Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
you know, the way i see it, it's not the government's job to define what a marriage is— it's basically the job of the church. the church is where marriage comes from— it is defined in the bible, and it is a sacrament, and to cede that power from the churches violates the seperation of church and state. it would be like the government trying to define what constitutes a baptism, and trying to give hindus the right to baptize. even though they are baptized, they still aren't accepted by the church because they're hindus, so it's not a real baptism.
i, do, however, believe in civil unions, which means that they have every right a married couple does except it is not called marriage. they can file taxes jointly, they can visit each other in the hospital, they have spousal confidentiality in court, etc. unlike marriage, i believe this is a civil right that should be mandated all over the country. i just do not think that the government should force churches to recognize a civil union as a marriage.
|
I agree that the government shouldn't force any religion to recognize marriage between same sex couples, or anyone else the religion doesn't want to recognize. But the court decision that started all of this doesn't force anyone to do anything. It simply opens the state government's recognition of legal marriage to include same sex couples. What the church or any other religious group decides to do about it is strictly up to them. But now (unless prop 8 passes) if a religion decides that they want to allow marriage for same sex couples, then those couples will be able to enjoy the legal benefits of being married just the same as my wife and I do. Previously, they could have a marriage ceremony and
call themselves married, but they weren't legally recognized as such by the state government. It's just about making equal rights available, not mandates on religions.