If marriage is a religious institution...

[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.

 

[bodecea]

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.

#1. Does that "christian" preacher believe that all civil marriages done outside the church are not really marriages?

#2. The government never has forced churches to perform marriages they don't want to. Churches STILL turn back divorced, interracial, and interfaith couples while the government cannot.

 

[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.

#1. Does that "christian" preacher believe that all civil marriages done outside the church are not really marriages?

#2. The government never has forced churches to perform marriages they don't want to. Churches STILL turn back divorced, interracial, and interfaith couples while the government cannot.

#1. No legislation would ever make most Christian preachers accept marriages they disagree with. So the point proposed was: Why not officially make that a personal belief rather than trying to legislate it?

#2. I don't believe government ever could force churches to perform marriages. But as it is right now, the state seems to be the authority on marriage. That is why churches are generally opposed to gay marriage. It's a sacred relationship to most churches and when the governing body over marriage changes the definition, they get upset.

 

[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.

And there in lays the problem. The religious do not have rights or jurisdiction to the word marriage.

How about we comprises and let the courts use the word marriage since the courts cover everyone....and the religious use the word civil union since there is nothing wrong with a marriage being called a civil union. It works out to be the same thing doesn't it?

 

[sfcalifornia]

When will religious institutions realize that the LGBT fight for marriage equality has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION?

Certain religious institutions ALREADY perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. The fight is about the federal government recognizing those marriages and offering the same benefits to same-sex couples as
they do hetero couples.

If a religious institution doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. And no law in the land will force them to. They need to butt out of this fight.

 

[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.

And there in lays the problem. The religious do not have rights or jurisdiction to the word marriage.

How about we comprises and let the courts use the word marriage since the courts cover everyone....and the religious use the word civil union since there is nothing wrong with a marriage being called a civil union. It works out to be the same thing doesn't it?

But the courts fall under the constitution and the constitution doesn't give the federal government control of marriage. It gives the gov control of how to tax people, giving rise to a civil union. The religious don't have the right to limit others views of marriage, but they do have the right to their own view of marriage.

 

[atlasshrugged]

When will religious institutions realize that the LGBT fight for marriage equality has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION?

Certain religious institutions ALREADY perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. The fight is about the federal government recognizing those marriages and offering the same benefits to same-sex couples as
they do hetero couples.

If a religious institution doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. And no law in the land will force them to. They need to butt out of this fight.

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.

 

[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.

And there in lays the problem. The religious do not have rights or jurisdiction to the word marriage.

How about we comprises and let the courts use the word marriage since the courts cover everyone....and the religious use the word civil union since there is nothing wrong with a marriage being called a civil union. It works out to be the same thing doesn't it?

But the courts fall under the constitution and the constitution doesn't give the federal government control of marriage. It gives the gov control of how to tax people, giving rise to a civil union. The religious don't have the right to limit others views of marriage, but they do have the right to their own view of marriage.

The constitution doesn't give religious control over marriage either does it?

I don't care if the religious recognize my marriage.... i DO care of the government recognize my marriage which and zero to do with anything religious.

You must have a marriage license to be get married...that is a legal document approved by the government. It has always been called a marriage license...

 

[syrenn]

When will religious institutions realize that the LGBT fight for marriage equality has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION?

Certain religious institutions ALREADY perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. The fight is about the federal government recognizing those marriages and offering the same benefits to same-sex couples as
they do hetero couples.

If a religious institution doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. And no law in the land will force them to. They need to butt out of this fight.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

#1. Does that "christian" preacher believe that all civil marriages done outside the church are not really marriages?

#2. The government never has forced churches to perform marriages they don't want to. Churches STILL turn back divorced, interracial, and interfaith couples while the government cannot.

Your mixing terms already bodecea. Civil unions and/or marriage. I would want both, because I want my marriage recognized by God and the state. The state for the purposes of property rights and other government benefits granted to the spouse. By the church for the reason I already stated.

 

[saveliberty]

[The constitution doesn't give religious control over marriage either does it?

I don't care if the religious recognize my marriage.... i DO care of the government recognize my marriage which and zero to do with anything religious.

You must have a marriage license to be get married...that is a legal document approved by the government. It has always been called a marriage license... [/COLOR]

They require a birth certificate to for some reason. Seems like they charge a fee. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?

By the way, anyone pushing for baptisms by the state?

 

[atlasshrugged]

And there in lays the problem. The religious do not have rights or jurisdiction to the word marriage.

How about we comprises and let the courts use the word marriage since the courts cover everyone....and the religious use the word civil union since there is nothing wrong with a marriage being called a civil union. It works out to be the same thing doesn't it?

But the courts fall under the constitution and the constitution doesn't give the federal government control of marriage. It gives the gov control of how to tax people, giving rise to a civil union. The religious don't have the right to limit others views of marriage, but they do have the right to their own view of marriage.

The constitution doesn't give religious control over marriage either does it?

I don't care if the religious recognize my marriage.... i DO care of the government recognize my marriage which and zero to do with anything religious.

You must have a marriage license to be get married...that is a legal document approved by the government. It has always been called a marriage license...

The 10th ammendment says that anything not given to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people. I'm claiming it would be wiser for it to belong to the people than the state. And maybe I should have expanded my definition. I said that marriage should be a term reserved for religions because it's usually religious people who oppose gay marriage. So maybe this revision would work better. Let the government control civil unions (and all accompanying rights and tax breaks) but let marriage be term reserved for the people. This way, nobody is denied a marriage and nobody is forced to accept a marriage they don't agree with.

 

[atlasshrugged]

#1. Does that "christian" preacher believe that all civil marriages done outside the church are not really marriages?

#2. The government never has forced churches to perform marriages they don't want to. Churches STILL turn back divorced, interracial, and interfaith couples while the government cannot.

Your mixing terms already bodecea. Civil unions and/or marriage. I would want both, because I want my marriage recognized by God and the state. The state for the purposes of property rights and other government benefits granted to the spouse. By the church for the reason I already stated.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Thanks for putting it into words. Since there are to parts to a marriage (the governmental side and the religious/ personal belief system side) why not divide it accordingly. Even though I'm against polygamy, if a guy wants one civil union and 3 spiritual marriages, why should I be opposed to it?

 

[Moonglow]

I was not married by a priest in a church. I went to a company that weds people.
All three times.

 

[Moonglow]

Unfortunately there is all types of red tape intertwinged with marriage.
marriage should be designed to allow people that love each other and want a speical bond associated with the life partner .

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Yes, many people are saying the same or similar.

If you go ahead and adopt this approach, then it would not
bother you either way if states use the term civil union or use the
civil term marriage in reference to the civil contracts and custody/estate agreements.

What I sense is more people will not be willing to give up the tradition of govt endorsing "marriage" and just governing civil unions and contracts which is technically
more constistent.

So this desire to cling to tradition (even though it technically violates
church state separation) could pressure either
A. states to agree to open
up to gay marriage (in order to keep marriage under the state and not lose it completely)
B. people to agree to accept a compromise
that in some cases of religious conflict, such as gay marriages not being recognized while keeping the tradition of marriage under the state
(even though this is technically excluding people with different views)
while in other cases, such as with abortion/pro choice conflicts in law, recognizing that
the pro choice bias dominates as more consistent with constitutional freedom from
religious mandates, even though this excludes and discriminates against pro life views

I think as more people let go and are personally at peace either way,
whether you define it as marriage or civil marriage contracts or unions etc,
then people in each state can work out the details of how to resolve the issues with law.

The first step is to let go, and not get entangled in emotionally defending one side more than the other but treating them as equally valid views both protected under law.

 

[atlasshrugged]

When will religious institutions realize that the LGBT fight for marriage equality has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION?

Certain religious institutions ALREADY perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. The fight is about the federal government recognizing those marriages and offering the same benefits to same-sex couples as
they do hetero couples.

If a religious institution doesn't want to perform a same-sex marriage, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. And no law in the land will force them to. They need to butt out of this fight.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

Unfortunately there is all types of red tape intertwinged with marriage.
marriage should be designed to allow people that love each other and want a speical bond associated with the life partner .

A civil union gives you that.

 

[syrenn]

But the courts fall under the constitution and the constitution doesn't give the federal government control of marriage. It gives the gov control of how to tax people, giving rise to a civil union. The religious don't have the right to limit others views of marriage, but they do have the right to their own view of marriage.

The constitution doesn't give religious control over marriage either does it?

I don't care if the religious recognize my marriage.... i DO care of the government recognize my marriage which and zero to do with anything religious.

You must have a marriage license to be get married...that is a legal document approved by the government. It has always been called a marriage license...

The 10th ammendment says that anything not given to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people. I'm claiming it would be wiser for it to belong to the people than the state. And maybe I should have expanded my definition. I said that marriage should be a term reserved for religions because it's usually religious people who oppose gay marriage. So maybe this revision would work better. Let the government control civil unions (and all accompanying rights and tax breaks) but let marriage be term reserved for the people. This way, nobody is denied a marriage and nobody is forced to accept a marriage they don't agree with.

And again...why? Why reserve the word marriage for the religious based on their bias?

If a civil union cannot be called a marriage.... you just denied them a marriage now.

If civil union is good definition for that marriage is... the how about we give the term civil union to the religious considering that term works for them.

 

[saveliberty]

And again...why? Why reserve the word marriage for the religious based on their bias?

If a civil union cannot be called a marriage.... you just denied them a marriage now.

If civil union is good definition for that marriage is... the how about we give the term civil union to the religious considering that term works for them. [/COLOR]

Because the state separates religion from itself. If marriage is a religious institution, then it is not the state's to give to begin with. Why not allow people to decide for themselves that they want a civil union recognized by the state and a religious marriage recognized by their religion?