Comment by Jeremy on November 26, 2011 at 3:25pm

They don't want government to tell them(anyone) what they can or can't do, EXCEPT when comes to gay marriage, or teaching creationism in school, or equal right, etc, etc....

Comment by KaraC on November 26, 2011 at 6:44pm

Small government; so small it can fit in a uterus and demand that you give birth.

Comment by bob spencer on November 26, 2011 at 6:52pm

why would gay people want a religious "marriage"? so they can be just as deluded as the clergy? just love each other ffs

Comment by Jeremy on November 26, 2011 at 7:50pm

Yes indeed Kara.  Bob I imagine most are just looking for a "civil marriage", justice of the peace, though I thought there are a few denominations that do accept same sex couples.   

Comment by Dylan Martin on November 26, 2011 at 8:12pm

Absolutely.

Comment by KaraC on November 26, 2011 at 9:05pm

Right Jeremy. Most gay and lesbian people I know want a marriage in the legal sense, not necessarily "holy matrimony" in the religious one. Of course a few do actually want some sort of religious ceremony. I personallly don't get that, and believe the religious side is a matter for the churches to decide. If you happen to be a member of a church which condemns LGBT people, then vote with your feet (and your tithe).

Comment by Ryan Peterson on November 26, 2011 at 10:39pm

I agree,

Religious organizations should be able to set whatever rules that they want, all they do is have a ceremony. Marriage is a legal arrangement with legal connotations, tax 'benefits', etc. The civil union is supposed to bring those legal 'advantages' to same sex couples. I'm not gay, and am not up on the eccentricities of Civil Unions vs Marriage, but In this day and age, I find both archaic.

Comment by Nick Lavalley on November 26, 2011 at 11:44pm

Ryan,

The only real difference between civil unions and marriages is that all states recognize marriages but not civil unions.  Because of that, couples engaged in civil unions don't receive any federal benefits that marriages would (whatever those may be).  Basically it's laid out in the Defense of Marriage Act signed in 1996 by Clinton that prohibits same sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.

 

I'll admit I had to look it up because I had no idea either.  Here's the source for a little more information: http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Comment by Bill Butler on November 26, 2011 at 11:56pm

I have made the same argument myself may times its just Jim Crow all over again separate but  equal is never equal and never will be its just cover for discrimination.

Comment by Dave Gibbs on November 27, 2011 at 1:03am

The terms marriage and union as English words mean the same thing, in essence.

 

As for their legal meaning in the U.S., I believe its fine for a religious group to not consider gays as being "married" because the view of a religious group have nothing to do with the law. The secular state cannot recognize a religious definition of anything and cannot discriminate against practices or people for any reason which is based on a religious view. If the state is going to consider gay "unions" or heterosexual "marriages" somehow legally different, it must have a justification to do so which can withstand reason.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page