If marriage is a religious institution...

[saveliberty]

Because I don't need any "government" to tell me what I have with my wife. I don't need their "thumbs up" to tell me that I have a special, intimate relationship with a person I love. I don't think anyone should need the gov to tell them what relationships are acceptable. That's up to the people who love one another. Now, I do need gov to give us spousal rights, but my marriage is more than tax breaks and the right to visit her in the hospital.

Just as gay couples don't need religious to tell them what they have with their partners. Gay couples do not require a religious thumbs up or down either.

marriage is marriage....gay or not, religious or not.

Agreed wholeheartedly. They don't need any government or religion telling them whether or not what they have is acceptable or special.

Shacking up is an option.

I'm not trying to redefine a term, others are. I'm suggesting options: Civil union, marriage and shacking up. Combine them as you want. Just keep them defined.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Marriage isn't a religious institution. In the beginning, two people said vows together and then informed the community or the Church about it.

Religion likes to insert itself into every aspect of life.

Marriage equality is about civil marriage law, and honoring a relationship commitment regardless of the gender combination.

 

[atlasshrugged]

Marriage isn't a religious institution. In the beginning, two people said vows together and then informed the community or the Church about it.

Religion likes to insert itself into every aspect of life.

Marriage equality is about civil marriage law, and honoring a relationship commitment regardless of the gender combination.

Great point. It isn't really a religious or a government institution. It's a personal institution between two people. I think we should get it back to it's roots.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Marriage isn't a religious institution. In the beginning, two people said vows together and then informed the community or the Church about it.

Religion likes to insert itself into every aspect of life.

Marriage equality is about civil marriage law, and honoring a relationship commitment regardless of the gender combination.

Great point. It isn't really a religious or a government institution. It's a personal institution between two people. I think we should get it back to it's roots.

Problem is that it's already too late for that. It is now a legal status. And with legal status come all kinds of consequences, positive and negative.

 

[atlasshrugged]

Marriage isn't a religious institution. In the beginning, two people said vows together and then informed the community or the Church about it.

Religion likes to insert itself into every aspect of life.

Marriage equality is about civil marriage law, and honoring a relationship commitment regardless of the gender combination.

Great point. It isn't really a religious or a government institution. It's a personal institution between two people. I think we should get it back to it's roots.

Problem is that it's already too late for that. It is now a legal status. And with legal status come all kinds of consequences, positive and negative.

It's not too late. An amendment to give the right of marriage to the people would be just as easy as an amendment allowing or banning gay marriage. Although I don't trust politicians to ever decrease their hold on power, so maybe it is too late.

 

[The Gadfly]

The problem, it seems to me, is that the word "marriage" has been a religious concept also enshrined in our legal system for so long. So many laws and regulations use the word "marriage" ( originally a religious term) for what has become, de facto, a civil relationship defined in law, with various privileges, contractual obligations, and rights attached to it by statute. Given the number of statutes, contracts, etc. that would have to be amended to provide the same benefits and responsibilities to a civil union that was called that, as opposed to a "marriage", it would seem more practical to call any such civil relationship by the name "marriage", whether religiously sanctioned or not. In all honesty, I hardly think extending the right to such a relationship to a small minority of the population at large is going to have any serious negative impact on either the nation, or the traditional institution of marriage for those of us who take it in a religious context (as I do). If, for instance, Bod and her wife choose to enter into a marriage as currently sanctioned by the state (with or without the sanction of the religion of their choice), I fail to see where that affects me or my rights at all, so long as any religious institution which refuses to honor or perform such a "marriage" is allowed to do so (as many also do with respect to divorce, interfaith marriage, and so on). Would I rather see it called something else? Well, according to my faith, yes; but given the practical difficulties, I'm OK with the term, so long as all the responsibilities of the marriage contract (monogamy, etc.) are preserved, so that no special benefit is conferred on a particular group. In fact, since extending marriage in a civil sense would encourage more monogamy and stable relationships, I see more potential good than harm to be done here.

That said, those whose understanding of their faith requires them to take a different view, should not have the right to express that view, publicly or privately, taken away, or be in any way coerced into silence on the matter, nor should any religious institution be coerced into performing a ceremony which violates its established doctrine.

 

[syrenn]

Just as gay couples don't need religious to tell them what they have with their partners. Gay couples do not require a religious thumbs up or down either.

marriage is marriage....gay or not, religious or not.

Agreed wholeheartedly. They don't need any government or religion telling them whether or not what they have is acceptable or special.

Shacking up is an option.

I'm not trying to redefine a term, others are. I'm suggesting options: Civil union, marriage and shacking up. Combine them as you want. Just keep them defined.

works for me.... marriage in terms of people... is between two people who agree to be married.

 

[saveliberty]

Agreed wholeheartedly. They don't need any government or religion telling them whether or not what they have is acceptable or special.

Shacking up is an option.

I'm not trying to redefine a term, others are. I'm suggesting options: Civil union, marriage and shacking up. Combine them as you want. Just keep them defined.

works for me.... marriage in terms of people... is between two people who agree to be married.

Marriage is a union recognized by a church and God.

 

[Some Guy]

So this isn't really about gay marriage: it's about who holds the copyright to the word "marriage." Sweet.

 

[syrenn]

Shacking up is an option.

I'm not trying to redefine a term, others are. I'm suggesting options: Civil union, marriage and shacking up. Combine them as you want. Just keep them defined.

works for me.... marriage in terms of people... is between two people who agree to be married.

Marriage is a union recognized by a church and God.

A marriage is also recognized by the state... no god or church required.

 

[syrenn]

So this isn't really about gay marriage: it's about who holds the copyright to the word "marriage." Sweet.

that is what it boils down to.

 

[saveliberty]

works for me.... marriage in terms of people... is between two people who agree to be married.

Marriage is a union recognized by a church and God.

A marriage is also recognized by the state... no god or church required.

Wonder why the government doesn't respect the separation? Normally people are so opposed, until it serves their purpose.

 

[WillowTree]

If marriage has nothing to do with religion then someone needs to re write the marriage vows.

Marriage vows have been changing for a very long time....ever since couples started writing them...for themselves...and not just what the one marrying them had you repeat.

I'm speaking of the very religous marriage vow as found in the bible.

 

[Jackson]

So, before I begin let me just say that I'm against gay marriage but I feel empathy for those LGBT who are caught in a difficult situation. I heard a Christian Preacher on a radio program discuss how marriage is a religious institution and should be defined by God rather than by government. It sparked an idea in my mind and I was curious to see how people from both sides of the issue would feel about it. Keep it civil.

What if we all agreed that marriage was under the jurisdiction of religions and civil unions (used for purposes of tax breaks, spousal rights in hospitals, etc) belonged to the government. In this way, both parties would have equal rights from the government while their religious beliefs would be protected. My religion wouldn't be forced to accept or perform gay marriages while yours would have the freedom to do so. What do you think? Would it work? I could see both parties wanting more, but compromise isn't always a bad thing.

I feel precisely the same way you do. The government has no place to legislate what a marriage is, but it could declare a civil union and the rights it bears. The rights would include the same as a marriage including a legal process to break that civil union of property and custody of children should they have any. Churches then are protected to perform marriages in accordance to their own particular views.

I just seems to be a logical solution to a difficult problem.

 

[atlasshrugged]

Dress up a pig any way you wish. I still know what it is.

You mean a separation of church and state where government sticks to its own business and people are allowed to have differing opinions on what is and isn't marriage?

 

[Jackson]

Dress up a pig any way you wish. I still know what it is.

You mean a separation of church and state where government sticks to its own business and people are allowed to have differing opinions on what is and isn't marriage?

Everone knows what a marriage is. It's an institution that has been in exitence for thousands of years and shouldn't be tampered with at this point. What is at issue is how to define our newly accepted union of the LGBT community and that should be an amendment of rights of Civil Unions.

 

[saveliberty]

It becomes an endless loop thread at this point.


Exit here >>>

Unsubscribe

 

[syrenn]

If marriage has nothing to do with religion then someone needs to re write the marriage vows.

Marriage vows have been changing for a very long time....ever since couples started writing them...for themselves...and not just what the one marrying them had you repeat.

I'm speaking of the very religous marriage vow as found in the bible.

Not everyone reads that bible...or uses that vow when they are married.

 

[syrenn]

Dress up a pig any way you wish. I still know what it is.

I agree... a pig is a pig. Claiming that you own the word or concept of marriage is a pretty big pig.

 

[Vidi]

So, before I begin let me just say that I'm against gay marriage but I feel empathy for those LGBT who are caught in a difficult situation. I heard a Christian Preacher on a radio program discuss how marriage is a religious institution and should be defined by God rather than by government. It sparked an idea in my mind and I was curious to see how people from both sides of the issue would feel about it. Keep it civil.

What if we all agreed that marriage was under the jurisdiction of religions and civil unions (used for purposes of tax breaks, spousal rights in hospitals, etc) belonged to the government. In this way, both parties would have equal rights from the government while their religious beliefs would be protected. My religion wouldn't be forced to accept or perform gay marriages while yours would have the freedom to do so. What do you think? Would it work? I could see both parties wanting more, but compromise isn't always a bad thing.

This idea was presented to the people of New Hampshire a few years ago. They rejected it utterly.

The opposite sex couples said that it "diminished" their status as married couples under the law.


Now let me present this to you.

A marriage for all intents and purposes is a LEGAL contract, not a religious one. It is a legal contract because there is NO RELIGIOUS MECHANISM for divorce, only a legal one. The Church is not burdened with the process of dividing up property, deciding child custody or dictating child support. That is firmly in the legal realm. So if a marriage contract can ONLY be dissolved in the legal realm, it is a legal contract NOT a religious one.