Because there are so many religious nuts that want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" I propose the following: Marriage would only be handled by religions. If a couple were married, then there marriage would only be recognized by their religion. The government would handle civil unions. Hetero and homosexual couples could get civil unions and would reap all the benefits of current legal marriages (tax breaks, inheritance, power of attorney...). A civil union could be accompanied along with a marriage. This way couples wouldn't have to have 2 services (religious and legal). People can still keep marriage sacred and still abide by the law of separation of church and state. What does everyone else think?
2007-12-07 06:02:09 · 17 answers · asked by hawkguy 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
That is exactly where I think things are going and will go. Allow the state to handle all of the legal aspects of unions between hetero and homosexual unions and all of the legal rights and priviliges etc... and let each individual church/denomination/religion decide what types of relationships they wish to bless. It provides the fairness in law and society benefits, while keeping the church's rights to believe however they feel is important to their understanding of God or their religious texts etc...
I really do think that this is where we will be i the next 5-10 years. I wish it were sooner.
2007-12-07 06:09:27 · answer #1 · answered by Can'tBYY 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I TOTALLY agree. There are some who are too caught up on the "equal" status and want the word. The compromise you suggest will make the majority happy, but it will never make everyone happy. Some gays and lesbians feel that even with all the same rights, keeping the name marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman is a lot like "separate but equal" during the civil rights movement. I think that all people should stop getting married and just get wills. Divorce rates are too high...just break up and change your beneficiary!
2007-12-07 06:09:06 · answer #2 · answered by me 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It only makes sense if all the laws recognizing marriage were changed to read civil unions and only civil unions were recognized for government and legal purposes. Since religious marriages were considered civil unions it would be the same so there would never be a reason to reference marriage in legal circles.
what do you think?
2007-12-07 06:13:01 · answer #3 · answered by working m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Problem with that though is that not all religions see homosexuality as wrong, such as certain pagan religions. Not to mention religion shouldn't even have a say since state and church are legally suppose to be separate! And marriage is a legal binding between two people...
2007-12-07 06:32:04 · answer #4 · answered by D4rkG0dd3ss0666 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I just said that about 5 minutes ago.
Instead of requiring a marriage license,require a civil union contract. Then have a marriage ceremony, or a non religious ceremony. Seems simple enough to me.
2007-12-07 06:14:48 · answer #5 · answered by Michelle C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've been saying that for years!
Marriage should not be a state institution. Civil unions for everyone. If you want a religiously sanctioned marriage ceremony, take your civil union to a church.
2007-12-07 06:05:27 · answer #6 · answered by gopher646 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Same sex marriage is already legal in civilized countries. Gotta get your out of the hands of religious freaks and move into the 21st century.
2007-12-07 07:12:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as civil unions have the same benefits and obligations as marriage I don't care what you call it. Marriage, civil union, peanut butter cups, It's all about the union, not the name Oh and you slippery slopers, two consenting adults, no groups, no minors, no farm or other domesticated animals
2007-12-07 06:32:57 · answer #8 · answered by nekhbet 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The issues are not of equal weight, therefore a compromise would not work. States that have gun control laws consider them to be a public safety issue and would therefore resist abandoning their laws. Same sex marriages are hardly a public safety issue. It is purely a matter of social outlook as to how one views such marriages.
2016-05-22 00:53:13 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm thinking from a practical point of view here. If this "compromise" is allowed, then what is done for some will have to be done for all. For example: Will polygamist have the right to have 50 spouses? Will bothers be allowed to marry sisters? Ectc, etc, etc. You see, once we start this, its going unleash a landslide of issues. Just something to think about.
2007-12-07 06:14:06 · answer #10 · answered by Closet Chronicles 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋