civil unions for all would not work because then any combination you could come up with would be able to demand a union whether they be 2, 3, 4, etc., etc
This would not promote the general welfare.
2007-03-08 11:45:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ive pretty much been saying the same thing as you, I think that they should have a union of sorts for them but just call it something different than marriage and give them all the same benefits - it'll erase a lot of the arguments.
2007-03-08 11:14:44 · answer #4 · answered by radiancia 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Marriage is a legal contract. People can also have religious ceremonies & religious documentation as well, but there is legitimate govt interest.
2007-03-08 11:38:36 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is unconstitutional to allow religious institutions to define a legal issue. Why would I want my legal status--constitutional rights and liberties--defined by a church? Your question also excludes synagogues and mosques (for example) as entities to define marriage. Is marriage only for heterosexual Christians?
2007-03-08 11:16:24 · answer #6 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i agree, hasn't the government intruded enough into our private lives,its time we set the standards and-take on some of the responsibilities
2007-03-08 11:23:15 · answer #7 · answered by debbie d 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the republicans had to make sure that people didn't think about what is going on in Iraq during the last presidential elections and so they made sure that the religious right in America had to vote for Bush.
I agree with you completely!
2007-03-08 11:16:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Makes sense to me
2007-03-08 11:14:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ok then, leave it to churches.
The gays will come back crawling to the government.
2007-03-08 11:14:08 · answer #10 · answered by TheMuffinMan 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
everyone who is married knows its always the same sex lmao
2007-03-08 11:13:50 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋