Advertisement
disclaimer: i am PRO gay marriage in the sense that legal life partners can be same sex, etc.
i'm a dj, i've dj'd same sex weddings and loved it.
but something has always bothered me. i don't think marriage, which is a religous rite, should be governed by the state AT ALL. i think it is a co-mingling of church and state, same as prayer in schools, swearing on a bible in court, and having "in god we trust" on the dollar bill.
at this point in time, i think ALL life partners (same sex, opposite sex) should be joined in civil unions. if people want to perform a religious ceremony, go right ahead. but the piece of paper the couple signs should not be a "marriage license", it should be a civil union, for everybody.
i'm a dj, i've dj'd same sex weddings and loved it.
but something has always bothered me. i don't think marriage, which is a religous rite, should be governed by the state AT ALL. i think it is a co-mingling of church and state, same as prayer in schools, swearing on a bible in court, and having "in god we trust" on the dollar bill.
at this point in time, i think ALL life partners (same sex, opposite sex) should be joined in civil unions. if people want to perform a religious ceremony, go right ahead. but the piece of paper the couple signs should not be a "marriage license", it should be a civil union, for everybody.
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: church'n'state
Fri, April 23, 2004 - 2:56 AMjust to add to that post,
whatever document would replace the "marriage license" should have all the same rights for same sex / opposite sex couples -
-
Re: church'n'state
Fri, April 23, 2004 - 3:53 AMHey Jules - I agree completely - church and state should as in all other matters be seperated. Faith based policies is another example of the mess created when politicians and the clergy do deals together - no matter how you regard it, there will always be large groups left behind without any assistance (i.e. the ones who don't belong to one of the religions in question, the ones who happen to be of another opinion than the religious dogma of the day etc.), the result being a society in which some are more equal than others - and even worse, a society in which that is regarded to be normal. Religion and politics should never, I repeat, never be mixed!
-
-
Re: church'n'state
Fri, April 30, 2004 - 10:18 AMIf you could get straight people to do that it'd be great - but it isn't going to happen. Too many laws and documents would have to altered. The term "marriage" isn't the real problem - it's people who forget the adjectives. The correct terms would be "civil marriage" and "religious marriage".
They are in fact two very separate things.
The funny thing is that religious marriages for same-sex couples already exist (just not in every religion). Ironically the whole same-gender civil marriage concept has nothing to do with religion.
Civil equality is all I want. Oh - and Bush out of office. ;-) -
-
Unsu...
Re: church'n'state
Sat, May 1, 2004 - 3:19 PMIn france, you have to get the document from the mayor before you can do anything else (or if you don't want to do anything else, then you don't have to be "married" in a church. I totally think that straight couples should be grandfathered in, like if they have marriage licenses, then they can stay married, but that from this day forward "marriage" refers to a civil contract dealing with the couple in question and the state. But yeah...it'd never happen...too many people would think would be taking something away from what they have in order to make it equal for the gays. People suck. -
-
Re: church'n'state
Thu, May 6, 2004 - 7:37 PMI prefer to say MARRIAGE is a religous rite like bar mitzpha
BTW ... look here
www.defenseofmarriagecoalition.org/news.php -
-
Re: church'n'state
Thu, September 9, 2004 - 10:21 AMThat website made me want to puke...no actually it made me want to cry more.
But the link called:
For gay rights, against gay marriage – 07/18/2004
made me think a little bit. Even though I think it's still anti gay-rights to oppose gays being able to marry, that did strike me as a 'step' (though a VERY small one) in the right direction. Would you have heard someone say that line 10 years ago...or even 5 years ago? They wouldn't have supported any kind of gay-rights at all. So to support gay-rights to an extent at least is a step, right? At least I like to think so. Hopefully, it will only get better. The key is to keep fighting and not back down, but to also try to dispel stereotypes and not shout comebacks that only make the 'enemy' think we are what they think we are. We have to show them that we are just like them. We love, we cry, we go to work, we bleed. (I'm getting too close to making this post a bit too Shakesperian here...lol)
Anyway, you get the point, right?
-
-
-
-
State and contracts
Wed, October 20, 2004 - 10:52 AMI hear and understand all the talk about church'n'state.
I won't bore you with my usual monologue about "there is no provision for separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution. Only stuff about barring relgious testing for office holders, and the prohibition of any laws favoring a church and/or religious practice.
The question about marriage is why does this contract require a license?
Isn't "common law" the law of the land?
-
Unsu...
Re: church'n'state
Wed, October 20, 2004 - 12:46 PMChurch and State together is anti-constitutional.
