Since marriage is a religious practice - should the government be able to 'legalize' marriages, of any sort?

Question

I'm for civil unions, but against the idea of 'legal' marriage for same-sex couples. What are your thoughts?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_po/2008_candidates_gay_marriage

>>> brian, that was my point, exactly.

Answer 1

By that logic, the government cannot ban any sort of marriage either. Besides, not all marriages are religious. Many people just go down to the courthouse to get married.

Answer 2

Where do you get the idea that marriage is a religious practice? It's a matter of the heart between two people. When a minister presides at a wedding, he or she is acting more as an officer of the state than of the church. That's why a minister must be licensed by the state to solemnize marriages. It's basically a legal contract from the public's standpoint.

Why not just legalize the legal, civil union between same gender people, and leave the term "marriage" for 1 man and 1 women? What's in a name? Why must the beliefs of the vast majority be compromised over this?

Let individual churches decide whether they will bless the union.

Answer 3

You bring up a good point but only if the statement of it being a religious practice were true. For some it absolutely is. That is why they get married in a church by a religious leader. Keep in mind that Atheists and Agnostics can get married too. Marriage is legal when done by the justice of the peace also.

Personally I don't have an issue with civil unions other than it takes away from marriage. But then my values are based in religious beliefs. I'm no bible thumper though.

Answer 4

That whole Iowa thing is a farce. The presiding judge didn't listen to both sides of the issue which is usually the case. So, whatever, he's probably getting paid for a decision that will not hold up on appeal.
Regardless, I agree with you, I think there should be no law involved in marriages. It should all be at will like employment is. It should all be done and regulated through the church since it is a religious act anyway and not an act of government. The government needs to but out of religious acts and stick to the usual government business which is wasting money and making people miserable.
The funny thing is, according to some answers, obviously not all people can understand there is a difference between religious organizations and the government. The government should be not involved in marriage whatsoever, either it is an act performed by the government, or by the church but it should not be both.
If the government can dictate who can be married before god then why don't we just have one religion and call it government?

Answer 5

I think it should be up to the individual church or denomination to decide if they will preside over and bless same sex marriages. I don't think that the government should say anything at all. I am a straight Christian living in Canada where some denominations will sanction same sex marriages. If people in the congregation don't agree, they can change churches. So far, it hasn't affected me at all and my church is one that does perform same sex marriages. My personal opinion is that gay unions should be called something other than marriage but it really is up to the church. As far as civil unions, as long as the people pay for the license, thay should be allowed a civil ceremony.

Answer 6

I do not believe the government should have anything to say about marriage it's a church issue...the only thing that they can offer is civil unions...even for non gay couples...if you aren't religious you shouldn't seek a marriage but should seek a civil union. That's what I think.

Answer 7

Marriage is both a religious ceremony or sacrament and a a civil contract.

I say, let religions and faiths define what marriage means in a religious context.

Let states define what marriage means in a legal/civil context.

I'm always amazed that Republicans are all about economic freedom and individual rights but don't seem to be willing to allow two able-minded single-sex adults the right to enter into a contract (i.e., a marriage).

This apparent hypocracy is really at the heart of the difference between true Republicans (as much economic freedom and as little govt interference as possible) and the religious right Repulbicans.

It's pretty clear that over the last 25 years, the latter group has permeated the party, much to the detriment of the "classic" Republicans.

Answer 8

Government should recognize civil unions of all sorts, churches can decide on who gets to be married. Get government out of the marriage business and let them just deal with the contractual side of it.

Answer 9

Why should two people of legal age who are in love be denied the right to be married? Atheists can get married in a court and that is not a religious practice. Some people see it that way but I do not. Every religion has different rules for marriage. Neo-pagans are accepting of homosexuals. So Neo-pagan homosexuals should be able to get married right?

Answer 10

When I got my marriage license, it was issued by the county. That's what makes me 'legally' married, not a religious ceremony.
What's the real difference between allowing gays to be legally married as opposed to only allowing civil unions? And, what I don't get is this: why does it matter to the straight community one way or the other? If they want to be married, I say let them. It's not going to harm me in any way, shape or form.

Answer 11

No, marriage should be between you and your church. The government should only recognize civil unions.