| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Marriage is for Churches; States Grant Licenses |
| 2012-05-12 |
| A new perspective on the gay marriage debate and a new twist on separation of church and state. The May 10 editorial "Mr. Obama's welcome evolution" was wrong. As a Unitarian Universalist, I support gay marriage, and my denomination has married same-sex couples for many years. But that is where marriage belongs: in church, or wherever a couple choose to sanctify their relationship. The state has no business in marriage decisions. It should offer to all couples, gay or straight, a license that serves as a legal contract defining their rights and responsibilities in matters such as inheritance, medical decisions and child-rearing. Government sanctioning of marriage is a violation of separation of church and state, which is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. I support civil unions for all. Let's get the word marriage out of the statute books. The definition of the word marriage need not change with the changing opinions or morals of some of the people in order for all to be equal. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #10 So I guess now I can call myself doctor, chef, and imam. Those are all certifications of a level of conditions and achievement, how is this different? This quip is absolutely right. Perhaps deh creative gheys can come up with a special unique word to describe their coupling. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-05-12 18:01 |
| #9 Obviously the state makes sure that women of child bearing age are banned from marriage. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-05-12 16:27 |
| #8 "separation of church and state, which is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution." No, it is not. Not at all. Do you read? I just have a penchant against the state telling private organizations what to do against their will. If we have to go over institutional integrity with this ignorant group of wannabe europeons, I'm gonna lose my damn mind. Also, let's be perfectly clear about Marriage, it is in place to ensure procreation and solid Family relationships. Soooo, if the Church you walked in refuses to marry you because they are un-comfortable, go to one that will or go to city hall and see what they say. Maybe they will. But don't bring out your little dictator to order my Parrish to marry you. Get bent. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-05-12 13:29 |
| #7 In some cases this is already the case. Take Immigration for example - the K1 'fiancee' visa. (This is from about 10 years ago - and I am not a lawyer and did not stay in a...) The couple *is* allowed to participate in a religious ceremony of 'marriage' before the actual immigration (or approval). But they cannot 'register' or otherwise legally marry. (Actually there is nothing to stop them from doing so - however they will then have to convert (or re-apply) for a Spousal Visa which is different.) This clearly defines a separation of the 'religious' marriage and the secular 'legal civil union'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2012-05-12 12:10 |
| #6 I understand that marriage is a two step process in the Catholic Church. First the couple initiate it by taking their vows before a priest. However the second process is that it must be consummated. If not couples are legally able to divorce. Question; how does a gay couple "consummate" their marriage, when studies show the majority do not engage in anal sex? |
| Posted by: tipper 2012-05-12 11:43 |
| #5 Badanov nailed it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2012-05-12 11:09 |
| #4 Oddly enough, I view it that way too. As a Catholic, Marriage is a *Sacrament*. The state cannot grant such a thing. All the state can do is stay out of our way due to the good old 1st amendment. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2012-05-12 11:08 |
| #3 Civil unions are secular but legal ceremonies but marriages religious ceremonies, where blessing by God is sanctioned; if gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right then churches could be accused of discrimination for upholding their doctrinal beliefs and lose tax-exempt status. This is more than just a political ploy to raise funds and not homophobic but another attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs. ALL Americans are protected constitutionally already from discrimination. |
| Posted by: Omoluque Hapsburg8162 2012-05-12 11:07 |
| #2 This is about a powerful secular entity using that power to impose its political views and moral code view on a religious institution. Nothing more. |
| Posted by: badanov 2012-05-12 11:05 |
| #1 This has always been my question about marriage. As a conservative/libertarian why does gov't have anything to do with weddings? Of course the answer is obvious. Gov't involvement revolves around 2 related issues: 1. Rights of women and 2. Money. The more gov't has used marriage as a tool in the alotment of preferential treatment the more people want to get married (gay or straight) to reap the bennies. I questioned a close relative about this a few years ago when she was getting "married" to another woman. Living near P'town, not exactly a hostile environment, there were lots of supporters but when I asked exactly what she expected to gain that she didn't already have? Her honest and simple answer was "Money" in the forms of government benefits. Just one more special interest group doing the rent-seeking dance. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2012-05-12 10:34 |