Marriage / Holy Matrimony 4 solution...

JL - posted on 01/28/2010

update on Perry v. Schwartzenegger..testimonies have concluded...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/28p...

. - posted on 01/20/2010

I'm neither American or religious, but to me a marriage is between a couple who love each other, weither they are gay or straight.

Kelley - posted on 01/18/2010

Read Amy's reply again... for me it really sums it up! Yes, I am a Christian-consevative, and I am baffled at who and why, especially the way our founding fathers contructed the first amendment "it's so clear, that the Government has no right to come in and re-write the rules for the churches and their doctrines" and that also being able to believe differently allows both sides of this issue to be honored. (by after looking up marriage in societal definitions I cannot find a specific absolute where it is man/woman, Only in religious doctrines) andsince it is God they want to make this covenant before, then so be it... If it's God I answer to and took my vow in front of Him then we will honor that before Him. and If same gender people want to enter into their mariage promise and it's confines then so be it. they are both marriage contracts and there are many who do not want to make it a religious cereomony but a personal celebration and oath to one another.

the big debate isn't about others thinking it will dimish anyones realtionship, but that it would ask others to comprimise their beliefs.

As far as who makes these decisions...they are all personal beiliefs, or ways of life, it doesn't make them bad it's just means they are free...on both side of the debate.



Quote Amy:

It's all semantics. It's just a word. It has NO bearing on anyone else's relationship either if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Me:

ditto



IN A NUTSHELL

Is it marriage or holy matrimony that's the issue? The religious people I know go get and their engagements, then marriages blessed before the eyes of God. They also go down to our local city office to get the papers to get legally married. The two are not the same. Holy matrimony is performed before the eyes of God, marriage is a contract written by the government that we fill out and sign on our wedding days.



Why aren't things just this simple????? Really - this should be a no-brainer, but it seems like so much oher stuff gets thrown in the way.



Kati, it is acurious question about the inside church thing or not?



P.s.

I'll change the title of the thread. I personally think marriage as a legal contract and Holy Matrimony to respective couples that want a covenant/contract, before the eyes of God. is such a viable solution. ??? (but what do I know I'm just a mom and have 25+ solutions to come up with everyday...not making these decisions for millions :)

Rosie - posted on 01/18/2010

i live in iowa and in my state we have legalized homosexual marriage. however i do not know -and mind you i havn't researched this- if any church around me performs gay ceremonies. i recently went to a gay wedding and it was performed outside, but a pastor performed the ceremony. i should ask them if the church told them they couldn't get married in the church or not (cause i do know that they are believers in god, just don't know what church if any they go to). while i will agree that churches have the right to refuse a ceremony for them, whether calling it a marriage or a civil union is a no brainer for me. they are married. they also believe that they are married in the eyes of god whether or not christianity says they are. i i believe that most gay christians would think the same way i do-they respect the sanctity of the church and it's teachings, but they also believe that god loves them and made them the way they are, and wouldn't be offended (too much) that a church (not god, at least in their eyes) doesn't recognize their marriage because they believe god does.

Amie - posted on 01/18/2010

Ok wait now I'm getting confused.

Is it marriage or holy matrimony that's the issue? The religious people I know go get and their engagements, then marriages blessed before the eyes of God. They also go down to our local city office to get the papers to get legally married. The two are not the same. Holy matrimony is performed before the eyes of God, marriage is a contract written by the government that we fill out and sign on our wedding days.

So is holy matrimony the issue? Or is marriage?

Holy matrimony is still not an issue here in Canada because no church has ever been forced to perform a ceremony they did not want too. This extends farther than gays rights too.

Marriage is a contract for couples who wish to take that next step to tie themselves to each other. A priest can perform the ceremony if he wishes too, so can a marriage commissioner. I am no less married because my service was conducted by a marriage commissioner. My friend is no less married because she chose a priest but passed on the blessing.

It's all semantics. It's just a word. It has NO bearing on anyone else's relationship either if homosexuals are allowed to marry. It's a pretty sad state that there are people who even believe that a couple of the same sex would somehow diminish their marriage just by getting married themselves.

Johnny - posted on 01/18/2010

And who chooses which churches get to decide on which marriages are holy matrimony and which are not? Here in Canada, there are quite a few churches that choose to perform marriages for same-sex partners that they view as being equal in God's eyes. Does every church/temple/synagogue/mosque have the right to make this decision for themselves? I am not a believer in a creator god, neither is my husband. We both consider ourselves agnostics. However, we were married in the Unitarian Church (which also performs same-sex marriages) because it supports and reflects our spiritual beliefs. Would this still be considered holy matrimony? And who makes these decisions?

Kelley - posted on 01/17/2010

Kati, I think I've already stated that it's not about calling one or another more /the lesser married,but just about honoring both peoples on this debate. That Churches could keep their beliefs in thier bibles and keep Holy matrimony and that those who partner with same gender also have repescted marriage, and all the rights thereof?
Just looking for solution that could be so simple yet respective to believers and non-believers.

Rosie - posted on 01/17/2010

here's my problem with calling a gay couple that are married, a civil union. people against it have stated that marriage is a religious term, binding a man and a woman together by seeking gods blessing by marrying in a church. what about the people that choose not to get married in a church? or for that matter what about the people who chose to get married by a judge, or an elvis impersonator? are they any less married than someone who did it in a church, by a pastor or priest? no, because marriage is a legal contract-nothing more. if you choose as a part your religion to get married in a church because you want god to bless your union than that is perfectly fine, but i know plenty of married people who didn't and are still just as married as someone who did.

now if you did choose to get married in a church without a legal binding contract YOU ARE NOT MARRIED under the law, you may be married in the eyes of god, but you are not legally married. thank god (he he!) that i live in a state where marriage of homosexuals is legal.

Jenny - posted on 01/11/2010

I really hope the courts don't screw this up. Equal rights should be a no-brainer.

JL - posted on 01/11/2010

Perry v. Schwarzenegger started today in San Francisco. The case is challenging the Constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 and it is likely that this case will go straight to SCOTUS so it will be intersting to watch how this case goes.



http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/...

Kelley - posted on 01/09/2010

Quoting Kelley:

I think my bigger question in this debate is how do we honor all parties? I don't think that there are any 2nd class citizens. (unless they are illegally here but then that means they are NOT citizens or upholding their part in this republic....sorry, another thread)

we are a free society - gays want to be married, or have that kind of covenant/rights/privileges etc., in their relationships.
As fellow free person, I have no-problem with this, and expect it to be extended to them.

As a country that highly reguards freedom of religion - any follower of a religion that has specific doctrines against a man/man or woman/woman sexual pairing, also should be free to uphold their values, even if it means voicing it publicly.
As a person of faith, and yes (i will not pretend - my faith also speaks firmly against this kind of sexual pairing) I expect to be allowed, to speak or teach (in my church / home) the doctrines I believe.

So my bigger question is? In a Free country. How do we grant gays marriage rights, and also allow the Curches be granted the freedom to not be stifled, punished or stopped from preaching and teaching beliefs that so strongly oppose or don't recognize gay marriage?
This might have more to do with why a large part of our populace stands so strongly against marriage being leagal....they're concern with, being forced to honor something they don't believe in ? I hope that the last sentence helps explain why conservatives think gay marriage might affect their lives/ values.

Now, if it's boiling down to different belief systems...in a FREE country, (and this is the part the I get very fustrated, because as a republic we were set up to overcome these battles of differences, but instead we tend to spend alot of time fumbling, stumbling, and in the end everybody's grumbling, because of our differences)
but back to a boiling down point. If persons of opposing faiths want to some how make a distinction, then why couldn't there be marriages across the board and maybe religions could haveFaith based marriages or cerificates of 'Holy' marriage? Really as a person of faith I'm willing to take the extra step of distinction before my God.
But as a free citizen I love taking the guess work out of things. like...if your a gay family it's out there, no games.
Here's another thing? If those who like the fact that they are married and honored they're God, then let them work their divorces out in the church as well (oooo, now I'm about to get nasty, quick to marry call themselves believers, but wow jump right out just end it -even though they spoke vows before God, and then take the quick way out. Rather than seek resolution or dissolusion within that same perrameter they base thery're marriage on being 'Holy' by) this is a personal rant, because there is a 'alot' of hypocrysies in this area... for instance, in the case where a husband and wife get divorced for specific reasons they actually 'Biblically' are not suppost to get re-married! Bet that one isn't brought up very often, But churches still recognize those marriages...?

Anyway if religions want to have specified one man/ one woman marriages then fine give them that religious freedom But As a country those who wish to be married to same sex partners should be allowed to live out their lives that way also. it doesn't nullify or change or diminish my marriage in ANY way. it allows us to be people of many different beliefs and practices.... after all we even have mariages in some of the states that allow multiple wives.... I wonder if they would allow multiple husbands, it would be interresting to see if any double 'standarders' would rear their religious heads on that one. How wonderful would it be to have multiple providers(talking about $'s) ???? Not being sexist just bringing up a point.

I'm personallly very grateful for the seperation of church and state. It should be something that makes a way for these kind of freedoms on both sides to be honored.

So could this be a workable solution for all to be honored.

Marriage freedom for all and "holy' Marriage for those honoring a belief and supported by those church who keep this as a standard?

I meant churches that believe on man/one woman as their belief standard for 'Holy' matrimony.

Kelley - posted on 01/09/2010

I think my bigger question in this debate is how do we honor all parties? I don't think that there are any 2nd class citizens. (unless they are illegally here but then that means they are NOT citizens or upholding their part in this republic....sorry, another thread)



we are a free society - gays want to be married, or have that kind of covenant/rights/privileges etc., in their relationships.

As fellow free person, I have no-problem with this, and expect it to be extended to them.



As a country that highly reguards freedom of religion - any follower of a religion that has specific doctrines against a man/man or woman/woman sexual pairing, also should be free to uphold their values, even if it means voicing it publicly.

As a person of faith, and yes (i will not pretend - my faith also speaks firmly against this kind of sexual pairing) I expect to be allowed, to speak or teach (in my church / home) the doctrines I believe.



So my bigger question is? In a Free country. How do we grant gays marriage rights, and also allow the Curches be granted the freedom to not be stifled, punished or stopped from preaching and teaching beliefs that so strongly oppose or don't recognize gay marriage?

This might have more to do with why a large part of our populace stands so strongly against marriage being leagal....they're concern with, being forced to honor something they don't believe in ? I hope that the last sentence helps explain why conservatives think gay marriage might affect their lives/ values.



Now, if it's boiling down to different belief systems...in a FREE country, (and this is the part the I get very fustrated, because as a republic we were set up to overcome these battles of differences, but instead we tend to spend alot of time fumbling, stumbling, and in the end everybody's grumbling, because of our differences)

but back to a boiling down point. If persons of opposing faiths want to some how make a distinction, then why couldn't there be marriages across the board and maybe religions could haveFaith based marriages or cerificates of 'Holy' marriage? Really as a person of faith I'm willing to take the extra step of distinction before my God.

But as a free citizen I love taking the guess work out of things. like...if your a gay family it's out there, no games.

Here's another thing? If those who like the fact that they are married and honored they're God, then let them work their divorces out in the church as well (oooo, now I'm about to get nasty, quick to marry call themselves believers, but wow jump right out just end it -even though they spoke vows before God, and then take the quick way out. Rather than seek resolution or dissolusion within that same perrameter they base thery're marriage on being 'Holy' by) this is a personal rant, because there is a 'alot' of hypocrysies in this area... for instance, in the case where a husband and wife get divorced for specific reasons they actually 'Biblically' are not suppost to get re-married! Bet that one isn't brought up very often, But churches still recognize those marriages...?



Anyway if religions want to have specified one man/ one woman marriages then fine give them that religious freedom But As a country those who wish to be married to same sex partners should be allowed to live out their lives that way also. it doesn't nullify or change or diminish my marriage in ANY way. it allows us to be people of many different beliefs and practices.... after all we even have mariages in some of the states that allow multiple wives.... I wonder if they would allow multiple husbands, it would be interresting to see if any double 'standarders' would rear their religious heads on that one. How wonderful would it be to have multiple providers(talking about $'s) ???? Not being sexist just bringing up a point.



I'm personallly very grateful for the seperation of church and state. It should be something that makes a way for these kind of freedoms on both sides to be honored.



So could this be a workable solution for all to be honored.



Marriage freedom for all and "holy' Marriage for those honoring a belief and supported by those church who keep this as a standard?

Sara - posted on 01/05/2010

States like Calinfornia have become nearly ungovernable because everything goes to a referendum in an election. I don't think those votes are truly a reflection of how the populace at large feels about gay marriage, I think they're more a reflection of the values and morals of those who can mobilize more effectively (cough mormons cough)...I don't mean to be offensive to anyone, but it's the truth.

Isobel - posted on 01/05/2010

I'm quite certain a woman's right to vote was not decided by general, nationwide vote, nor was the emancipation of the slaves. EVERY break through in human rights legislation has been decided by the state...not the people.

Isobel - posted on 01/05/2010

I think that EVERY legally binding "union" should be performed by the state...gay OR straight. I think the word "marriage" should be withheld for church ceremonies. These "ceremonies" held in churches though, should not carry ANY legal weight. And IF a gay couple can find a church that wants to marry them...they have every right to call themselves married.

And no, the state has no control over actions of churches here in Canada. We have laws about inciting hate and violence in public. I guess you can take solace in the fact that they can incite as much ugliness and hate as they like INSIDE their church (not in newspapers).

Just once, I would like to hear a "conservative" explain to me how somebody else's right to get married affects THEM in any way. If it doesn't hurt you...it's not your right to vote on it. period.

And yes, two more states legalized gay marriage, but New York has (apparently) joined California in taking it away.

JL - posted on 01/04/2010

Perhaps, it is the wording because the way things are stated have been making clear assumptions about your opinions.To me it sounds as if you are continuely separating gay rights and straight rights pertaining to the right to marry by proposing and upholding the arguement that...homosexuals should have civil union ceremonies and straight religious people should have marriages or as you stated....





"Let them be united in civil union ceromonies (or churches that believe in agreement with homesexual families) and let 'marriage' remain a union that can continue to be honored in Bible (christian, or jewish or muslim faiths that have differing doctrine) believing churches."



Basically I am getting the idea that you are saying that marriage is only or should be only for religiously recognized unions between a man and women.Yes, you are proposing and upholding the idea that gay rights should be recognized to the point that they have the ability to have recognized civil unions....and I applaud the fact that you agree that their rights should be recognized, but IMO you are still upholding and supporting the idea that homosexuals should not have the right to MARRIAGE but only to CIVIL UNIONS which IMO is a slap in the face to homosexuals. And yes there are homosexuals that support CU but they also think that of it as a starting ground that would eventually lead to GAY MARRIAGE rights. They are not proposing a system that remains separate for ever and treats them as second class citizens with laws meant to appease them but not recognize their rights to fully be allowed to MARRY.



SO basically IMO we are separating classes of people and defining their rights because we want to appease the unwarranted fears of the religious and anti-gay marriage crowd...that is not what a Republic is about and America is a nation built on the governmental system known as a Republic.



I say unwarranted fear...because in the states and the nations where GAY MARRIAGE is recognized there have been no overtaking of church rights...their have been assumptions like you made regarding Canada's but those assumptions are unfounded at the level and degree anti-gay marriage proponents have argued.



We should not seperate a group of citizens...and say Ok lets appease them and give them what they want by giving them civil unions...might as well call them second classes citizens and continue to only give them some degree of private rights. Sorry It just feels so wrong to me and it saddens me.

Kelley - posted on 01/04/2010

Quoting Jean:

I'm not American but unfortunatley, In my home country, gay's only have the right to civil union and not marriage.

With the civil unions do they still have all the rights as man/woman marriage?

Krista - posted on 01/04/2010

Quoting Kelley:

Quoting Joy "the historian":

Here is my question..if marriage is only considered to be a deeply religious union (I do not believe it is ONLY a deeply religious union)...which is your arguement for why there should be no gay marriage (not aguring for no-gay marriage never was and think they need some kind of partner recognition truly honered and a leagally binding union) then what about the millions of straight unions like my husband and mine that are marriages which have no basis in religion. (Your's is a union between a husband and wife to be life partners in love and responsibilities-(to sum up a whole LOT) am I correct?)

My husband and I were not married in a church or by a religious ordained figure. We went to the justice of the peace and purposely picked a man who had no religious leanings, because we are not followers of organized religion. Are all of the marriages like mine ...not worthy of recognition...should we then also be told to engage in civil unions but not marriages because we do not follow or believe in yours and other religious ideals concerning marraige. As a historian I will say that marriage started off as a contract based agreeement and it was around way before Christianity became a principle organized religion...can't ignore all that historical data. Overtime the meaning of marriage has changed and reformed in many ways. Marriage has already been re-defined several times throughout history!!!!!!!  I'm well aware of marriage being established before Christianity became a principled organized religion. BUT just supposing we go from the first man and woman, and then the two of them by having intercourse became one flesh, joined in a blood covenant- (married). then I would say marriage was established and defined before any organized religion ever was.

Honestly the idea that a marriage should only be for the religiously inclined (what in the world ever made you think this was singular to the religiously inclined?)...tiffs me off and really makes me want to shout....well take your precious word for all I care, since it has been twisted to represent such uncivil ideals then I want no part. I would gladly refer to my husband of 9 years as my partner (mine as well, in marriage,parenting, busines, etc)..since we know that our "union" is based in love and respect and we don't NEED any religion to recognize the mature and throughtful committment we have made to one another. The point behind the whole debate isn't about religion recognizing marriage/unions it was about it being recognized by our country...if my husband were Catholic and I chose not convert I wouldn't even be aloud to be burried with him!  Religion can be way to subjective to the ways they want any- Bible,Torah, Koran to benefit their own purposes. 

What do people not understand about the fact that not everyone marries in a church whether straight or gay. That not everyone is of the same or any religious idealsim. That separation of church and state means that churches do not have to marry gay couples but churches that would like to can but that the GOVERNMENT must recognize ALL marriages. The right to the pursuit of happiness does not mean only if that is ok with the majorities religious ideals otherwise your civil rights are null and void. And I think in light of the fact that many religious communities, leaders, churches, etc. want to protect their freedoms. That if it were brought to discrimination cases that they would not be forced to go against their beliefs, and that's exactly where the gove. out of church is suppost to protects their beliefs.

I find your last statement......let "marriage" remain a union that can continue to be honored in Bible believing churches...insulting to my marriage that is not based and has not been honored in any bible believeing church. Honestly it is prejudicial and judgemental thoughts like yours Please clarify what predjudice? What judgment? What the heck are you talking about??? that come from bible thumping "christians" that drove me out of the church and turned me toward standing against organized religion. I think you need to ask yourself where your anger is really directed? but if you think that there's only one side to view this thing then I would say you need to ask yourself how your predjudice became so deep, and you've made it quite clear that you judged me on things that I never said and don't beleive.  I see more hypocrisy and judgement in these civil union arguements then I see any means of understanding or comprimise.No one should have to compromise on a basic personal private civil right.

also want to check With Amy.... didn't Canada make it against the law for churches to preach certain parts of the Bible...?  I think this is really more where the religious communities are concerned with an across the board gay marriage.  

(quoting Krista)That notwithstanding, I've heard the argument before about "civil unions for the gays and marriage for the straights", and distinctions like that tend to only foster a hierarchy. 

(me)  I see where you're coming from, and truly doesn't the hieratichal sentiment come into play no-matter what area of life people have very strong sentiments?

 (quoteing Krista) If you have a marriage license, and you get married by an officiant who is legally authorized to perform ceremonies, then you're married. If you're straight and get married in a cowfield, you're married. If you're gay and get married in a church, you're married. It's all equal. Not "separate but equal". FULLY equal. So if the religious straights who got married in a church want to feel superior about their marriages, they're free to do so....but the law puts them on the exact same playing field as the rest of us.

 

"I wish things were that simple.....not sure why they can't be, even if it were as simple as a terminology change, if we celebrate our idfferences, why would it be so bad to keep marriage defined as one man and one woman, and give same sex marriage just as respectably a uniquely defined marriage?

Seriously what would could work?   

 

 

Sentiment is one thing. Legality is another. If society has two different legally recognized forms of lilelong unions, then it is VERY EASY for legal loopholes to exist that will give one group more rights than another. For example, a funeral home might have policies on their books about the deceased person's husband or wife and their rights when it comes to making arrangements for their loved one. Their wording, however, may make it easy for them to exclude (if they are so inclined) people who they do not see as a legal husband or wife. This isn't just about gays. I've also heard proposals that the term "civil union" be used for all non-church marriages, with "marriage" being left solely for those who have a religious ceremony. Those who do not have a "marriage" would be left very vulnerable to the whims and prejudices of those who are there to interpret law and establish policies.

However, if the term "marriage" is used for all unions, then that possibility is gone. The laws that apply for married couples would apply for ALL married couples, regardless of orientation or type of ceremony -- all married couples would be enmeshed together under this legal protection. This is the only way to completely ensure true equality under the law. Anything else is very much a "separate but equal" arrangement, which, if history has shown us anything, tends to be anything BUT equal. So the terminology change that you are thinking might work? It wouldn't. It would work in that it would mollify those who are opposed to same-sex marriage. But it wouldn't work in that it would leave gays at risk of not having the same rights as the rest of us.

. - posted on 01/04/2010

I'm not American but unfortunatley, In my home country, gay's only have the right to civil union and not marriage.

Amie - posted on 01/04/2010

Oh and I forgot to add. Carol's right. Even with the little turmoil that crops up now and then no church has EVER been forced to perform a marriage it did not want too.

Amie - posted on 01/04/2010

I can clarify that a bit further for you Carol. It's from a Saskatchewan (province I live in) case about a newspaper ad. I believe that is what Kelley was referring to anyway.



The Saskatoon Star Pheonix and Hugh Owens were found guilty and had to pay 3 gay men $1,500 each ($3,000 in total for each man). It started with Hugh submitting an anti-gay ad to the paper and it being published. The ad's theme was that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. It listed the references to four Bible passages, Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 on the left side. An equal sign was placed between the verse references and a drawing of two males holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol, a red circle with a diagonal bar.



Saskatchewan's human rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the human rights commission ruled that the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owens religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred, ridicule, and the 3 men who filed the complaint had their dignity affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation."



The bible in and of itself is not banned. The offense was the combination of the symbol and the biblical references. Churches can still preach what and how they want to.



Similar things have happened around Canada. Another man in Ontario was convicted of hate crimes for handing out anti-Islam pamphlets outside a local high school. (the pamphlets also told the kids to be wary of local Muslims and listed atrocities committed in the name of Islam.) If something is done on the basis of hate or fear (or is done to incite hate and fear) then I see no problem with banning it in public. Churches are still allowed to follow their doctrine and worship how they want to. Which includes all aspects of their respective bibles.

Johnny - posted on 01/03/2010

Quoting Kelley:

also want to check With Amy.... didn't Canada make it against the law for churches to preach certain parts of the Bible...?  I think this is really more where the religious communities are concerned with an across the board gay marriage.  

Not to speak for Amie, but as a Canadian I feel I'm well qualified to answer this question. 

NO!! That is absurd. Religion in Canada is protected under our "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and there is no government interference allowed in our religions.  Churches in Canada are very free to preach any part of the bible, or anything else they might choose.  Where do people come up with these outrageous lies ???

Churches (mosques, synagogues, temples, etc) are free to choose not to perform gay marriages and have refused to do so without any challenge on many occasions.  In fact, there was a court case which upheld the right of a church not to allow a gay wedding reception to be held in it's affiliated social hall. 

However, there are also quite a few churches in Canada which have chosen to perform gay marriages, and they are free to do so.  So far the sky has not fallen.  Nor does anyone I know feel that their marriage is less sacred because gays can be married too.  In fact, most people I know believe that ensuring that all citizens share in the right to marry the person whom they choose has strengthened the importance of the institution.  Some people who once felt that marriage was an archaic and meaningless tradition have seen the inclusion of homosexuals as an indication that perhaps marriage means more than the narrow definition it has been given by some. 

From my personal perspective, I do not believe in a creator God.  Thus, it is impossible for me to think that God designed anything, including marriage.  It is a human created institution and should be available to every human.  No human has the right to deny another human to share in our society's basic structural building apparatus.  It is unconscionable and cruel.

Kelley - posted on 01/03/2010

Quoting Joy "the historian":

Here is my question..if marriage is only considered to be a deeply religious union (I do not believe it is ONLY a deeply religious union)...which is your arguement for why there should be no gay marriage (not aguring for no-gay marriage never was and think they need some kind of partner recognition truly honered and a leagally binding union) then what about the millions of straight unions like my husband and mine that are marriages which have no basis in religion. (Your's is a union between a husband and wife to be life partners in love and responsibilities-(to sum up a whole LOT) am I correct?)

My husband and I were not married in a church or by a religious ordained figure. We went to the justice of the peace and purposely picked a man who had no religious leanings, because we are not followers of organized religion. Are all of the marriages like mine ...not worthy of recognition...should we then also be told to engage in civil unions but not marriages because we do not follow or believe in yours and other religious ideals concerning marraige. As a historian I will say that marriage started off as a contract based agreeement and it was around way before Christianity became a principle organized religion...can't ignore all that historical data. Overtime the meaning of marriage has changed and reformed in many ways. Marriage has already been re-defined several times throughout history!!!!!!!  I'm well aware of marriage being established before Christianity became a principled organized religion. BUT just supposing we go from the first man and woman, and then the two of them by having intercourse became one flesh, joined in a blood covenant- (married). then I would say marriage was established and defined before any organized religion ever was.

Honestly the idea that a marriage should only be for the religiously inclined (what in the world ever made you think this was singular to the religiously inclined?)...tiffs me off and really makes me want to shout....well take your precious word for all I care, since it has been twisted to represent such uncivil ideals then I want no part. I would gladly refer to my husband of 9 years as my partner (mine as well, in marriage,parenting, busines, etc)..since we know that our "union" is based in love and respect and we don't NEED any religion to recognize the mature and throughtful committment we have made to one another. The point behind the whole debate isn't about religion recognizing marriage/unions it was about it being recognized by our country...if my husband were Catholic and I chose not convert I wouldn't even be aloud to be burried with him!  Religion can be way to subjective to the ways they want any- Bible,Torah, Koran to benefit their own purposes. 

What do people not understand about the fact that not everyone marries in a church whether straight or gay. That not everyone is of the same or any religious idealsim. That separation of church and state means that churches do not have to marry gay couples but churches that would like to can but that the GOVERNMENT must recognize ALL marriages. The right to the pursuit of happiness does not mean only if that is ok with the majorities religious ideals otherwise your civil rights are null and void. And I think in light of the fact that many religious communities, leaders, churches, etc. want to protect their freedoms. That if it were brought to discrimination cases that they would not be forced to go against their beliefs, and that's exactly where the gove. out of church is suppost to protects their beliefs.

I find your last statement......let "marriage" remain a union that can continue to be honored in Bible believing churches...insulting to my marriage that is not based and has not been honored in any bible believeing church. Honestly it is prejudicial and judgemental thoughts like yours Please clarify what predjudice? What judgment? What the heck are you talking about??? that come from bible thumping "christians" that drove me out of the church and turned me toward standing against organized religion. I think you need to ask yourself where your anger is really directed? but if you think that there's only one side to view this thing then I would say you need to ask yourself how your predjudice became so deep, and you've made it quite clear that you judged me on things that I never said and don't beleive.  I see more hypocrisy and judgement in these civil union arguements then I see any means of understanding or comprimise.No one should have to compromise on a basic personal private civil right.

also want to check With Amy.... didn't Canada make it against the law for churches to preach certain parts of the Bible...?  I think this is really more where the religious communities are concerned with an across the board gay marriage.  

(quoting Krista)That notwithstanding, I've heard the argument before about "civil unions for the gays and marriage for the straights", and distinctions like that tend to only foster a hierarchy. 

(me)  I see where you're coming from, and truly doesn't the hieratichal sentiment come into play no-matter what area of life people have very strong sentiments?

 (quoteing Krista) If you have a marriage license, and you get married by an officiant who is legally authorized to perform ceremonies, then you're married. If you're straight and get married in a cowfield, you're married. If you're gay and get married in a church, you're married. It's all equal. Not "separate but equal". FULLY equal. So if the religious straights who got married in a church want to feel superior about their marriages, they're free to do so....but the law puts them on the exact same playing field as the rest of us.

"I wish things were that simple.....not sure why they can't be, even if it were as simple as a terminology change, if we celebrate our idfferences, why would it be so bad to keep marriage defined as one man and one woman, and give same sex marriage just as respectably a uniquely defined marriage?

Seriously what would could work?   

Sara - posted on 01/03/2010

If the reasoning to not extend the rights of "marriage" to same sex couples is based on the premise that marriage is a religious institution, then our government shouldn't recognize marriages either, only civil unions. I think extending the rights of "unions" and not recognizing "marriage" for same sex couples is the same "separate but equal" premise that we've seen in other situations throughout history. If a church choses not to marry same sex couples, that is their right. But, if a church is willing to sanction a same sex marriage, what's the problem with that? From talking with gay couples I know, to them not allowing them to be "married" still makes them feel like second class citizens, because it's not the same and it won't mean the same in society at large. I can totally understand what they mean. I say, let them get married. It does undermine my marriage in any way.

Amie - posted on 01/03/2010

Oh forgot to add too... New Hampshire was recently the 5th state to allow gay marriage. It came into effect Friday. =)



Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa are the other 4 that have legalized it.

Amie - posted on 01/03/2010

I'm in Canada and gay marriage has been legal here for 8 years this new year. It has not impacted the institution of marriage. I'm sure there are religious people who are upset with this idea to start with but they've come around. No church has been forced to marry any gay/lesbian couple. Most go to their own churches to have the ceremony performed or to a marriage commissioner. It is still called marriage. It's just a word. It's not something that is solely for religious heterosexuals. I'm married and have nothing to do with religion. My husband and I used a marriage commissioner. We got married outside on a beautiful summer day far away from any churches.

As I said though, it's just a word. It does not hold any special status just because people think it should. There are millions of people the world over who are married and not all of them have the same ceremonies or rituals for marriage. But they are still married. It is nothing to get hung up on.

Renee - posted on 01/03/2010

I don't understand why we need solutions. I was not married in a church nor was my divorced granted in a church. My divorce was a legal matter not a religious one. If everyone were allowed to be legally married regardless of religion we wouldn't need solutions to any problem. I am not gay but I don't see standing in the way of same sex couples getting married as a worthy cause. And I don't see why anybody with any morals at all would stand in the way either. To me marriage is a legally binding contract between 2 people who plan to spend the rest of their lives together. When it doesnt work out it's another legal matter to undo it. God was not the designer of marriage - thousands of years before the first pope in Europe came into power people were entering into marriage contracts without Gods blessing.

JL - posted on 01/03/2010

Here is my question..if marriage is only considered to be a deeply religious union...which is your arguement for why there should be no gay marriage then what about the millions of straight unions like my husband and mine that are marriages which have no basis in religion.



My husband and I were not married in a church or by a religious ordained figure. We went to the justice of the peace and purposely picked a man who had no religious leanings, because we are not followers of organized religion. Are all of the marriages like mine ...not worthy of recognition...should we then also be told to engage in civil unions but not marriages because we do not follow or believe in yours and other religious ideals concerning marraige. As a historian I will say that marriage started off as a contract based agreeement and it was around way before Christianity became a principle organized religion...can't ignore all that historical data. Overtime the meaning of marriage has changed and reformed in many ways. Marriage has already been re-defined several times throughout history!!!!!!!



Honestly the idea that a marriage should only be for the religiously inclined...tiffs me off and really makes me want to shout....well take your precious word for all I care, since it has been twisted to represent such uncivil ideals then I want no part. I would gladly refer to my husband of 9 years as my partner..since we know that our "union" is based in love and respect and we don't NEED any religion to recognize the mature and throughtful committment we have made to one another.



What do people not understand about the fact that not everyone marries in a church whether straight or gay. That not everyone is of the same or any religious idealsim. That separation of church and state means that churches do not have to marry gay couples but churches that would like to can but that the GOVERNMENT must recognize ALL marriages. The right to the pursuit of happiness does not mean only if that is ok with the majorities religious ideals otherwise your civil rights are null and void.



I find your last statement......let "marriage" remain a union that can continue to be honored in Bible believing churches...insulting to my marriage that is not based and has not been honored in any bible believeing church. Honestly it is prejudicial and judgemental thoughts like yours that come from bible thumping "christians" that drove me out of the church and turned me toward standing against organized religion. I see more hypocrisy and judgement in these civil union arguements then I see any means of understanding or comprimise.No one should have to compromise on a basic personal private civil right.

Krista - posted on 01/03/2010

Joy could probably elaborate on this better than I can, but marriage HAS already been redefined throughout the centuries. The entire concept of marriage used to be very much a business deal -- the joining of two families in order to consolidate power, or to improve diplomacy between nations, or to broker land deals.



Not everybody agrees with you that God was the designer of marriage being male and female. Marriage was around LONG before the concept of the Christian God became popular.



That notwithstanding, I've heard the argument before about "civil unions for the gays and marriage for the straights", and distinctions like that tend to only foster a hierarchy. For starters, a lot of the laws aren't yet amended to include the terminology for civil unions. So in legal matters, a gay couple could find themselves having difficulties, even though they're not supposed to, and the law would be nowhere near as powerful in backing them up as it would to a "married" couple.



Plus, and this is a question that I have yet to see answered by someone who is against same-sex marriage, HOW does a gay couple getting married affect your marriage? If Terry and Gerald down the street go get hitched, are your vows now rendered meaningless? Will it harm your marriage? In states where same-sex marriage is legal, has there suddenly been an epidemic of straight couples getting divorced? I hear a lot of theoretical talk about the dangers of re-defining marriage, and how it's going to render marriage meaningless, but I have yet to hear anybody give me a concrete example of how gays getting married hurts marriage overall.



I prefer the way it's done here in Canada. If you have a marriage license, and you get married by an officiant who is legally authorized to perform ceremonies, then you're married. If you're straight and get married in a cowfield, you're married. If you're gay and get married in a church, you're married. It's all equal. Not "separate but equal". FULLY equal. So if the religious straights who got married in a church want to feel superior about their marriages, they're free to do so....but the law puts them on the exact same playing field as the rest of us.