Elections are coming up here in the States. My state, California, recently legalized marriage by people of the same gender. Now, there is a proposition in the coming election to overturn that. Between my house and work (only half a mile), there are no fewer than 8 lawnsigns for one side of the issue or the other. I know that the issue has legal, social, and religious ramifications. It has an emotional impact of both sides. But, it is also an important civil rights issue that needs to be considered. My own stance is that to deny rights to any group is discrimination. I believe in the seperation of church and state. Most of the objections I hear are religious in nature. I don't think any religion's mandate should affect the law. The law should be ethical, but not based on any one religion. Therefore, I think that gays should be allowed to legally marry same as anyone else. They should get the same benefits and responsibilities. That does not mean that religions need to perform or ligitimize these unions themselves. But, they shouldn't prevent a couple from marrying in the eyes of law. The eyes of God is up for debate. I think either we need to legalize marriage for all concenting adults or remove the word marriage from everyone and make "Civil Unions" for everyone. This is just my opinion. I am curious to hear what others have to say. I trust we can all be respectful and mature about this.
I've heard just about every argument for/against there is. As far as I'm concerned, it's not something the state needs to be involved in. It's not a government matter. If a guy and guy want to get hitched and there's a form to fill out let them. They can even have a ceremony in a church I suppose if they can find one that will actually let them (Believe it or not there are a few). It's not a government matter that needs a law. It's as simple as filling out a form and registering for benefits. Of course it's not that simple. Government loves to screw us over by overcomplicating everything and saying they're making it better. It's a shame too. If it just stayed out of these sort of things we'd save so much political chaos. Why the government feels the need to argue bedroom practices when we have failing economy, a war, and so many other problems ins beyond me (Actually I call it scapegoating. Fire up both sides so they don't realize your not doing anything about the big problems).
I do agree that gay people shuld have the right to have a civil ceromny .... but I am not sure about marriage. The only reason I say this is because until the churches have decided whether they see gay relationships as being right, and they all agree, it is condradicting their beleifs. I am not saying I agree with the church one way or another, but it should not be a religious thing, like marriage, if the church things it is against God. But yea, I am all up for gay people having civil cermonies or something ... everyone to their own.
Unfortunately, the reason it's a matter for government is that currently there are some pretty worthwhile tax and healthcare benefits to being married as opposed to single. It also makes inheritances and other such things vastly easier to deal with. All of those are government-regulated, so as long as marriage confers these legal benefits, the government is going to have a say in marriage. (Personally, I'd rather they ditched the whole schtick and stopped giving tax breaks to married couples rather than cause all this fuss.) As far as the religious aspects of marriage, well, what people do with other consenting adults is between them and their God. Not anyone's place to tell people what to believe about such matters, (at least from a legal point of view. Everyone's welcome to evangelize their point of view, of course.)
They can do whatever they like. Freedom and all that. I cant believe people would discriminate people because of what gender they like... (does that make sense?)
It has never really been about religion. It has everything to do with legal rights and responsibilities. I will state right here that I am in favor of a person being legally able to marry whatever he or she likes--why shouldn't gay people have the right to be miserable just like everyone else who is married, ya know? However, the larger legal implications are quite complex. It has mostly to do with people being able to legitimately claim another person as a recipient of benefits on life insurance, health insurance, estate, and what-have-you. That's really the bottom line. I have known gay people whose partners died, and though the partnership had lasted for many years and was faithful and loving, the dying partner's family took advantage of the fact that there was no legally-recognized union to plunder the estate of both. A shabby business, that. Also you will find that in custody cases a child will consider both of the partners to be his or her parent--and yet when the court rules, the child must go and live with a stranger, because neither "parent" has legal claim to custody. There is a possibility for a lot of abuse of the legal system (I'm talking worldwide here, not just in the U.S.). However, our legal system is already being abused, and to more of a frivolous purpose. My personal opinion is that if people want to get legally married, the law should support it, regardless of their sex/gender/whatever-the-hell-you-call-it. Yep--it's going to increase the number of court cases, anyone can see that. But, legally speaking, it's good for business. yours in Chaos, Scarlett
Gay people are living in sin, but then so are every couple who have had sex before marriage. Yet the church is not putting up any resistance to these people being married. The fact of the matter is that some people in the church are too afraid to lose their congregations, and some polititions too afraid to lose their votes, to allow gay people to be married. Marriage is a religious institution, yes, but it is also a governmental institution.The American constitution supports the idea that church and state should be seperate, so in the eyes of the government, gay marriage should be allowed. The church can be a prude if wants to, but it runs the risk of someone pulling a Henry VIII. If you dont like the church, get a new church.
See now whether the church and the government are seperate, marriage is a contract under the eyes of God, so therefore if you ger married, especially in a church, then you should beleive in God and try to be a good christian self. If the church decides that gay relationships are wrong, then marrying in church under the eyes of God, is therefore contradicting the fact it is under God. again, I do not beleive their is anything wrong with gay marriage, but until the majority of churchs agree being gay is not unholy, then is shuld not be a religous ceremony.
Well, not gonna hang out in the shadows, now are you Carmina? It is a delicate subject, and one that tends to raise hackles with every and all. I of course have to agree with you and take your side. I’m a gay person myself and there can be no doubt that the fact that there is no real legal recourse for gay couples to affirm themselves as a true and lasting partnership not only has ramifications which concern the law and civil rights, but there is also a social aspect to the concept as well. I have felt from my own family the strange, and never really spoken aloud, idea that they see my relationship as something disposable. If things are not going well, they say, “Well, just come home. You don’t have to stay there.” I really feel that if I were legaly married, this would not be the advice given. Would you really advise your children to just leave their spouses during tough times? I think not. So, from a sociological standpoint, having no legal standing means having no social standing. No standing from any standpoint. Of course you will always find people like yourself who understand the injustice of the situation and will stand by one’s side to affirm one’s right, but there is always the specter of those who would pull the rug of equality out from under one’s feet. And those who would pull the rug are only too ready to do so.
Marriage can be viewed two ways. As a governmental institution or a religious ceremony. According to the constitution, the government cannot force the Church or any religious body to recognize same sex marriage if they don't want too. But the church doesn't rule marriage anymore. Many married couples never step foot in one, and many others never have a priest or pastor present. All you need to get married and recognized by government is to fill out a bunch forms and get the proper certifications (I think some states require you to see a judge or court official). It's been taken out of the church's hands and has been turned over the states. The states themselves legally cannot limit marriage to same-sex couples on religious grounds (if they want to limit it they need another excuse. Take your pick, immorality, unethical whatever. I'm sure if someone tried they'd probably come up with a better idea than god says it's bad). At it's heart, marriage is a religious ceremony, and if a church doesn't want to offer it to same-sex couples they can't be forced to. But like I said it's been taken out of their hands. Marriage by religion has become a peripheral in what is now a government institution.
Hey, you totally ripped off my idea from the true or false thread you bitch! (j/k) Gay people can do what they want. As long as they're not all annoying about it. I mean, wanting equal rights is one thing, but I fail to see why sexual preference is deserving of an entire sub-culture. Before you know it, blond-haired, blue-eyed people like me will development an unnecessarily flamboyant mode of expression, and we'll see how you all like it when it's forced on you through every medium... That doesn't really have anything to do with gay marriage, though. And most gays aren't the irritating posers you get...
Thanks for asking Wreybies... I am married to a man. But, I never closed my eyes to the posibility that my best mate might be a woman. I certainly find women attractive. I guess that makes me bi-sexual if you have to put a label on it. In my own life, I have many friends in the gay communitry as well as family members. I was recently very upset by something my mother-in-law said. She said that doesn't think gay people should be allowed to "call it marriage." This upset me because her own brother is gay and has been in a committted relationship for over 30 years. My mother-in-laws marraige didn't last that long and was full of cheating and disrespect. Which relationship is more real, loving, mature, and healthful? This woman would deny her own brother the benefits, inheritance rights, pension and all that she recieved from her less than ideal marriage. Richard and Jerry are one the relationships I look at as a model to pattern my marriage on. It is simply a matter of the law acknowledging what is already there and bestoying the appropriate rights.
Let me begin with the truth. I am a bit homophobic as I find the idea of such behavior repulsive. I also do not believe in God so my reactions to this issue are in no way religiously influenced. "Marriage" is a religious commitment. This sacred union between a man and woman is defined by history in many different religions, none of which has ever condoned homosexual unions. That said, the "modern" concept of marriage has become defined by government documentation and permission called a "marriage certificate". When did government assume the right to define "marriage"? There were no government required "marriage certificates" in ancient cultures. Two people simply fell in love and went to their clergyman for consecration of their union. At some time, politicians decided to register these unions and this initial intrusion of government into the private lives of people expanded until you are forced to take blood tests, pay fees and obtain permission from the stinking government bastards (marriage certificate) in order to have your marriage recognized by tax law, medical rights, etc. THIS IS THE CURRENT PROBLEM! Government should NOT be a part of the marriage decision. Unfortunately, politicians will never relinquish the power they have stolen from the people so we are now faced with the gut wrenching prospect of defining "marriage" by government decree. There are no winners in this vote. If gay marriage is nullified, then one segment of society feels they are unfairly restricted. If gay marriage is supported, then the religious members of society are crushed by the government repudiation of their core values. Either outcome will solidify contempt and foment hatred between these hopelessly polarized groups of society. The real solution to this problem is to REMOVE government from the marriage equation. "Marriage" should be defined ONLY by religious groups and only as they deem fit. Many religions would choose to honor only opposite sex unions. Let em! It's their religion. Some more tolerant or progressive religions might choose to include same sex marriages. Let em! Again, it's THEIR choice and government should simply not be a part of the issue. That brings me back to the role of government in "committed" relationships. Why is it even important for government to register such unions? Law. Taxes are assessed differently for "couples" than for singles. Is THAT fair? No! So, change the damn tax code to make it fair for everyone. Another reason for government registering of "couples" is medical law. Such legal status carries special privileges like intestate rules at death, or the hierarchy of authority over comatose patients for medical decisions. These are a couple of legitimate reasons to have some form of "couples registry" as the orderly conduct of such matters benefits all of society. But, this civil certificate is not (and never has been) "marriage"! It's nothing more than government organizing society in some kind of categories that help clarify privileges like inheritance, taxation, medical authority, parental rights, community property, etc. In summary, get government the hell out of our bedrooms. Terminate government authority over "marriage" and replace the "Marriage Certificate" with a "Certificate of Civil Union" for EVERYONE! This certificate would confer all the benefits of being "couple" on any two people who choose to make that commitment. For religious couples, they would get "married" in their church and receive a "Certificate of Marriage" from their pastor. Gays who want a "marriage" certificate would simply have to find a religion that would honor their choice. Get the damned government OUT of the "marriage" business.
I don't find anything wrong with being gay. On a religious stand, I am a Christian and realize that it says in the Bible that God didn't intend for it to be that way, but a person can't help how they feel. On an emotional stand point, I have family who is gay. My cousin has been with his partner for more than ten years, but they can't get married because they don't live in California like me. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, and want to be together forever. If this applies to same sex couples as well, what is the big deal?
Seems like a semantics issue to me. Some people want to call it marriage and others want to call it civil union. I don't see much of a problem here, it could simply be resolved by (as the op said) changing marriage to civil union for everyone. It'd pretty much be the same thing under a different name, but It'll solve the issue, would not it?
I think the easiest way to settle this is to take marriage itself out of the law. Make it that it's domestic partnership, or civil union for everyone no matter what the peolpe's gender's are. And then are far as the law is concerned the term marriage won't even exist. It would purely be a governmental institution with no religious affiliation.
Some groups take issue with that. For them civil union is a pseudo-marriage, and to them even that is unacceptable for same-sex couples.
Well, that's just rude. I assume it's religious people the ones who disagree, right? Why do they care if people outside their church "don't" marry? The term is for the government to acknowledge not for them to approve. Sometimes I just don't get people : /.
It takes a man and a woman. If it's not that, it's not a marriage. Call it what you will, but a marriage, it is not. If you couldn't tell, I have a biblical perspective.
NaCI, I do agree with you in the aspect of taking the governemnt out of religion. But the only problem is, if it is completely controlled by the churches, the law is lawless. What happens with divorces and money issues? Who would determine the money? Who would authorize the prenup? What if your church won't allow the type of marriage you want- do you change churches? Destruction of government is good in sense. But the logistics and the details of it would need to be fine-tuned. The truth is, in our society the government is pretty much involved in anything. This is because our soicety demands it. Without the government there to back us up, many villians appear and problems arise. The governent may be to involved. but I see no way around it. Oh, and I am for gay marriage all the way. I am personally not gay- but I can't fault anyone for being themselves.
Let me say this: Any church, or any pastor, that says "Yes, you do love Jesus Christ, even though you spend every day intentionally sinning and not caring that for every step you take toward God you take one back as well, so we'll marry you." shouldn't be remotely concerned about marriage anyway.
It actual does follow a logic. They aren't just being vendictive. For them, any union between two individuals is marriage, and Civil Unions for same-sex couples is just a run around to avoid the Marriage Protection Act of 1996. To them, its the same thing under another name and still wrong (You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. I say marriage, they say civil union that sort of things). For many religious groups, only heterosexual couples should have any standing to legally bind themselves in the eyes of God and the state. It can get real complicated compared to that but that's it in a nutshell.
Thats were you fault, ferret. Marriage is almsot no longer a religous ceremony, it has been taken in to the governments hands, and trying to influence your personal religous beliefs in to law doesn't fly.
And what about a pastor who takes the stance that homosexual love is not a sin? At that point, where is the flaw in saying, "You love Jesus Christ, and so you will be married in church under the eyes of God"?
It was in reference to the whole, "It shouldn't be in the hands of the government" thing. You can't say you love Jesus Christ and then at least not try and turn from your sin. Don't get me wrong--sin in our lives will always be present, but you can never get closer to God while habitually committing a sin.
