Check out some similar questions!

smkanand · May 29, 2013, 10:55 PM

It doesn't. For gays it could be a contract or "marriage" in the eyes of law but church or any other religious body should not be forced to believe the same. I'm not against gay rights.

tomder55 · May 30, 2013, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by joypulv

I'm not going to jump into this fray because I think separation of church and state should apply to marriage too (let all religions do their weddings how they wish and as sacred as they wish), and that all of us should be entitled to civil unions for the sake of family benefits and responsibilities. Why can't I have a contract with 2 roommates, for instance, so that they can inherit my house, or so that we can make decisions about death or visit me in Intensive Care? Or countless other reasons. A young man in India married his grandmother, I believe, for some of these reasons.
In other words, I want there to be two kinds of marriage - one for religious reasons and one for legal reasons.

I couldn't agree more .

tomder55 · May 30, 2013, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by smkanand

it doesn't. for gays it could be a contract or "marriage" in the eyes of law but church or any other religious body should not be forced to believe the same. I'm not against gay rights.

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.

Oliver2011 · May 30, 2013, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.

First off - Yankees? UGH. Go REDS!!

Second - While I agree with you which is odd because I am not a member of the "straights", not allowing people who are gay to marry for every reason the straights do keeps them as second class citizens. Is that right? If my partner and I choose to go down that path, I have no problem calling it a civil union. But I am in the minority in the non-straights group.

NeedKarma · May 30, 2013, 06:07 AM

I'm just against calling the union of homosexuals a marriage.

I'm not.

talaniman · May 30, 2013, 06:15 AM

Old ideas and traditions die hard.

ebaines · May 30, 2013, 06:29 AM

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religious context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religious liberty as well?

tomder55 · May 30, 2013, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver2011

First off - Yankees? UGH. Go REDS!!!

Second - While I agree with you which is odd because I am not a member of the "straights", not allowing people who are gay to marry for every reason the straights do keeps them as second class citizens. Is that right? If my partner and I choose to go down that path, I have no problem calling it a civil union. But I am in the minority in the non-straights group.

No ,I don't think that makes gays 2nd class citizens .I'm not opposed for gays getting exactly the same legal rights as straights when they join in partnership . That is why I also agreed that it would be best if the state got out of the marriage business.

Oliver2011 · May 30, 2013, 06:35 AM

In my mind allowing gay couples to enjoy the same perks as the straighties through marriage is a victimless event therefore it cannot infringe on any rights.

tomder55 · May 30, 2013, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by ebaines

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religous context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religous liberty as well?

I agree with cdad that businesses have been forced to participate in religious ceremony that they oppose;and if they don't they are violating some civil right, In those cases ,indeed their religious liberty is being violated .

paraclete · May 30, 2013, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by ebaines

It seems that the vocabulary of the word "marriage" is a sticking point here, but it's off topic. Still open for debate - how does the state describing the legal union of a gay couple as a "marriage" and granting them the same legal rights as straight couples infringe on your religious liberty? It would seem to me that you would have a similar issue with an aetheist man and aetheist woman being married by a Justice of the Peace at City Hall without mention of God or any religous context at all - does that marriage infringe on your religous liberty as well?

What I have issue with is the state redefining the religious tradition of marriage. The state is supposed to stay out of religious matters, but this redefinition is an attack on the very basis of religious tradition. I fully expect that this move will lead to state enforced gay unions in churches in the name of freedom. You would deny the freedom of the many for the sake of a supposed freedom of a few

NeedKarma · May 30, 2013, 06:42 AM

will lead to state enforced gay unions in churches

I don't think many want that at all. If if were not the case and it were about civil unions, does that make it better?

NeedKarma · May 30, 2013, 06:44 AM

that businesses have been forced to participate in religious ceremony that they oppose

NO business should be forced into ANY religious ceremony.

talaniman · May 30, 2013, 06:45 AM

Life was so much easier when gays stayed in the closet out of fear. Much like minorities staying in their "place". That world is dying as more gays integrate into the institutions of general society and no longer settle for separate but equal, or the fringe of being a first class citizen.

They want what everyone wants FULL freedom to pursue their own happiness with whomever they please and the benefits that come with it. Some don't like being equal with a minority, especially a gay one. They have a right I think not to accept it. But they cannot deny anyone anything.

Oliver2011 · May 30, 2013, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

NO business should be forced into ANY religious ceremony.

I agree. I also agree that a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. It should stay that way.

ebaines · May 30, 2013, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

...I also agreed that it would be best if the state got out of the marriage business.

Unfortunately that ship has sailed. Can't go back now. It is an absolute impracticality to rewrite all laws, rules, regulations, contracts, insurance polies, etc etc for all towns, counties, states, and federal government to add "and civil union" wherever the term "marriage" occurs. You can't do it by fiat through any single law, short of an amendment to the Constitution. So we are stuck with having to use the word "marriage" as a legal term in matters of law..

tomder55 · May 30, 2013, 07:07 AM

Not that hard at all . State marriages that have already occurred need not change. And since marriage is a state issue anyway,no amendement is required. . (DOMA has been defeated in Federal Court 8 times and will not survive SCOTUS )
All it really takes is one law that says 'as of this date ' all unions sanctioned by the state shall be called "civil unions" for the purpose of contract and assigning legal benefits (or some legaleze version of that ) .

ebaines · May 30, 2013, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

All it really takes is one law that says 'as of this date ' all unions sanctioned by the state shall be called "civil unions" for the purpose of contract and assigning legal benefits (or some legaleze version of that ) .

Unfortunately that doesn't work. This "one law" would have to be passed at the federal level in order to apply to federal income tax, social security benefits, medicare and medicaid, pension plans, etc; at the state level in order to apply to state laws regarding state income tax, property rights, estate planning and inheritance, insurance contracts, welfare, etc; at the county and town level to cover local ordinances such as issuing marriage licenses, property tax and "homesteading" issues. And it would require all 50 states agree to stop talking about marriage and adopt civil unions - what's the chance of that happening?

smkanand · May 30, 2013, 07:29 AM

Call it a marriage, law has that authority but religious institutions also have their rights. Same sex union is quite opposite the laws of nature. Gays should have right to get married according to law but religious authorities has their own space.

talaniman · May 30, 2013, 07:54 AM

Some religious institutions and churches do indeed perform gay marriages but the tick is if the couples relocate to where gay marriage from another state is not recognized.