We all agree that we should be able to get the benefits that heterosexual couples get when they marry. However, do you make a distinction between "religious marriage " and "civil marriage "? Do you think all churches should have to grant gay couples matrimony? Do you want to leave it up to the religious institutions themselves? Why is marriage a government-regulated institution, anyways? This issue is a lot more complex than people think, and I'm interested in hearing your opinions.
Easy. There should be absolutely no legal recognition of religious marriage; civil unions (called marriage, or statutory cohabitation for non-sexual/romantic couples) should be the only valid form acknowledged by governments, and a religious marriage should be a non-binding option to be taken place on top of the legal marriage. This isn't a radical proposal, and is accepted in a fair few countries. As for the churches, if they want a say in marriage laws, they should pay taxes. Then they can fuck off anyway if they try to actually do anything to change them, because the law should be entirely secular. Religious voters shouldn't get an upper hand with money-laden churches lobbying to increase their own influence and prevent change.
1. Churches should never be required to perform gay marriages. That is entirely up to the churches. 2. People like to create this straw-man argument about gay marriage and claim that religious institutions will be forced to perform gay marriage, however no gay marriage bill I have ever seen includes this as a stipulation. 3. The government views religious marriages and non-religious in the same way. Getting married in a church is just as valid as getting married in a courthouse and they are both called "marriage" and both come with the same benefits. So why not extend this designation to same-sex couplings?
In the end I think that unless a church is sacrificing orphans to their god, the government shouldn't tell them what to do. But it makes me sad that there are so many churches out there who won't marry gay people. Honestly I think that offends God that they do that.
Other organisations have to follow regulations, rules and compulsory obligations, churches should be no different. They should be made to do same sex marriage, else they're discriminating. But I agree with Aussie792, only civil union should have any legal status, religious matrimony is a spiritual thing which is optional and holds no legal status.
Thou speakest the Truth! Amen and hallelujah! Only change I would make is to say that the religious ceremony, if performed, with a marriage license is sufficient for the civil component, without having to go through a separate ceremony, as you would in some places (France for one).
In what universe do we imagine that we're going to successfully "get the government out of marriage?" I don't really care what churches do, as long as when I do get a civil marriage, it's called marriage so that I don't randomly get fucked over because people forgot to rewrite a statute so it says I'm "domestic partnered" or "civil unioned" or "faggot togethered" or whatever dysfunctional bullshit conservative America wants to call it.
Abolish government controlled marriage, and just leave it to people what they want to do with their life. Not that it's going to happen any time soon.
Religious institutions should not be forced to do anything that run contrary to their beliefs which is why I believe in civil unions. If you want a religious ceremony, then it's yours to pursue. If you want a religious ceremony and the institution will not perform it seek another church, temple, whatever... No to be flip, as I have deeply held religious beliefs, but it's a club. If they don't want you, why do you want to belong. Find a better club.
Allowing civil unions between same-sex couples to be called "marriages" doesn't force religious institutions to change their ways. Additionally, there are churches that WILL perform gay marriages. Should we just tell them they can't do that?
from a legal perspective couples who are married are afforded different protections and rights that couples who are joined legally under civil unions are not. I'd have more respect for the "government shouldn't regulate marriage" argument if every time it were made it were not rooted in hatred for the sole purpose of excluding non-heterosexual people from marrying.
Legal marriage is a matter for the state, and should be open to consenting adults. Therefore, divorcees, athiests and gay people etc should be able to get married in a civil ceremony. Religious organisations should be able to choose whom they marry. Therefore, if they wish to say that divorcees, gay people or (for instance) non-Catholics cannot get married in their church, they should be able to. I believe that the state should offer civil unions AND marriage, because this means that gay religious people who do not believe in gay marriage as such can have their relationships recognised (I know one person like this). In some countries, eg. Germany, all marriages HAVE to be conducted in a civil service - any religious ceremony is completely separate from the legal part of it and usually done afterwards. In the UK, the marriage ceremonies of many religious organisations have legal recognition, so instead of (for example) marrying in a civil service and then having a religious ceremony, you will only have a religious ceremony.
Marriage is universal--it occurs across the world and among all different religions and even atheist get married. Therefore, it is evidence that "marriage" is merely a legal concept and people attach their own meaning to the other components (i.e. some consider marriage a spiritual connection, others do not, however they're still entitled to get married). "Marriage" should, in my opinion be entirely a civil matter and if religious couples want to go and have receive blessing from their church and "spiritualize" their marriage, they are certainly free to do so. Before any same-sex marriage equality, an atheist heterosexual couple could go to a court and be "civil married" and it's not like anyone said that is not a "real" marriage. With that said, I do not believe any religious institution should be forced to perform any ceremony they do not wish to. For example, historically, Catholic churches used to not perform "second marriages" to previously divorced couples (I believe I am correct) because they did not believe in divorce (I think they have relaxed on this, not sure as I am not Catholic). Ultimately, civil marriage and religious blessing of a marriage need to be two distinct practices. Then, same sex couples can participate fully in civil marriage (just like atheists) and religious couples can be blessed in the church and condemn the evil "civil married" to hell in their minds if that is what they wish! But in the end everyone still as the same rights.
Yes. The legal components of marriage are vital (whether we like it or not) from hospital rights, rights to abode, immigration, mortgages... the scope is ridiculously big and not having these equal rights can have a real strain on a relationship.