Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is for both sides of the issue... if the government completely got out of the business of marraige and all anyone could get was a civil contract, and if that civil contract covered any two consenting adults, including same sex couples. BUT you couldn't get "married" by the government. To be "married, you'd have to go to a church that would sanction your marriage, but it wouldn't be a legally binding institution, it'd be strictly spiritual. Which would mean that if you were a same sex couple and you wanted the label "married" you'd have to find a church that accepted that... BUT that label wouldn't give you legal anything. To get all the legal benefits of what we call marraige today, you'd have to have a civil union which would just be a contract.
Would either side be ok with this?
My boyfriend and I have been discussing this, because we both believe that the government should NOT be in the marriage business. My thought is that neither side would be ok with this separation though because there are already several states that allow for "civil unions" that give same sex (and opposite sex) couples all the same legal rights as a married couple, but most gay rights activists aren't happy with the civil union route.
So I was wondering what you all thought of this idea? Could both sides agree to something like this?
I might be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the federal government begun to recognize marriage as it brings an economic benefit to the country. Marriage was ignored by the federal government until 1913, and people begun to realize that married people spend more money. They buy houses, go on vacations, have children, etc. A country's economic base grows with more marriages. I believe it was for that reason, and that reason alone that the federal government begun to recognize marriage.
To answer your question, I agree with you. As a Christian, I personally couldn't care less who gets married by the government. Marriage from a religious point of view and marriage from a legal point of view are two completely different things. Let any two people enter a civil union (or marriage, or whatever you want to call it). That has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage people have from a religious point of view.
I might be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the federal government begun to recognize marriage as it brings an economic benefit to the country. Marriage was ignored by the federal government until 1913, and people begun to realize that married people spend more money. They buy houses, go on vacations, have children, etc. A country's economic base grows with more marriages. I believe it was for that reason, and that reason alone that the federal government begun to recognize marriage.
To answer your question, I agree with you. As a Christian, I personally couldn't care less who gets married by the government. Marriage from a religious point of view and marriage from a legal point of view are two completely different things. Let any two people enter a civil union (or marriage, or whatever you want to call it). That has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage people have from a religious point of view.
I couldn't find any links that showed when the government actually started being heavily involved in marraige. But as long as there is money involved, the government will want their hands in it at least to some extent.
I liked this article about why it would be better to have government contracts and religious marraiges.
This is for both sides of the issue... if the government completely got out of the business of marraige and all anyone could get was a civil contract, and if that civil contract covered any two consenting adults, including same sex couples. BUT you couldn't get "married" by the government. To be "married, you'd have to go to a church that would sanction your marriage, but it wouldn't be a legally binding institution, it'd be strictly spiritual. Which would mean that if you were a same sex couple and you wanted the label "married" you'd have to find a church that accepted that... BUT that label wouldn't give you legal anything. To get all the legal benefits of what we call marraige today, you'd have to have a civil union which would just be a contract.
Would either side be ok with this?
My boyfriend and I have been discussing this, because we both believe that the government should NOT be in the marriage business. My thought is that neither side would be ok with this separation though because there are already several states that allow for "civil unions" that give same sex (and opposite sex) couples all the same legal rights as a married couple, but most gay rights activists aren't happy with the civil union route.
So I was wondering what you all thought of this idea? Could both sides agree to something like this?
I am fine with it. In fact I support it. Consenting adults should enter into any contract they with including a "civil union domestic partnership" and a marriage should be a church only function. It should be fully possible to have a domestic contract without marriage and have a marriage without a domestic contract. However the law should only recognize a domestic partnership contract and not a church only marriage. Only God should recognize that.
Religious institutions perform ceremonies for a religious union. Non-religious entities perform legal unions. I believe that churches have the right define a religious union any way they want, and that the government should not interfere.
If you don't think gay couples should get married, then join a church that won't marry gay couples!
Well..
Government really shouldn't need to hand out papers so people can be recognized. It's silly. But, if we are for it on a legal level, it needs to be handed up to the states. I don't care what it's called. As long as a civil union piece of paper IS the same thing as a marriage piece of paper .. without any loopholes.
"Sorry, we only allow married people to put their spouse on health insurance" is a good example.
With that being said, even if legal on a federal level.. the government should NOT force any church to marry a same sex couple.
Sadly, I see it coming. We'll be able to get married eventually, but we'll want more. We'll demand that the churches we belong to to marry us or ELSE.... and.. the gay couple will win...and gays will get hated more for requiring special treatment.
I predict it'll be a lesbian couple who will do it. Just for fun!
I was married 24 years ago in a civil service, I fail to understand the distinction between the two.
Ok, a civil service is actual a ceremony done by a judge a long with a legal contract signed by the two participants. A Civil union is JUST a contract signed by the two participants, and having some ceremony has no affect on the contract. A church wedding/marraige is a religious ceremony done by a religious officiant who has legal grounds to also sign the contract that creats a marraige.
What I'm saying is that the contract should be the ONLY thing the government has anything to do with. No ceremony should be recognized or required by the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
