Civil and Religious Marriage are Different
Providing civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples will not force any religious institution to recognize any marriage that they do not wish to. Civil marriage is solely the province of the state. The state cannot force any denomination’s clergy to perform marriages they choose not to. However, many denominations and religious leaders recognize that equal marriage is a matter of justice, and support marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
When does Religious Marriage truly exist beyond the ritual associated with it? You need legal documentation to be married according to a number of institutions. Civil Marriage is paperwork. Religious Marriage is ceremonial and is mostly a superstitious event. Does Religious Marriage hold up in court just as well as paperwork that's been documented? I don't understand the difference between the two.
All I know about marriage is that it's something that cultures did to consolidate two families' resources through arranged marriages and it's also been used as a form of social engineering. Many people have seen it ingrained into their religion , which is the origin of Religious Marriage I suppose. The true origin of marriage is pretty arguable and its merits are mostly social and somewhat questionable outside of things like tax codes and religious belief.
Two people, no matter what their race or gender, may consent to whatever they want with one another? Who cares? If you're gay or straight, it's your business. Not mine. Do whatever you want! And as for hate, if it isn't because of your sexual preference you'd be hated for being fat.
Ever heard of separation of church and state? It was originally made to keep the state out of the church... No religious institution should be forced to do anything. Religious institutions are supposed to be houses of freedom from cynical, politically correct, immoral, and oppressive natures of society (and i'm not saying this because i'm a regular church-goer. I haven't been to church in months). If a religious institution chooses not to recognize a same-sex marriage, or anything else for that matter, more power to them!
According to this logic, then, marriage as a civil issue should be separate from the church.
The issues for those in support of gay marriage are civil. It seems that those in opposition are against the state telling the church what to do.
I agree with both stances. So is it therefore logical to no longer commingle church and state activities with legal church-marriages? That seems like a fine solution to me.
Gays just want the rights of marriage, that being state-sanctioning of their marriage which has everything to do with power of attorney, healthcare benefits, and financial death benefits. Do those who oppose gay marriage really have an issue with those things? It is not likely (I'm sure there are some yeses) that the majority don't want other people to do as they will. They simply don't want their religious institution to be dictated by the state as I now understand it.
Brady, thanks for clearing this up for me! So, can we agree to simply separate marriage as separate civil and religious institutions? Would that appease both sides?
I really like the reasoning in this thread (leading up to and including your post), but a lot of thoughts/sentiments/ideals need to be "test-driven" on this middle path. I want to see that happen because I support it.
Personally, I hate debates and yes/no positions...I like it when you watch a person think ideas through and dance around until resting on a position they feel more secure with after the conversation.
Here are some opinions I am attempting to paraphrase from various discussion threads on this section of the opposing opinions web site:
a) same-sex marriage values more than just protections; they want the "intangeables" of marriage too
b) having civil unions classifying only the same-sex marriage is a fundamental inequality to marriage [which says that separate itself is unequal, and separate but equal will not be agreeable]
c) most of the division on this issue is the use of the word marriage in affiliation with same-sex couples, but much fewer will have an issue with ensuring same-sex couples the same [federal/state defined] legal rights as married couples
d) any argument about religious institutions not recognizing same-sex marriage is reversely encroaching upon the rights of the historical churches by state/federal involvement. [Thus, this violates the separation of church and state , which protects our society in both directions.]
Here are my thoughts as extension of those shared in the post above me:
1. why not have a new word that means marriage and is defined by religious institutions that support same-sex relationships?
2. why not support that state and federal policies and protections refer to all relationships formed through weddings/ceremonies/courts as civil unions to encompass marriage and any other religion -defined relationships in addition to state recognized/defined relationships.
Looking forward - the next questions
1. If state and federal authorities, back out of the picture after calling everything remotely resembling marriage as a civil union , how will the argument approach resolution at the steps of the churches in the US?
2. Is this an issue beyond the Christian churches? What about the Jewish faith or Islam? any alternatives for same-sex couples from those religions?
It seems to me that this argument should be separated into two issues: 1) Is marriage an issue of government or church?
2) If it is an issue of religion, then what business does the state have regulating who can participate in it? If it is an issue of the state, then we must leave religious belief out of it entirely.
Many countries have two ceremonies, one civil and one religious. We should do the same. We should have civil unions for couples gay or straight, which will give them ALL the legal rights of married couples. And then if you want to be "married" in the eyes of God, go find a church to perform the ceremony. It is unfair to deny the rights of joint income tax to couples who live together. It's unfair to deny them spousal rights in purchasing real estate, in estate planning...etc.
I have to admit that my feelings about these things have been shaped recently by my association with several gay couples whom I respect.
As far as the state is (or should be) concerned, marriage is essentially a business partnership between two individuals. They share financial responsibility of property, income, taxes, children, etc.
Any factors outside of that partnership are purely dependent upon religion or the personal beliefs of said individuals and therefore should not be regulated by the state as it would violate the separation of church and state and personal rights as provided by the First Amendment.