Another Approach To Gay Marriage-Civil Unions (America, church, quote, marriages)

[MontanaGuy]

The concept of marriage as being based on a long standing tradition between a man and a woman is well understood and part of human history from every culture. How do Christians feel about an alternative that doesn't use the word marriage and is really more of a legally binding recognition that two people have entered into an arrangement that allows them to have certain obligations and benefits? From a practical point of view there are a fairly large number of gay and lesbian couples so how should they be viewed from a legal perspective if they want to commit to a relationship? If one member of the couple has a job with health insurance but the other does not I believe it is only fair to extend health benefits to the partner for the simple reason that the person who has the health benefits has earned them like every other working American. I believe it would be unethical to deprive a worker of a financial benefit that heterosexuals enjoy just because of their sexual orientation. This would also apply to matters such as wills and any situation that has financial implications. This just seems like common sense to me, what do you think?

[sanspeur]

I agree....I have no idea why gay couples would want to be married in a Christian church anyway, as the Christians are and have been the one trodding their human rights. I do not believe that this solution will satisfy most Christians though.

[JohnJLethal]

I would be in favor of an across-the-board label of Civil Union by the government for any two people entering in a "marriage," and all the benefits that are derived from such. And if people want to be "married," let them do so in a religious institution and leave the term marriage out of government.

Since homosexuals are being denied the same opportunity for a marriage in the eyes of government, just take the whole problem out of the equation. Treat Unions like a two person business arrangement as far as government is concerned.

Either that or give everyone the same opportunity that others currently enjoy.

[Andromeda76]

I believe civil unions are fair for homosexuals couple with the full backing (rights) of a traditional marriage.

[Miss Blue]

I have no problem with homosexual couples entering into "civil unions" that will give them all the benefits taxwise, inheritance, and medical decisions that married folks enjoy..

[soonerguy]

Originally Posted by JohnJLethal

I would be in favor of an across-the-board label of Civil Union by the government for any two people entering in a "marriage," and all the benefits that are derived from such. And if people want to be "married," let them do so in a religious institution and leave the term marriage out of government.

Funny, I mentioned this very thing to a gay friend and I about got my head bit off.

I was told this would be as crazy or crazier than not allowing gays to marry at all.

She demanded full and equal rights, was adamant that the wording remain the same. I even questioned her as to why she would want to be married in a religious institution that didn't support her union in the firstplace and she of course had some argument for it, although I don't quite remember what it was.

I actually think a lot of Christians could live with this (although they may not believe that it is right). All couples who marry, regardless of sex, enter into "Civil Unions" with equal legal benefits. Marriages would actually take place religiously. I know in some places like Britain and France couples are married civilly one day at some office and have a religious ceremony on another, or at least they used to. We would need something like that. I, for one, don't believe God will be checking marriage licenses and that a couple doesn't need a piece of paper to be married in his eyes. He knows what is in the heart.

My question is can the gays live with it? Maybe my friend did not represent the majority, but I thought it would be a good compromise.

[GCSTroop]

Personally, this is the one part of the debate that sort of irks me about the gay and lesbian movement. While I fully agree that they should be able to have full, equal rights under the law and call it marriage, they've come up with horrendous opposition to it in the past and just recently in California. You don't overthrow hundreds of years of bigotry in one Democratic vote. Well, I suppose you can, but it's very hard to do.

What they should be doing, in my opinion, is openly accepting the civil union "wording" at this point in time in order to get the benefits for their loved ones that they are complaining they do not have. After all, that is one of the main concerns of these protests and movements - that they don't have equal rights under the law. So, give them equal rights in terms of a civil union, I think the voters would pass it, and then file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to call it "marriage". If the certiorari is denied, than they still have their benefits in the form of "civil union" and if it is approved and legislated on than they have everything.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Baby steps. They're trying to cut the whole head of the dragon off with a butter knife.

[stan4]

I agree. How about marriage stay in the church (or temple or synagogue or whatever) and if you want the govt bennies, just register for your civil union.