Shouldn't churches be able to decide for themselves? I just don't get it!! When a politician stops two people from being married they are a politician playing a role in religion. Isn't that what they say they don't want to interfere in?
2007-12-20 05:17:37 · 18 answers · asked by LoViiN iiT 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Ohand by the way I am not a republican I am a democrat!! I am for gay marriage...so don't diss my question! I just dont get it!!
2007-12-20 05:49:31 · update #1
Yes, but republicans don't really care about that minor detail. They just want to be in control of everything they see.
2007-12-20 05:21:51 · answer #1 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 2⤊ 8⤋
Marriage is a noun. A noun is a person, place, or thing. This thing, marriage, has been around for a very, very long time, and it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Some people want to redefine the word. Marriage is not a right, it is nothing more than a word.
However, the rights which come with marriage are, in fact, a matter of rights. A gay couple has just as much right to enjoy those rights, and accompanying responsibilites, as does any other couple. That's why I support civil unions.
If this were only about the rights, a compromise could easily be reached. But it's not about the rights of gays to enjoy the same benefits, under civil unions. It's about redefining an old word, and an old practice, and it's based on nothing more than a principle.
Marriage is what it is, and has always been. Leave that alone, and let's institute civil unions, and equal rights for all.
2007-12-20 05:28:29 · answer #2 · answered by Rick K 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well first off, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional in mixing politics and religion, its when Governmental Operation and Religion mix does a problem arise. So its really a non-issue. Especially on the national/federal level. I dont need people in Texas telling people in Conneticut who they can and cannot marry. Its stupid, and thats what federal laws do. They are broad, generalized and very sweeping....ie, usually pointless and cause more headache than help.
If you want politicians to stay out of it completely, then that would mean they leave everything as is....which would mean no gay marriage....
In all honesty, marriage is a religious insititution. Thats where its based.
Personally, I don't care at all. The whole 'marriage benefits' are there for families. Thats what 99.9% of the bennies are for, its to make transistions and life mroe stable for kids in the event of a death, divorce, dissolution, etc. If it were just two adults, they wouldn't need to make laws protecting them in the manner our marraige laws/rights do.
In order to keep this, we should do one of two things. Either all married couples (regardless of gender) who do not have kids or have not raised kids should be granted the same status as gay marriage couples.
Those who do raise children or have raised their own children (adopted or otherwise), can keep the 'benefits' that are designed towards raising a family....
2007-12-20 05:26:41 · answer #3 · answered by Phil M 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it is mixing the two, but the Republicans are as free as the rest of us to take positions. And dispite our stated principal of separating the church and state, the two have been mixed in government for years. Personal feelings aside, the government will always have a social policy role and will likely have a say in defining marriage as long as it continues to tax and provide benefits such as Social Security based on marital status and relationships.
Personally I would like to see wholesale change in this - the government should focus on individuals not on unions (marriages). Benefits should be paid to the individual, with some assignment designation allowed for spouse(s) and automatically for children. Churches could define marriage anyway that they want - including polygomy. (Which is not implying that I support child marriages or forced marriages.) This would represent a major social change, and while I am inclined to believe that we will arrive at a point like this, it will happen through small incrementals steps and with the Christian right kicking and screaming.
2007-12-20 06:54:07 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Issuing a marriage license is mixing government and religion.
If we abolished the government institution of marriage. It would only be a sacrament, and yes churches could decide.
This is how I would solve this problem. It also meets my requirement of never solving a problem with more government.
____
Gays are not treated differently under the law, a gay man can marry anyone they want as long as it's a female (the same rights as a strait man). That is equal treatment. (what they want is to marry who they love)
The problem is that single people get unequal treatment under the law. If every individual has equal treatment under the law, it would not matter.
2007-12-20 05:29:23 · answer #5 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Republicans have been mixing politics and religion for a long time. With regards to gay marriage you actually ask two questions.
Churches have every right to restrict who they choose to allow to marry.
However, the headlines about gay marriage concern gay couples that wish to be legally married by the state.
Marriage confers legal rights and advantages upon couples that are currently denied to gay couples who are denied the right to be legally married:
1. The right to file a joint tax return.
2. The right to obtain medical information about one's partner because the partner is not "family."
3. The right to make legal decisions concerning medical care if the partner is unconscious and can't make their own decisions.
Marriage is a legal state like incorporation. Gay people are denied the right to marriage which means the state treats them differently from other citizens.
2007-12-20 05:28:39 · answer #6 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Religion and Gay Rights have no more business in the Federal debate than abortion does or whether or not we should all wear magic underwear.
The issues that can be handled by the states are supposed to be handled by the states and the Federal government has no business getting involved.
2007-12-20 05:23:19 · answer #7 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
It not just the Republicans, a lot of Democrats are saying that also.They say it because they think it is a sin, they have just as much right to believe it is a sin, and say it, as the one that don't think
it a sin and say it This is still America you know, although we are slipping fast. If I like peanuts, that's my business, if you like walnuts that your business, But we both have a right to say which nut we like, If we can't take the heat then we need to get out the Kitchen. It just that simple.
2007-12-20 07:51:58 · answer #8 · answered by Bee Bee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're theory is flawed. By your thinking a Democrat who says gay marriage is NOT a sin is mixing religion and politics.........Like shooting fish in a barrell...
2007-12-20 05:24:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Seperation of Church and state is meant to keep the Government from infringing upon our religious rights. It is not meant to keep the God out of government. God is mentioned in a lot of our early Documents.
2007-12-20 05:24:37 · answer #10 · answered by k w 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Marriage was meant for procreation. Obviously two people of the same sex are not able to do so.
2007-12-20 05:29:57 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋