does legally defining marriage as only between a man and woman endorse a religous view?

Question

Countless lesbians and gay men stand before ordained members of the clergy who consider their marriage sacred in the eyes of God. Does legally defining marriage as something in which only a couple consisting of one man and one woman endorse particular religious concepts of that word and that union as valid and others invalid?

sparkles... does that REALLY answer this question?

and, Loco, upon which principles should that definition be based?

does it have to do with the care of children? in that case, what empirical proof is there that gay people are not qualified to raise children and should therefore be excluded from such an arrangement?

is it based on some concept of 'social stability?'
first, should the state be involved in this sort of social engineering, and if it should, shouldn't the state also return to a more comprehensive control of the reasons men and women who are married may divorce?

thank you, Loco, for your clarification.
consider this: except for those benefits extended by governmental agencies, aren't contractual agreements between the parties involved sufficient to handle them?
and with regard to those benefits that now accrue to married people via the state, wouldn't our energies be better expended ensuring that all Americans had adequate health insurance, that all biological parents are held responsible for minor children regardless of marital status, and that those who stay at home to care for minor children receive social security benefits commensurate with that of those who work at salaried jobs?
In other words, why be in the business of registering adult relationships in the first place, when each adult should, by defninition, be self sufficient in the first place?

riverotter, if you think MY questions are convoluted, try parsing the reasons democratic candidates have come up with for not supporting gay marriage. or for that reason, try reading ANY piece of legislation written into the congressional record.

Besides, there is definite logic in the way I couch my questions. For example, ask Barak Obama this question exactly as I do: "Countless lesbians and gay men have stood before ordained members of the clergy and committed their lives to one another in marriage. When you say you 'do not believe in gay marriage' are you also asserting that you disagree with the religious beliefs of those couples, witnesses, and clergy who consider these unions as sacred in the eyes of God as any marriage between a man and a woman?"

Now consider his options. He can say yes, he disagrees with those beliefs, in which case he opens himself up to the question as to whether he would oppose gay marriage based on those beliefs. He can say, no, he does not disagree with those beliefs, which would contradict what he's already said. He can say he thinks this is a religious issue, not a civil matter, which begs the follow question, 'on which grounds, then, would you oppose legislation allowing gay marriage?"

Or he could not answer at all, in which case the question should be asked again and again until he does.

Ideally, a member of the clergy who is granted the right to sign marriage licenses should file suit against the state asking for clarification of the SIMPLE question i'm asking, "since my religious beliefs define marriage between two men as sacred in the eyes of God, does the license i'm signing define marriage to exclude this sacred union, and therefore endorse a religious point of view?"

Answer 1

I think it absolutely endorses a religious view. I haven't seen any opposition that I can remember, that hasn't been based purely on religion.

This country does not seperate church and state, although that was the exact premise it was supposed to be founded on.

Answer 2

I have to admit you do ask extremely interesting questions; a bit convoluted, but interesting nonetheless.
Of course it's going to involve religion. Laws are built on morals and ethics -- both essentially the same although different-- which often come from the religious concepts that are learned as those lawgivers grew up. They can try to keep them unbiased but some part of what they are will add to the bits of what the legal morality of their predessesors were -- and on and on ad infinitum.
It really shouldn't matter to the government who marries whom, provided the paperwork is clean and both parties are consenting adults; but because the laws are actually based on religion due to no true seperation of church and state, lawmakers can claim that they are guided by their morals and their religions.
Thus, it doesn't matter if Gays and Lesbians marry before Clergy or not. It's all between God, them and the ones who marry them. The government should have nothing to say.

Answer 3

Yes, I think it is. Legally it may not but in the eyes of many people, marriage=a religious joining. This is a major hurdle in winning the marriage equality battle.

Honestly I agree with others who have stated the gov't needs to get out of the marriage business. The gov't needs civil unions for everyone and let religious groups make decisions concerning marriage. Remove the term marriage from all legal documents.

♂♂

Answer 4

Yes. Because different religions have different views of "marriage." Thats why we need a legal definition of marriage.

Edit: I didn't say it should be based on ability to raise children. But it is discriminatory of the government to extend protection to one union and not to another. In the eyes of those people their union is just as sacred as any other union. Marriage is not just about raising kids, if that was it then sterile people won't be able to marry. It is more about legalizing your union in order to have certain "laws" come into affect. e.g. laws of inheritance and health Insurance etc. It would be truely undiscriminatory to abolish legal marriage all together, but then who would uphold the rights people have on each other under law?

Answer 5

According to a lot of conservation Christians, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. I think it is a religious thing--which is wrong considering that religion shouldn't dictate politics and people's rights.

Answer 6

I feel that it does. There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state. But the church is dictating what the definition of a marriage is. Which, incidentally, is against the U.S. Constitution.
I think this is what you were looking for.

Answer 7

i can't be bothered with the religious points of view. i see it as if they are genuine and are in love then why not?


marck: don't take yourself too seriously, i wasn't snapping at you with my answer it's just my opinion