If marriage is a religious institution...

[theDoctorisIn]

There was nothing "religious" about my parent's marriage, or my aunt and uncles.

They were performed by a member of the Society for Ethical Culture. Under your definition, does that qualify as a "marriage"?

The Society for Ethical Culture are more than happy to marry two people of the same sex, yet it's not recognized by the government.

Under your plan, would a same sex marriage performed by a member of the Society for Ethical Culture be considered a "marriage"?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If marriage is a religious institution...

Its not and never has been. Its a civil contract and always has been. If you want to stand in a church to make this civil pact, go for it, but no, it has nothing at all to do with religion.

If it did, you would not be able to get married in front of a JP or in the local courthouse.

Think it through.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is an argument in semantics and rather pointless. I don’t care what the state calls ist quite frankly and changing what they call it benefits nothing what so ever, Simply make the government part of the contract equal. That’s all there is to it. Using different terminology does nothing and those that oppose gay marriage are not going to jump on the bandwagon because you changed the term. The reality is that people are opposed to the state recognizing the union of a gay couple and giving them incentives to be in a relationship. It is not the term that so many people are upset about no matter what hogwash they say.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is an argument in semantics and rather pointless. I don’t care what the state calls ist quite frankly and changing what they call it benefits nothing what so ever, Simply make the government part of the contract equal. That’s all there is to it. Using different terminology does nothing and those that oppose gay marriage are not going to jump on the bandwagon because you changed the term. The reality is that people are opposed to the state recognizing the union of a gay couple and giving them incentives to be in a relationship. It is not the term that so many people are upset about no matter what hogwash they say.

You could not be more incorrect.

The difference between a church sanctioned union and a civil contract are quite simply, enormous.

I hope you will say why you believe otherwise.

 

[whitehall]

Here's a quote from another religious leader. "The only reason Obama was elected is because of the Civil Rights movement" I was a leader in the Civil Rights struggle and I didn't walk one foot or one mile to make sure a man could marry a man and a woman could marry a woman".

 

[Sky Dancer]

Marriage is completely made up. It started by a couple making their own vows and just being with each other. Then it progressed to the couple "announcing" their commitment to community and eventually to Church.

Since Church likes to muscle in on every aspect of life, some religions made religious ceremonies for marriage, and eventually legal aspects demanded civil law cover marriage too.

Marriage is NOT a religious institution. It is a commitment between two adults to make a family intentionally, to bind to one another as kin.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is an argument in semantics and rather pointless. I don’t care what the state calls ist quite frankly and changing what they call it benefits nothing what so ever, Simply make the government part of the contract equal. That’s all there is to it. Using different terminology does nothing and those that oppose gay marriage are not going to jump on the bandwagon because you changed the term. The reality is that people are opposed to the state recognizing the union of a gay couple and giving them incentives to be in a relationship. It is not the term that so many people are upset about no matter what hogwash they say.

You could not be more incorrect.

The difference between a church sanctioned union and a civil contract are quite simply, enormous.

I hope you will say why you believe otherwise.

?

??
Where did you get any of that from what I posted?

The sematic and pointless argument lies in trying to call church marriage, marriage and changing the state marriage to civil union. What’s the point, the contract is the same no matter what you want to call it. There is nothing gained by changing the names of things.

I am not comparing the state act to the church act, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Well, it has something to do with religion since it's usually religious institutions that oppose gay marriage. Most rational people agree that gay couples deserve the same tax breaks. The government has the right to tax people in any way that is best for the nation. So why doesn't the government cover civil unions and let churches (or non religious entities) cover marriage. This way, a gay couple could get the same rights from the government and have their union recognized as marriage from a religious affiliation.

Again... i am unaware that religious have exclusive rights to the word or concept of marriage.

They don't have exclusive rights. If a civil union is reserved for government and a marriage is a term connected with spiritual belief, everyone has equal access to it. Baptists can use it. So can Catholics and Mormons and Agnostics and Atheists and wedding houses in Vegas. You could even have a marriage without any religious affiliation at all. You could hold a ceremony with friends and family and you could have anyone you want perform the ceremony.

What you are failing to understand is that whether you get married by a religious institution or the government, you have to register your union with the government in order to take advantage of the benefits offered by the government. The government only recognizes hetero unions at the moment. The LGBT community is fighting to have same-sex unions recognized also. THAT is the issue here. Not whether it's called a marriage or a civil union.

The whole debate about what it is called is stupid. Nobody cares (except certain religions) what it is called. There are churches which have been marrying same-sex couples for decades. I have been to plenty of these weddings. They are Episcopalian, Methodist and even some Catholic weddings. You can argue about whether these are "real" religions on some other thread. The point is, in the government's eyes, all religious institutions are created equal and if they call it marriage, so be it. The Catholic church is no more a religion than the Westboro church in the eyes of the government. A marriage by any institution is the same. Gay people aren't fighting to have churches marry them. Gay people are fighting to have the government recognize their marriages.

 

[jillian]

Well, it has something to do with religion since it's usually religious institutions that oppose gay marriage. Most rational people agree that gay couples deserve the same tax breaks. The government has the right to tax people in any way that is best for the nation. So why doesn't the government cover civil unions and let churches (or non religious entities) cover marriage. This way, a gay couple could get the same rights from the government and have their union recognized as marriage from a religious affiliation.

Again... i am unaware that religious have exclusive rights to the word or concept of marriage.

They don't have exclusive rights. If a civil union is reserved for government and a marriage is a term connected with spiritual belief, everyone has equal access to it. Baptists can use it. So can Catholics and Mormons and Agnostics and Atheists and wedding houses in Vegas. You could even have a marriage without any religious affiliation at all. You could hold a ceremony with friends and family and you could have anyone you want perform the ceremony.

however only those who have a religion would be able to say they are "married".

i'd say that in and of itself is violative of the equal protection clause.... all other issues aside.

 

[syrenn]

Again... i am unaware that religious have exclusive rights to the word or concept of marriage.

They don't have exclusive rights. If a civil union is reserved for government and a marriage is a term connected with spiritual belief, everyone has equal access to it. Baptists can use it. So can Catholics and Mormons and Agnostics and Atheists and wedding houses in Vegas. You could even have a marriage without any religious affiliation at all. You could hold a ceremony with friends and family and you could have anyone you want perform the ceremony.

What you are failing to understand is that whether you get married by a religious institution or the government, you have to register your union with the government in order to take advantage of the benefits offered by the government. The government only recognizes hetero unions at the moment. The LGBT community is fighting to have same-sex unions recognized also. THAT is the issue here. Not whether it's called a marriage or a civil union.

The whole debate about what it is called is stupid. Nobody cares (except certain religions) what it is called. There are churches which have been marrying same-sex couples for decades. I have been to plenty of these weddings. They are Episcopalian, Methodist and even some Catholic weddings. You can argue about whether these are "real" religions on some other thread. The point is, in the government's eyes, all religious institutions are created equal and if they call it marriage, so be it. The Catholic church is no more a religion than the Westboro church in the eyes of the government. A marriage by any institution is the same. Gay people aren't fighting to have churches marry them. Gay people are fighting to have the government recognize their marriages.

That is a hard concept for many to graps.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

And look at all these churches who marry same-sex couples in the eyes of God:

http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/united_states.htm

 

[jillian]

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.

the power to perform a marriage is granted by the state and carries with it over 1,000 rights and obligations also granted by the state. and the marriage license is issue by the state under state law.

 

[sfcalifornia]

They don't have exclusive rights. If a civil union is reserved for government and a marriage is a term connected with spiritual belief, everyone has equal access to it. Baptists can use it. So can Catholics and Mormons and Agnostics and Atheists and wedding houses in Vegas. You could even have a marriage without any religious affiliation at all. You could hold a ceremony with friends and family and you could have anyone you want perform the ceremony.

What you are failing to understand is that whether you get married by a religious institution or the government, you have to register your union with the government in order to take advantage of the benefits offered by the government. The government only recognizes hetero unions at the moment. The LGBT community is fighting to have same-sex unions recognized also. THAT is the issue here. Not whether it's called a marriage or a civil union.

The whole debate about what it is called is stupid. Nobody cares (except certain religions) what it is called. There are churches which have been marrying same-sex couples for decades. I have been to plenty of these weddings. They are Episcopalian, Methodist and even some Catholic weddings. You can argue about whether these are "real" religions on some other thread. The point is, in the government's eyes, all religious institutions are created equal and if they call it marriage, so be it. The Catholic church is no more a religion than the Westboro church in the eyes of the government. A marriage by any institution is the same. Gay people aren't fighting to have churches marry them. Gay people are fighting to have the government recognize their marriages.

That is a hard concept for many to graps.

Such a simple concept and yet, billions of dollars have been wasted arguing it and the House Republicans continue to pump money into this issue which they most certainly will eventually lose.

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

Sorry, I didn't read it all. heheh

Sounds like a pretty sound plan, imo. My main issue with homosexuals and the right to marry was how the government saw them. If the government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages then gay persons should not have to pay as much into social security.

Its a very legit issue when you pay as much as everyone else, but receive less.

Or was the resolved, I'm sorry I head about it on the news but as of this moment haven't heard anything further.

 

[syrenn]

What you are failing to understand is that whether you get married by a religious institution or the government, you have to register your union with the government in order to take advantage of the benefits offered by the government. The government only recognizes hetero unions at the moment. The LGBT community is fighting to have same-sex unions recognized also. THAT is the issue here. Not whether it's called a marriage or a civil union.

The whole debate about what it is called is stupid. Nobody cares (except certain religions) what it is called. There are churches which have been marrying same-sex couples for decades. I have been to plenty of these weddings. They are Episcopalian, Methodist and even some Catholic weddings. You can argue about whether these are "real" religions on some other thread. The point is, in the government's eyes, all religious institutions are created equal and if they call it marriage, so be it. The Catholic church is no more a religion than the Westboro church in the eyes of the government. A marriage by any institution is the same. Gay people aren't fighting to have churches marry them. Gay people are fighting to have the government recognize their marriages.

That is a hard concept for many to graps.

Such a simple concept and yet, billions of dollars have been wasted arguing it and the House Republicans continue to pump money into this issue which they most certainly will eventually lose.

Its that whole idea that if gays are given the right to "marry" it somehow diminishes "real marriages"

I agree, its been a huge waste of money and effort.

 

[atlasshrugged]

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.

It's a religious contract in the eyes of quite a few of the people voting against it. If LGBT really only want the same civil rights, then calling it "marriage" is semantics. So if you give a little (letting religious naysayers not accept your union as marriage) then the government essentially accepts your union and you are free to recognize your own union however you like.

 

[hipeter924]

I dont believe in the insitution of marriage, it creates more division and confusion than it solves. By this I dont mean that marriage is entirely negative, however it does determine that religion is a basis for marriage.

If I was Mormon and wished to have multiple wives, irrespective of whether or not I only have sexual relations with one; under current marriage laws I would be committing an illegal act. Without state mandated marriage laws or views on relationships, you could have as many wives as you like while signing a private agreement to only have sexual relations with one wife.

But the objection might be raised, "but then my marriage isnt marriage", not so considering marriage would be established by means of private contract; the state would only intervene where contracts decieve or cheat a party or upon the expiry or breaking of a contract.

When this comes to religion, a church is forced to marry against its will or is forced to recognize homosexual marriage; and on the other hand homosexuals are barred from equal rights by a religious insitution. Without state involvement, everyone could marry by contract, and the issue would cease to exist.

Now, I know people would beg to differ on that. But state involvement is not required for a religious or non religious marriage to be valid by law.

 

[syrenn]

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.

It's a religious contract in the eyes of quite a few of the people voting against it. If LGBT really only want the same civil rights, then calling it "marriage" is semantics. So if you give a little (letting religious naysayers not accept your union as marriage) then the government essentially accepts your union and you are free to recognize your own union however you like.

Again... the religious do not own the word marriage or the ability to disalow other to call what they have... a marriage.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I dont believe in the insitution of marriage, it creates more division and confusion than it solves. By this I dont mean that marriage is entirely negative, however it does determine that religion is a basis for marriage.

If I was Mormon and wished to have multiple wives, irrespective of whether or not I only have sexual relations with one; under current marriage laws I would be committing an illegal act. Without state mandated marriage laws or views on relationships, you could have as many wives as you like while signing a private agreement to only have sexual relations with one wife.

But the objection might be raised, "but then my marriage isnt marriage", not so considering marriage would be established by means of private contract; the state would only intervene where contracts decieve or cheat a party or upon the expiry or breaking of a contract.

When this comes to religion, a church is forced to marry against its will or is forced to recognize homosexual marriage; and on the other hand homosexuals are barred from equal rights by a religious insitution. Without state involvement, everyone could marry by contract, and the issue would cease to exist.

Now, I know people would beg to differ on that. But state involvement is not required for a religious or non religious marriage to be valid by law.

In this country, a church or religious institution will never be forced to marry a same-sex couple. Media and public opinion may pressure them to do so but there isn't a law in the land that requires any church to marry anyone they don't want to.

 

[jillian]

It's a religious contract in the eyes of quite a few of the people voting against it. If LGBT really only want the same civil rights, then calling it "marriage" is semantics. So if you give a little (letting religious naysayers not accept your union as marriage) then the government essentially accepts your union and you are free to recognize your own union however you like.

does it really matter what a "few" of the voters feel about it? or even the majority of the voters?