If marraige is a Sacred Institution?

Question

Then shouldn't it be up to the individual churches, and not the State to define it? What if there was a church or religious group that approved of, and practiced Gay Marriage? Would a ban on Gay Marriage violate their Freedom of Religion? Would it violate the Separation of Church and State? And, if we allow the State to tell churches what they can and can't do, then is the First Amendment still valid?

Yes, marriage is a legal contract, but in many religions it is also a sacrament -- a religious ritual. So, there is the secular, and spiritual aspect to it.

A few points -- I'm not talking about the State forcing churches to recognize and perform Gay marriages. I'm only suggesting that the State get out of the way, and allow those churches who choose to do so, can. I realize, of course, that marriage is partly a civil/secular institution, and as such, then why isn't Gay marriage recognized? If it is a sacred institution, then why not leave it up to the individual churches to define it themselves? If, for example, a Unitarian church wants to allow it, let them. If a Baptist church refuses to, then that is their right, and the right of any Gay or Lesbian church members to leave and go to the Unitarians! So, Gay people get to be married if they want, and conservative denominations can continue discriminating against them, so everyone wins, right?

A few of you suggested that if a church condones homosexuality, it should no longer qualify as a church. By who's definition? Not every organization that is legally recognized as a "church" is Christian. I could probably rattle off a dozen or more organizations that have 501c3 status and are legally recognized as "churches," all of which accept homosexuals, and none of which are Christian. Yours is not the only religion.

Nightwind -- I'm talking about the opposite scenario -- if the Church recognizes Gay marriage, but the State does not, the State's refusal to recognize the marriage is a violation of the First Amendment. If the State were to force the Church to recognize Gay Marriage, that would also violate the First Amendment, but that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

Answer 1

True.

Goverrrnment should get rid of all the marriage laws, and replace them with civil unions for everybody. That way, government doesn't have to deal with all the religious nonsense attached to the term. Religions would be free to individually determine what religious significance and rules they wish to impose on their version of marriage.

If government only dealt with civil unions, then religions wouldn't have to worry any more about government "redefining marriage" on them. Let government deal only with the legal aspect of social contracts and let religions deal with anything they feel is "sacred".

Answer 2

Marriage is not only a "sacred institution" but also a civil contract between two parties and, as such it s regulated by taxes that support and sustain the government (i.e, part of the sytem that self perpetuates the government) that is taxing and regualting the same.
Depending upon ones filing, at least in the USofA, one can file singly, jointly, married, head of household, etc and all of which will help to establish and determine the rate and thereby the amount of taxes one pays.
The state, in its system, is maintaining the public order by issuing binding contracts which provide both penalties and benefits to all parties who have mutually agreed upon entering the same.

Perhaps a better question should be one that ask would a church (which is supposedly an institution inspired by God throught the process of revelation) that is established solely for the purpose of promoting homosexual or same sex marriages which has, historically been against all previous revelations be a legitimate "church" or would the same simply be a group that was advocating for such marriages so as to legally get around the laws of the individual states and the nation.

Lawyers and the legal system of the USofA, as corrupt and unjust as they are, are not stupid, just greedy and vile with absolutely no moral charcter of any sort. They long ago realized that they could steal more money with a briefcase than with a gun ( to paraphrase Don Henley).
They have worked hard to dreate and maintain the self perpetuating system that now exist and which sells "justice" to those who can afford the same while letting the rest of the population be damned.
It might well be assumed that they would see through any such attempt to skirt the law and would quickly put an end to the same.

Further, those who oppose homosexual or same sex marriage on a moral ground based on what they believe to be divine revelation (and who, by their numbers and their financial wherewithall hold a good deal of political clout), as extremist as many of said groups are, would also see through the same and would work as a unified politiacl group to stop it.

To put it bluntly, they have already covered all of the bases, the runner has been tagged and the side is out.

Answer 3

It is not a violation of the separation of church and state because a church is not required to accept someone as spiritually married just because they have been legally married. If the state marries a gay couple, a church can still say "This is not a marriage sanctioned by God." And it certainly doesn't mean that churches would be forced to marry people they don't want to marry. Churches already have this right. Some only marry members. Some only marry people who are baptised within the faith. Some only marry people they have judged suitable for each other. Legalizing gay marriage would in _no_ way force a church to marry a gay couple.

BTW, the State already tells churches what to do to some extent. Churches are still generally subject to secular laws, for example. Perform human sacrifice and you'll be looking at murder one just like anyone else, for example.

Answer 4

Good point, dude.

There are religions that do not condem homosexuality, and yes, they are legally recognized as Churches -- Unitarian Universalists, the Neopagan movement, and even some more liberal Christian denominations. So, if those churches are willing to perform "commitment" ceremonies for Gay and Lesbian couples, then why can't it be legally recognized as marriage? It's bigotry. I've read all the responses you got here, and none of them, NONE, have given a reason why gay couples should not be married that wasn't based on religiously motivated prejudice.

Answer 5

The state has not only the right but the responsibility to state what is morally acceptable in the society it governs. For a "church" to go against the Bible and the government to allow gay marriages, it should no longer looked at as a church! When gays twist the First Amendment of the Constitution to say it allows gay marriage I just think God for the Second Amendment.

Answer 6

The state acts as our current base of law until God retakes the world, so we have to abide by their laws. It is very clear in the Bible that men who lie with other men are bad. Our country has deemed this as not a sacred institution. Unitl the time they change those laws we are to accept them.

If we are to have true separation of church and state, shouldn't churches then have to pay taxes on their properties?
Also, we should not be allowed to use our donations to churches as a tax write-off as well. I for one support this idea.

The last time I checked, homosexuality was not catagorized as a religion, it is a lifestyle choice.

If a church chooses to accept homosexuals they would be in line with the teachings of Christ who said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He also though preached that the congregations should fight to keep themselves clean.

This opens a whole can of worms for many people. While homosexuality is an unnatural act, it is wrong for me to judge those who do this. And I believe that if we are loving and understanding of peoples shortcomings we are displaying Christlike tendencies. There is a line that one crosses however when one partakes in this activity.

Let's look at this in a different way. Murder is wrong, I think we can all agree on this. Now, what if I have an overwhelming desire to kill people? What if I tell you that I feel that I was born to be a killer? Does that somehow allow me to pursue my desires without ramifications? I mean what if there were many people just like me who had the same feelings?

Is it not my responsibility to subdue these feelings I have? The apostle Paul said that there was a war going on inside him that he had to fight everyday. We all have at some time in our lives feelings that others may say were bad. Yet, we supress them, for the most part. Thise that do not pay the consequences of their actions.

Why then, do we desire to allow some who commit sins the freedom to do so and yet hold other sinners to a higher standard?

Yoda out

Answer 7

I have see what you are saying here, but it's the law that dictates what is and isn't a marriage. What if I started a church that said it is OK to kill every third person anyone comes in contact with? It is still illegal, but I have to say in the marriage debate, gender shouldn't matter...I thought that everyone was created equal...meaning your race, hair color, faith, age or your gender should not be considered in marriage, just like all other legal contracts. In junction with your issues, I don't like the church's ability to tell the state what it can and can't do.

Answer 8

i always catch slack for this, but here goes~ if we arrange the laws to where the state / government doesn't have any guidelines, then where will it end? i do not believe people of same sex should be permitted to marry ( legally ) but are welcome to do private ceremonies. the reasons for marriage for any other reason is either based on benefits of employer regulated insurance or federal tax reasons ( i am sure there are more ). and there is a reason it is set up this way. it is because marriage (legally) is a union between a man and woman and says so in the bible. same sex unions are by choice and we can't change all spiritual, state, government laws because some people CHOOSE to join with someone of the same sex. because it is a choice~ i have no hate or discontent with anyone's choices. to each their own...

Answer 9

In my view it is a great conspiracy by powers that be. No religion, even Buddhism or Hinduism, not to speak of 3 Great
Divine Religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism permit gay marraiges. It is against the nature.

Firstly, they want to utilize women in the production system.
Mairrages and take away their time. Secondly they can control world population by promoting gay culture and lastly they want to create an athiest and immoral soscity, so that people stop believing in religion, and only their religion which has cooked up this conspiracy gets full benefit, in the numbers game.

So we must preserve marraiges. Marraige is a blessing. It
helps God create beautiful children for us. Not to marry is
criminal. Holy prophet Muhammad said:

" Those who do not marray are not my followers."

Javed Kaleem

Answer 10

I really like your thought process.

In the US, marriage is a legal contract that entitles the parties to certain legal rights and financial benefits (and negatives, depending on your income level).

And making a church that is made up of gay couples and performing the ceremony for their own members may be the most viable way to force this issue and bring out that "no gay marriage" equals DISCRIMINATION.

Nice.