31 replies to this topic

[Vortigern]

Yes it is. Not as much as religion, but it can be hidden, worked against, ignored, whatever. It is a lifestyle choice.

[Casen]

Religion should not be involved in the government. Since marriage is an aspect of religion, asking whether gay marriage should be legalized is stupid. It should be up to a church to decide whether a couple can get married or not. The government should not dictate what a church can and cannot do, and visa-versa.

Religion should be purged from the government completely, marriage included.

[MSpencer]

A good friend of mine recently made a quite excellent observation tonight:
The second that a judge can declare two people as legally married and issue a marriage certificate, a marriage simply becomes a contractual obligation between two people authorized by a set of common laws recognized by the government.
And since the government has a mandate to serve all of the people, since a marriage is simply a contract between two people recognized by the government, the government must honor this contract between any two residents under its jurisdiction. It's a very simple legal way of looking at the matter without bringing the church into it.

[Vortigern]

An interesting view. I'm more inclined towards Kacen's view, now that I think about it, because marriage is definitely a religious issue, and should not therefore be a matter for the government to decide. The only part that needs recognising by law is the next-of-kin matter.

[Puppeteer]

Not allowing gay people to marry is segregation and discrimination.

Edited by Puppeteer, 08 August 2008 - 07:56 PM.

[robnkarla]

There are more issues with this than just who can marry who. Marriage as a government recognized institution/contract has many specific protections where this will affect many areas. If you recognize same-sex marriage, then this union has all the same rights, protection as any other. Under CA law, marriage is part of the education as early as kindergarten, with this new protection public schools cannot now "discriminate" and may be compelled to teach that all marriage is the same regardless of the partners, regardless of the parents/teachers beliefs or desires.

Adoption is also then altered. Catholic Charities stopped doing adoptions in Mass. due to the fact that they were forced to accept adoptions by same-sex marriages regardless of their views on this if they continued in the state.

The proposition is not really geared around the rights of the couple, most if not all of these should be handled under a civil union, which laws will not be touched. It's about all the areas where marriage is protected, defined, taught, used, and forcing a majority that already voted for this issue not to be accepting, but to embrace it.

Robert J.

[Rattuskid]

Since marriage is an aspect of religion

See, this is why we bought you that 'indoor helmet'.

Do non-religious people get married? Do marriages become null and void when two people marry in one denomination and then leave for another? Can people get married without any religious authorities present?

(Hint correct answers are Yes, no and yes)

[Ash]

Pass the Necronomicon when you're done with it, Rattus?

[Rattuskid]

I got logged out and this showed up as a 'new' topic for some reason. Sowwy.

[some_weirdGuy]

bringing this issue back up, how about we solve this by saying:
gays can marry in the legal sense but not in the religious sense.

They are entitled to the government side of it, with the legalities of it all, but as far as the religious side thats up to the churches themselves.

Edited by some_weirdGuy, 22 October 2009 - 04:51 AM.

[Hostile]

Necro is ok in the GNP. All things become new again.

[Rattuskid]

It seems all the gay movements are really pushing for the removal of DADT now anyway. Kind of putting the cart in front of the horse. Civil unions are the biggie, and DADT doesn't affect them, but civil benefits can affect those in the military.