Gay Marriage - poll added

[traderx]

I think this is a great discussion and I , too, am SO happy to see how many people share this view. It also warms my heart.

Gordy, this might help explain things a bit better. It is a concise description of civil marriages and civil unions and their differences created by GLAD:

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

Another oxymoron.....

 

[tofu]

I would hope so, since the latter would be a violation of church and state. People obviously have the right to protest to thier church about not accepting gay marriage, but the state should not get involved.

If gay marriage is just a legal agreement providing all the same benefits straight couples enjoy, and does not involve forcing a religious entity to legitimize the union, everything is cool.

People keep saying that about religious organizations being forced to accept it but unless it can be backed up with a source that that has happened (as someone here previously claimed), I call BS.

Nobody here is advocating that.

I believe that the government should issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Not that the government should force churches to accept it.

Nobody has to go to a church to get married You can get a marriage license without a ceremony. IMO, as long as the government gives equal rights (and doesn't call it something else), that's fine. There are plenty of churches already willing to give gay marriage ceremonies.

 

[Alicia Leonard]

Found this to mesh with the thread........

Gay Couples Find Marriage Is a Mixed Bag


BOSTON — Four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay couples to marry, there have been blissful unions, painful divorces and everything in between.
Some same-sex couples say being married has made a big difference, and some say it has made no difference at all. There are devoted couples who have decided marriage is not for them, couples whose lawyers or accountants advised them against marrying, and couples in which one partner wants to marry but the other does not.
But as same-sex marriage begins in California, Massachusetts’s experience may offer hints of what is to come. For example, after an initial euphoric rush to the altar, the number of gay weddings here fell sharply and has declined each year since. Of the more than 10,500 same-sex couples married here since May 17, 2004, 6,121 wed in the first six months. There were 2,060 weddings in 2005; 1,442 in 2006; and 867 in the first eight months of 2007, the most recent data show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/u...int&adxnnlx=1213545840-RwpbxSYFY4IMH9IIRkLe0w

 

[30ashopper]

People keep saying that about religious organizations being forced to accept it but unless it can be backed up with a source that that has happened (as someone here previously claimed), I call BS.

Let’s say for example a gay couple is married in a state that supports it. The couple decide to go to school at a private catholic university and are refused acceptance or partner housing accommodations. Does the state have the right to force the university to accept the couple on the grounds they are discriminating against them and violating the law?

The Christian Science Monitor has a short article on this -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0315/p02s02-ussc.html

Please note, I am for legal equality, but I am not a fan of government bullying my church into doing something it does not want too. Considering the history of activism in this country, I sense that is the direction we are headed, activist courts will get involved, and this will get ugly.

The suggestion that this is a simple issue – “just change the law so gay couples can get a license” is short sighted. It goes much deeper than that so we should tread very carefully and think through any changes we make.

 

[tofu]

Let?s say for example a gay couple is married in a state that supports it. The couple decide to go to school at a private catholic university and are refused acceptance or partner housing accommodations. Does the state have the right to force the university to accept the couple on the grounds they are discriminating against them and violating the law?

If the university is private as you say, they should have no problem with discriminating against gay couples. But if it is a state college or gets funding from the govt, they can't get away with it.

The Christian Science Monitor has a short article on this -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0315/p02s02-ussc.html

All that article says is that people are wondering if churches will be forced to accept it, which makes no sense. The article didn't even provide valid reasons for why the govt would stick its nose in churches. Churches can basically do whatever they want and get away with it as long as it is legal.

I could see the tax exempt status being a problem, but as far as I know there are no laws that say that the church must accept certain civil rights to keep that status.

Please note, I am for legal equality, but I am not a fan of government bullying my church into doing something it does not want too. Considering the history of activism in this country, I sense that is the direction we are headed, activist courts will get involved, and this will get ugly.

The government allows opposite-gender couples to marry, yet the Catholic church often doesn't allow priests to marry. Do you see the government forcing the church to allow their priests to marry?

The suggestion that this is a simple issue ? ?just change the law so gay couples can get a license? is short sighted. It goes much deeper than that so we should tread very carefully and think through any changes we make.

IMO there is no rational reason why the government would force churches to accept it. Churches are private institutions and can do whatever they want. I can't think of anyone who wants the government to do that either.

I just don't get the argument. Did the government force churches to accept mixed-race marriages when states legalized them? I don't remember it doing that, but again, if someone has proof of that it would help a lot.

 

[Jdarg]

I still don't understand why religion has even been brought into this. Giving gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples has nothing to do with any decision made by any church. We are talking about legal rights here, not church rules.

 

[NoHall]

I still don't understand why religion has even been brought into this. Giving gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples has nothing to do with any decision made by any church. We are talking about legal rights here, not church rules.

Why have those legal rights have not been extended to same-sex couples already?

 

[hnooe]

If the university is private as you say, they should have no problem with discriminating against gay couples. But if it is a state college or gets funding from the govt, they can't get away with it.


I just don't get the argument. Did the government force churches to accept mixed-race marriages when states legalized them? I don't remember it doing that, but again, if someone has proof of that it would help a lot.

I think, as in the case of the U.S. not permitting interacial marriage in the 60's that church , that in time, even the Church will slowly accept and will eventually recognize that gay people have just a different sexual orientation-- and that is just the way that God made them.

I guess the secular laws and continued general acceptance by the majority of gay people, (like myself and my partner), will help "lead the Church" itself to do the right thing, eventually. Bottomline though, the Church will do what it wants to and has the right to do what it wants to. My partner and I believe in God, but probably would not worship together in a Baptist Church, say, in DeFuniak Springs. And, hypothetically, the congregation there would probably prefer that we not be members there anyway. All of that could/can change in time though.....

 

[traderx]

I think, as in the case of the U.S. not permitting interacial marriage in the 60's that church , that in time, even the Church will slowly accept and will eventually recognize that for gay people that that is just the way that God made them.

I guess the secular laws and the general acceptance by a majority of the people of gay people, like myself and my partner, will help "lead the Church" itself to do the right thing, eventually. Bottomline though, the Church will do what it wants to and has the right to do what it wants to. My partner and I believe in God, but probably would not go together to a Baptist Church in DeFuniak Springs to worship at this time, and they would probably prefer that we don't not do that anyway. All of that could/can change in time though.....

B-I-N-G-O!!

I have a proposal. Let's grant marriage licenses to gay couples and let them express their love and comittment thru a ceremony.

As for all other ramifications, there is no way we can anticipate what will occur. But....as a practical matter, you resolve issues as and when they arise. Changing laws to permit gay marriages will not be the cure all for what ails the human race, but.....it is an important and necessary first step. Then we can figure out the rest of it.

 

[Chickpea]

I sincerely believe it is a matter of time until gay men and women are afforded the same privileges as straight men and women - AND (to an earlier poster) - monogamy, or commiting to this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of this - being monogamous is totally personal to the 2 people in a relationship.