So Washington is going to be the 7th state to legalize gay marriage. I think that's cool, people should be able to do whatever makes them happy...
However, wasn't our whole government founded on a separation between The Church and The State? In my opinion marriage is a religious thing therefore The State should have no part in it, period. This should be completely up to the religion he/she belong to and if their church will allow it. It is of my opinion NO ONE should be able or allowed to FORCE their opinions onto others. So if that religion or church doesn't allow it, find a new one...
So what I'm saying is why wasn't this allowed in the first place and who thought that they should overwrite the constitution? I mean I get that they think that they are helping our society or whatever, but as humans we are going to do what we want to do no matter what and don't we have a right to be happy?
Anyways do you think the government should be a part of this?
there is a tricky matter of democracy - 49% can be ruled by the misguided opinions of 51%.
For starters, yes, separation of church and state should imply that religious morals NOT become laws. And the state cannot interfere with policies of churches - they can exclude whoever they want to for any reason they want to. That is why they do not receive our tax money.
However if, hypothetically, 51% of the nation is christian and, hypothetically, they all believe that homosexuality is a "sin" then they have the power to influence the laws passed. It is the Supreme Court, I think, that would over ride a popular law as Unconstitutional. In order to separate the issue of "sin" from such a law, politicians have to disguise their arguments as being a matter of tradition or prove that the "sin" in question is a very real threat with very real consequences outside of the church's standards for morality.
I'm just explaining why, what seems to be a pretty clean cut matter, turns into such a ridiculous mess.
As for my opinion, marriage, outside of any religious context, is a domestic contract between two competent adults and not a social contract that any third party should have a say in.
I agree... it is a contract. I'm no Christian and technically I am not married but I am bound by a civil union...
So in my opinion the Supreme Court should have jumped in and been like "Oh no, wait a minute..." and called it out. There really is not MORAL reason as to why it shouldn't happen and I think everyone knows that.
1. Hey, nobody has said no to the government breaking religion's copyright infringement's before--if the US wants to plaigarize marriage from Religion, can religion really complain? Well, yes, if we're taking this poor metaphor of mine seriously, but in fact Religion has not copyrighted marriage, so it's up for grabs.
2. You don't have to get married at a church. ._. Actually, the church thing is purely ceremonial. Marriage might be between a man and a woman, but paperwork is between marriage and not-marriage. Seriously, I'm pretty sure you don't even have to meet the person you're marrying, technically, although why one would marry someone they don't know is beyond me. It's not like a federal agent sits in front of you as the priest tells you to kiss the bride/life partner/whatever, taking notes and photographs for the sake of evidence. The ceremony is ceremonial, and not actually neccesary.
In summary, you don't seem to understand how marriage works. And I respect that.
No one said it had to take place in a church.
I for one was married in an elevator in a court house.
And I think you completely missed the point of this.
The point is. Why in the world does the government believe that they should have the right to take away our natural rights of Life, Liberty, Prosperity, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The problem I feel with gay marriage is purely a secular one. IE the only point of comparison between homosexual relationships and heterosexual ones is that of romantic love, and the state is not in the business of subsidizing romantic love.
Heterosexuals do not need to be in romantic love... I know plenty of people who have gotten married for the benefits...
But that's the point. The state ISNT in the business of subsidising romantic love. Marriage isn't organised around hetrosexuals for that reason.
Your view of marriage is medieval in the fact that the state is expected to get something out of marriage, just as fathers were when they married off their daughters.
How does the state lose money by allowing gay marriage?
Because from a purely economic perspective, the state's primary business in marriage is children. Homosexual couples cannot create children
I support any and all persons that wish to be married, I just wanted to get that out there before I started in on this.
Though people believe that the term "separation of church and state" is in the constitution, it is not, it was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson like many of the founding fathers were not truly Christian, they were Deists (believing a higher power created us then sat back to see what we would do/become.) Now there is an article in the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797 that states this:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This is was not fought over in congress nor was it veto'd by the president at the time(John Adams a known deist), it was passed unanimously. This is the only known government document to stated this message. The US government did little to bring religion into policy until the 1950s, when congress voted to add "In God We Trust" to all currency, they also added "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. After that religious dogma started popping up in government everywhere. This is why people tend to think that religion should dictate the definition of marriage, even though it is wrong and really a violation of civil rights.
I know I am only one person, but I refuse to acknowledge the term "Civil Union" because to pledge love and life to another is marriage to me and I will never see it another way.
TL:DR Education on constitutionality of church and state, and I support people that want to be happy together no matter sexual orientation.
However, wasn't our whole government founded on a separation between The Church and The State? In my opinion marriage is a religious thing therefore The State should have no part in it, period.
If marriage were only a religious thing, the state would be correct in staying out of it. However, there are many legal ramifications to being married. This means the state IS involved, making marriage an issue not only of religious freedom, but of civil rights.
Being married confers a LOT of legal benefits, and implies many rights including:
1) You can get tax breaks by filing jointly.
2) If one spouse dies, their property automatically goes to the remaining living spouse (this is an oversimplification of the actual legal situation in some states, but for the most part true)
3) If one spouse is hospitalized and unconscious, the other spouse is responsible for deciding what course of action should be taken (as opposed to the unconscious person's parents or other blood relatives).
4) If one spouse dies, custody of the couple's children automatically stays with the remaining living spouse.
5) You can get your spouse added to your insurance at work.
There are more, but you get the idea.
For heterosexual couples, these things are so obvious that people don't even notice them. Obviously in a good home, if the mother dies the father will continue to take care of the children and vice-versa. Who would take a child from a loving parent?
For gay couples, all of these things become major issues. One partner is in a coma? The other partner has no legal right to choose a course of action, or even to visit.
One partner dies? The house doesn't automatically go to the surviving partner (who, you know, actually LIVES in the house), but to the dead partner's parents or children. The surviving partner doesn't even have a right to the children.
Gay couples have to get all kind of legal paperwork filed to replicate the situation that married couples get without even thinking about it. Then, even if they get a good lawyer to set everything up in a watertight manner, a determined extended family can easily contest it.
It's definitely a legal issue, and the government should get involved.
1) The Spouse dying thing can be sorted out by a will
2) The Hospital thing can be sorted out by making arrangements in advance
3) The Children issue can be sorted out in part by the will
Other issues ultimately cost society resources, and the reason that society does not give those resources to homosexual couples is that ultimately, society does not benefit from them.
Heterosexual couples, with the innate capacity to produce children, in the long run have a very positive benefit for society. Though there are a small number unable to have children, the systems necessary to root them out would be too complex to put in place and thus cancel out in part other savings.
For more detail see here