2007-09-15 11:37:01 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not even sure what that means. Marriage has nothing to do with church, it is a contract between two people and the state.
2007-09-15 11:40:40 · answer #1 · answered by Mitchell . 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
How homosexual marriage comes about infringes upon the seperation of powers doctrine.
In Massachusetts, my state, the governor and state house and majority of voters voted against homosexual marriage in 2001. But six non-elected state supreme court judges said yes. Now we have unwanted homosexual marriage in Taxachusetts: The Gay State!
If that is not an unwarranted abuse of the seperation of powers act, then nothing is! If I were the Governor then, I would have arrested those six judges and set a precedent for other states to follow.
2007-09-15 18:42:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
It shouldn't, unless, of course, you're marrying a 'member' of congress... (pun very much intended).
The issue of separation of church and state is to avoid having any one religion to take over the function of government. We surely don't need another Crusades, or Inquisition, or witch hunts; which is what happens when religion mixes with politics.
2007-09-15 18:50:54 · answer #3 · answered by John Silver 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only reason that I am opposed to Gay Marriage is that it upsets so many people and distracts us from more important issues that need to be dealt with. I don't understand why the gay lobby insists that their relationships have to be called a "marriage", nor do I understand why it shouldn't be called one. I don't think that they could do much more to the institution of Marriage than we have already done, as the stats say that most marriages don't last 5 years, on average. Yesterday was my 19th anniversary....
2007-09-15 18:45:10 · answer #4 · answered by Ben H 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, it does not! It only infringes upon the minds of people who have been taught to believe that Gay Marriage is an effrontery to God or illegal!
2007-09-15 18:45:38 · answer #5 · answered by Chris B 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't see how it could. While marriage is a religious ceremony, it is also a civil ceremony. Some people marry within a religion, and some do not. There is not any real controversy between church and state.
2007-09-15 18:43:45 · answer #6 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No. Churches have every right to refuse to accept a marriage under their tenants.
The government has no business telling anybody who can be married or where and how they can worship.
Regarding Massachusetts, the Supreme Court was following the constitution in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That's how a constitutional republic works, or we'd have long ago voted ourselves into a dictatorship./
Restraint, restraint.
2007-09-15 18:42:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
If I refuse to perform a marriage for homosexuals, the government can't force me to...I just don't recognize homosexual (nothing "gay" about it) marriage as part of my freedom of religious practice.
2007-09-15 18:44:50 · answer #8 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Legally, and to the state, marriage is about property and children, so, to answer your question, no.
2007-09-15 18:49:01 · answer #9 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only from a church perspective, meaning it isn't a government issue at all.
2007-09-15 18:43:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋