Do you believe gay marriage is a moral or religious issue?

I don't mean separate but equal civil unions. Straight people call it marriage whether we go to church or not...no changing the name.

its only an issue to busy bodies who think its their buisness to pry into peoples personal lives.


*eidt /\ well that too /\

Ain't democracy a bitch.

No special laws needed!

Is it moral? What do you mean by moral? Is it a question of right and wrong? Hell, YES! It's WRONG to deny an entire segment of the population something that others consider to be a right.

So, yes, I consider it a moral question, using the strict definition of "moral". And yes, I consider it a religious issue, in that people who are very religious care about it.

But, it shouldn't be. We shouldn't even be asking that question in this day and age and it's pretty fucking sad that we are.

extending a body of law covering the promotion of an unrelated adult to first degree relative to same sex couples.

You can call it whatever you want. That's the basic issue.

Equal under the law means just that, and does not allow for any religious belief otherwise.

the sexual orientation of two adults who wish to obtain a state marriage license is none of my business.

Just what I was going to say!

Gay marriage (or marriage between any two consenting adults - hetero or homo sexual) is a right, period ... not moral, not religious ... IMHO, those distinctions can only be determined on an individual/personal basis - and, apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Look at the divorce rate, adultery, incest, etc - there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that are not following either.

I don't think anyone should have the authority to deny anyone from entering into marriage when both adult partners are willing/committed and share love/friendship with each other. Whether they are successful (stay sharing, caring, loving, committed - whether based on morality and/or religion) has little to do with sexual orientation.

churches.

The State should not have the power to dictate to the various churches/religions/sects/whatever, what they can and cannot do.

OTOH, I believe "separate but equal" civil unions--as a purely legal and secular issue--should be the law of the land.

As a secular humanist/pagan with a small "p", I'm completely opposed to church dictating to state, and vice versa.

And for the record, I'm a straight woman who doesn't give a flying fuck what people do in bed, unless they're doing it with me.

The State should not have the power to dictate to the various churches/religions/sects/whatever, what they can and cannot do.

The government can't do that, and doesn't do that, and that won't change when Gay Marriage is legally recognized. Churches are EXEMPT from all anti-discrimination laws, they can refuse, legally, to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages of previously divorced people, etc. Yet all of these types of marriages are legally recognized, this wouldn't change if Gay Marriages were legally recognized. Is the Catholic Church FORCED to perform same-sex marriages in Massachusetts? No, of course not, its a stupid argument.

Please note that I am treating marriage as a religious concept, and as such, a matter
best left to the churches.

Your religious beliefs/hangups are no concern of mine. I am only interested in seeing that you have the exactly the same legal standing as any partnership sanctioned by a church.

In fact, it is a legal contract, first and foremost. Besides, you made an erroneous argument, hence my objection, and "separate but equal" is anything but.

As far as religious hangups, I don't know where you got that from. Mine was a legalistic argument only, religion doesn't even enter into it. I was using real-world examples as to how churches restrict marriages performed under their roofs, period.

to THEN have a religious ceremony, that's their right, but it shouldn't be either/or.

The religious RW want to keep religion in the civil arena by keeping it a "marriage" license, not a civil union license, which IMO it should be for everybody. That way there are no special rights for "married" people. AFAIC, I am in a civil union, even tho my partner and I possess a marriage license. As a matter of fact, I don't even like "husband" and "wife." I consider them archaic. Just because we are heterosexuals we should not get special terms. I would be very happy to be in a "civil union" partnership.

Hell the Christian Church REFUSED to perform such ceremonies for almost a thousand years after it was established, the exception being for nobles. Marriages always were, and still are, a civil contract between, in the past, two families, and now between two people.

to promote their religious bigotry in the public sector. If we all, religious or not, gay or straight, had one legal contract in this regard, the civil union, and the same rights accrue no matter what the sex of the partners, that would work equally for everybody. In my way of thinking, the "marriage" ceremony would have no legal standing. It would just be a religious ceremony flowing from the religion of the people involved. The legal standing would ONLY be inherent in the civil union and the rights therein would be the same for everybody.

equality less likely. Not many straight couples would agree to have their legal contracts with each other "knocked down a notch". We are more likely to get same sex MARRIAGES legally recognized, instead of legally redefining all "Marriages" as "Civil Unions".

I'm not sure about your thesis here. It hasn't been tested in any state. But every state does require people to get their marriage license in a state office of some sort, so what's the dif? Perhaps we could call it something else, instead of "civil union," because that term has been politicized. Maybe just "wedding" licenses...

Civil Unions are considered separate from Civil Marriages, even though both are state issued. Nor are they equal in this country. Because of the way our State/Federal system is set up, marriage law is either extremely simplified, or overly complicated, depending on the point of view. There are literally thousands of laws on the books, both in the 50 states and federally, that would have to be changed or reinterpreted in order for us to abolish or rename marriage as a legal institution. The point being that politically, here in the United States, that's simply not feasible.

the feds interest in this is really tied up in the tax codes, right?

It irritates the hell out of me that we can't do what the French did. So much more, er, civilized (excuse-moi le pun). I agree with you that "separate but equal" is suspicious, but it seems to me that as long as we have the term "marriage" we're stuck in this church-state battle that we seem to be losing. Just BTW, my son and dtr in law got married in Canada because they were so mad that their gay friends couldn't get married in NY where they live. They found a delightful woman officiant up in the Canadian side of Niagara. She had married quite a few gay couples. We all felt so good about it.

Best of luck to you and all "in the struggle". Count me as one of your strongest allies in this fight and also in the gay adoption area. We support Love Makes a Family here in CT.

We can have a federal marriage law and not have to worry about each and every state law. Federal laws always supersede state laws if they are "better than" state law. I found this out when trying to enforce a child support order across state lines. The state that my ex lived in had less stringent laws regarding child support payments and repayment of Insurance Claims than California and Federal Laws. The same held true when I battled his Insurance Company regarding health coverages for our son. They refused to deal with me because I was not the insured so they would send any reimbursements for covered cost that I paid, to my ex (which he kept). They claimed they could not even talk to me when denying a claim that I had no standing. Well federal law trumped their state law. They not only had to deal with me they had to send all reimbursement checks to me in my name only. I see no reason it wouldn't be the same for this.

Marriage began as a means of consolidating the wealth of two families. Nothing to do with love or child rearing which in the past was always happilly performed "in sin" amongst the working class.

If the churches want something all of their own then THEY can go invent/lobby for something else.

They do not own marriage and never have, my parents have been married 40 years and the church has had nothing to do with it.

The law should allow ANYONE to be marry, churches have every right to say that a person can't marry in their church but that is ALL the right they have on this issue.

Civil unions are what you do when you go to the court house and fill out that liscence.As far as I am concerned anyone,gay or straight,should have the right to do so.
As for marrige,that,IMO,is a religous affair and every church should have the right to restrict or allow their religous rites according to their dogma
Constitutionally,churches should have no say in civil affairs.

live with are out here in the real world.

As opposed to the fake world? Whatever.

I voted other in the poll.Marriage is a civil rights issue.Unfortunately,way to many people try to use it as a religous issue to force their version of morality on others.

If all non-religious 'unions' or whatever are afforded the same rights and legalities as church sanctioned ones, what makes gay unions or marriages any different? There is nothing separate about them. What is really separate, by your definition, is the church unions.

Marriage is just a word. I know that here, where gay marriage/union/whatever is legal, it has nothing to do with the church. It is based on the fact that two gay people may marry/join in any of the same manners as two straight people, and any church has the right to perform or not perform a ceremony for them.

Calling it separate buy equal doesn't make sense. If it is the same as any non religious person getting married, in the eyes of the law, and there is no distinction, it isn't separate. And it shouldn't be. The semantics just seem silly.

is a religous ceremony.The couple must still go and file the civil paperwork.A marriage in a church is not recognized by the state unless the marriage liscence is filed with the goverment.
The only differance is who signs the liscence.Other than that they are,legally,the same whether it occurs in a court house or in a church.

Remember this.The religously insane who are up in arms over the issue view goverment as the enforcment arm charged with promoting and protecting their religon.Don't expect them to have a sane outlook on the subject.

that's my point. What's this separate but equal crap? It has nothing to do with religion. Why should it not be exactly the god damn same as every other union?

Are we using differant words to say the same thing?

Who cares what the church does, the 'marriage' or 'union' for gay and straight couples via law/government should be the exact same thing. No?

Why is it called a marriage license? I was not married in a church and my license does not say civil union on it.

I was using it to distinguish between what happens in a church and what happens at the courthouse.
Personnaly,I view the word marriage as a term for a religous ceremony.

but the government views it as a marriage license for straight couples and a civil union for gay couples. It makes them lesser than with un-equal rights. Use the term Religious Ceremony and Civil Ceremony both in the the eyes of the government are marriages if the couple is straight....so it should be the same for LBGT's.

I would even go farther and say it should be for groups of people also.
Take the mormons for example.As far as I am concerned they should also be allowed to have multiple wives if they can afford to do so.Same thing with Muslims.
A single religion should not be allowed to dictate how marriage is defined.

They were married by the mayor. Not civil unionized. Not domestic partnered. My mother was able to visit my father in the hospital without question throughout my childhood. They have never called each other anything but husband and wife and no one would ever call them anything else.

The CHURCH doesn't have the power to marry people. They just have the right to perform a pretty religious ceremony around the LEGAL institution of marriage. No Catholic church is COURT-ORDERED to marry Baptists. No Baptist church is court-ordered to marry Jews. I suspect they won't be COURT-ORDERED to marry gays and lesbians.

So the same damn churches should butt out of the State's business and my business unless they want to start paying taxes.

And my relationship is not confined to "my bedroom" anymore than your relationship is confined to yours. No one would ever tell you to "keep it in your bedroom" if your husband put his hand on your back in the grocery store. No one would tell you to keep your relationship in the bedroom when he brings you flowers at a restaurant on your anniversary.

Stop trivializing my life and treating it like an ornament hanging in the window of a porn store.

It's the not equal part that they don't get. Don't be too hard on them it took me a long time to understand myself. It was a very simple post here on DU that turned the light bulb on for me. I always thought civil unions were basically the same(in regards to rights) as when I got "married" at city hall. Just the need of giving them two separate names makes them un-equal.

then there should be nothing holding them back from getting married, right?

Sid

Me and about 2 other people. :(

its immoral to deny equality to any of our citizens.

First, "gay marriage" is a misnomer. At least, under current religious mores and beliefs. There is no such concept in their eyes. Ultimately, this discussion has to venture into "marriage" and "civil union" definitions, and for that I apologize.

* A religious institution is defined by the leaders of the religion. For anybody outside that realm to just walk on in demanding the religion change for anyone else's militant shenanigans is asinine. A religion is not the same thing as our Constitution.

* A civil union is defined by the government and how the government is ran. In our case, "by of and for the people".

Civil unions exist for other groups (atheists, et al).

The issue afoot: A marriage falls under the category of a civil union; the latter being the umbrella term for all couplings, and the term that would promote equal tax status, yadda yadda yadda.

It is up to the religion to change its own ways, by whatever means it determines and typically based on observation, if it so decides to observe. In which case, don't give the observers the wrong ideas or hope they ask for an explanation rather than summarily writing off x group of people as being whatever-it-is-they-think-they-are-seeing.

If the majority of a country's people wants to give civil unions to classified forms of coupling, there is no problem - or if a fraction disagreed, too bad. Right now, GLBT civil unions is not a problem. Nor is it harming you or I. (it's none of our business, save for those who are in the union - and it's up to them to design and obey their own way of living. If they break it, that's their problem too.)

But there is a legitimate difference in the two concepts. One based on religion, and the other on government. Amendment 1 proves the separation between church and state. If Amendment 1 ensured a mix of the two, things would be a heck of a lot different.

I say "let the robe wearing folks decide what they think is worthy. If they are a minority, then there's no issue. Civil unions would still exist and there'd be no 'marriage' discussion, because the term is currently a misnomer that does more to offend than it does provoke any discussion."

Here's a perceived problem:

By ramming the M-word down peoples' throats, that has helped nobody's cause.

Worse, as a response to that perceived ramming, some politicians have gone out of their way to compose "marriage amendment" documents that freely interchange "marriage" and "civil union". In short, the people looking for equality may have shot themselves in the foot.

and thus considered unable to actually be equal?

seriously what is wrong with you?

and motivate conservatives. The leadership of the GOP only cares about it because it wins them votes.

Insurance companies would have to cover more people and the government would loose money from inheritances going to previously unrecognized beneficiaries from those who have no other claimants.

The issue is religious people with their stupid "morals" needing to go somewhere and gently fuck themselves the fuck to death.

It's a religious issue, and therefore none of the gubmints business. Legal marriage should not exist in a discriminatory fashion - I don't particularly care about other people's relationships, but the government should either call what they do a civil union and provide it regardless of sex, or call it marriage and provide it regardless of sex.

non religious people regularly marry (even in churches) and religious people often don't marry.

Religion has decided they OWN marriage because it means they get to use an argument based on something other than religion and bigotry.

Marriage is not and never has been a religious institution, anymore than schools are simply because some schools (like some marriages) are religious does not mean they own education (or marriage)

too bad more people don't know their history, marriage has always been about money, until the last couple hundred years or so of human history, almost nobody got "married" except rich people who were consolidating wealth and power, peasants (in other words, most of us) did not marry, they jumped the broom and moved in together with little ceremony because they couldn't afford any ceremony

in my opinion, one of the reasons gay marriage has become so critical is because of the health insurance issue -- chances are high that only one of you can get a "real" job with health benefits, but if you're married, even if you can't get the good job with bennies, you can still get health care through your spouse, marriage as an option doubles your ability to get affordable care, simple as that

nothing to do with morality and everything to do with practicalities -- how will i care for myself and the person i love financially? how will i protect our children without having to see a lawyer and draw up expensive documents every time a question arises?

marriage has a protected legal and financial status that nothing else has

people aren't fighting for the right to spend $30K to be bored to death by a preacher and a wedding planner, they are fighting for life and death issues

marriage has nothing to do with religion and religion tries to steal it to make a buck, many people would never enter a church at all if not to humor their family with a big church wedding and eventually a big church funeral :eyes: to conclude from this that religion owns marriage is to fall for a big lie and a scam

in the same way that the Voting Rights Act was a legal issue. When the courts have to be forced to protect people's rights, against those who want to deny those rights. I believe the 'right' to marry is indicative of a much broader issue of legislating discrimination.

with their lives. I have enough trouble just managing my own.

It was never the governments job to recognize a religious institution in the first place.

All the other issues (insurance, next of kin rights, taxes, etc.) can be solved through simple changes to legislation.

And it's easy to prove it doesn't.

What the government recognizes in marriage is a formal contractual partnership.

The formal contractual partnership is all the government should be interested in, whether for straight, gay, close friends that live together, etc. Agreements between consenting adults should be recognized as valid. The fact that the government uses the vehicle of marriage as a basis for recognition allows it to become clouded in religious and "moral" arguments that confuse the issue.

It seems quite clear to me:

Government "marriage" is legally recognized, with or without religion.

Religious "marriage" in and of itself is not legally recognized at all.

No matter what you want to call it, the fucktards will still oppose ANY legal recognition of same sex couples.

The legislation that is presented should not be wrapped in the language of marriage. It should be presented as recognition of agreements between adults. Whether the issue be insurance, next of kin rights, hospital visitation, etc., the arguments we use for trying to get them passed should be based on legal agreements between adults instead of the language of marriage. Those opposed should be forced to argue against recognizing the rights of adults to make their own financial and legal decisions.

When we try to wrap our arguments in their own language we lose. If it were presented as "Gay couples should be allowed to visit each other in the hospital.", or "Gay couples should be allowed to inherit the property of a deceased partner." the arguments become much harder to oppose by the general public because the issues are no longer in terms of marriage.

So it's just academic. :-(

What nonsense. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, and disputes about it are handled by the state. Now if a church wants to say "You can't receive sacraments unless you marry within the church," that's fine by me, but it has no bearing on whether someone married in front of a Justice of the Peace has a right to community property or child support.

Denying people equal civil/human rights and dignity is immoral.

I don't care if religion is the excuse or not. That's totally irrelevant to me. People can believe whatever the fuck they want in the privacy of their own brains. But I've never had a Muslim or a Jew smack a ham sandwich out of my hand, and anyone using their religion as cover for the basest bigotry and busybodying about OTHER people's marriages is far more offensive than that would be.

:shrug:

that falls outside 'mainstream culture' is a moral issue. What the dominant culture does is 'just the way it is'. Duh.

It might not look now like that is the trend, but people under 30 are almost all supportive.

To deny marriage to a loving couple, based purely on their genders, is immoral. Hence, a moral issue.

As a society, we are morally obligated to grant equal recognition to same-sex couples.

...you are morally obligated not to marry someone of the same sex. Too easy.

how the FUCK is that any of MY business?

How the FUCK would it make the slightest bit of difference in the solidity / validity of my marriage to Mrs R (as the anti-gay-marriage assholes say it would)?

Some people may feel otherwise, but I'll be damned if I'll ever be able to understand why they do.

Redstone

When Leona Helmsley can leave millions as inheritance to her pet dog, but a human cannot leave an inheritance to a same-sex partner, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our legal system.

The government and churches needs to get off our backs and out of our bedrooms.

ps-I'm not gay, human rights are human rights.

You know, it would be really useful if you actually defined what you mean by "moral" issue. Just about any choice can be defined in terms of morality. I'm not even sure how to answer your question of whether or not it's a religious issue. Obviously it's a religious issue to the fundies. It's not to me.

... the church's opinion is moot, they were for racism back in the day also.

Denying any person the right to do so seems rather hateful/authoritarian.

firstly. No one should be getting married on the okay of the government. Neither gay people nor straight people. It should be civil unions for everyone. And secondly, all couples should be treated equally no matter what. So it would be morally proper to promote and foster gay civil unions and straight civil unions. Marriage, however, has been broken by the religious people of this country, so it's time should be over forever. No more state-sanctioned marriages for anyone. Civil unions for all.

person wants to get married? And it certainly doesn't make a "straight marriage" any less sacred.

True love and good sex are harder for people to find and establish than what's commonly thought, so whomever you find yours with, roll with it. One needn't care how others might think you should be.

and gays should have just as much legal right to be married as straight couples. And if churches want to claim "ownership" of the institution of marriage, then nobody should be squawking when a liberal church chooses to marry gay couples.

Sid

I find the continued denial of rights to any adult couples seeking to get married to be immoral. It is absolutely a denial of religious freedom to those couples who wish to be married in a church.

because when you arbitrarily oppress a minority of people for no rational reason, resulting in loss of economic and social well-being, well, that's pretty damn immoral in my book. Few people consider the fact that there are large numbers of children who are dispossessed because the adults in their households can't obtain the same economic rights that eveyone else has.

Since marriage has always meant a union of men with women, do we want to define a same sex union as a "marriage"?? It's not a biggie for me, but there are strong proponents on both sides.

....mind-your-own-fucking-bidness issue! :grr:

Without bigotry, this question wouldn't even need to exist.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

and no -- you are not sane or rational if you are against marrige equality.

since no church can be made to accept marrying people they don't want to -- there is simply no reasoning for your argument.

no need to change legal code for civil arrangements -- simply marriage equality for all.

heteros should not get to keep a piece of the pie for which there is no rational reason to keep from others.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

equality demands.

you don't get to equal anything through separate but equal roads -- and that's anathema to this society period.

whether you like it or not.

and you're right -- not caps lock -- but bold print -- an even more definitive argument winner.


there are over four hundred federal laws that involves and protects the relatioship called marriage.

i want marriage -- not civil arrangements for my folk -- just like you want for yours. move over.

The word itself is part of the civil rights we are fighting for.

No. Sorry. Doesn't work.

"Sane" and "rational" do not mean "right".

By that I mean how can the church keep their flocks when the word of God has been broken by man. The justification attitude defense has been broken by those bible jumpers.

it's immoral to discriminate against someone so it's immoral to not allow gay marriage. So it's a moral issue, right? Or do you mean does it meet some bigot's idea of what morality is?

It's a civil rights issue.

Gay marriage is a human rights issue. "Morality", to use the term loosely, only plays into it when basic human rights-like being able to marry the partner of your choice- are denied. THAT is what is "immoral"

I support gay marriage because it'd be immoral not to.

:shrug:

issue and conservatives make it a moral issue

i think they can quote their bibles all they want, and tsk tsk over it all they want--they don't have to like it, they don't have to do it, but it should be legal! (fair is fair--as my mother says--and of course, that falls into the category of: if straights can marry each other then gays can marry each other)

(i love my mom. while growing up she used to tell me (often) "open your mind" "think about it and open your mind")

Religious institutions are free to marry or not marry whomever they please.

Religious institutions perform marriages, but it is not the officiant's religious status that confers the right to perform marriages. It is the officiant's status as an agent of the state, that is, as a justice of the peace or notary public able to witness, sign, and seal a marriage license. Non religious agents of the state have exactly the same power to conduct marriage ceremonies.

Some religious institutions perform same sex marriages right now, but those marriages are not recognized as legal marriages and confer no rights or obligations. State marriage, legal marriage, does confer rights and obligations.

The word "marriage" is a legal term, as is the word "spouse". Each instance of the word "marriage" and "spouse" in a legal contract would be a potential point of contention between the obligated party, for example an insurance provider, and a "domestic partner" in a "civil union". Granting marriage licenses to same sex couples and instituting same sex marriage would result in unambiguous legal status, would prevent the numerous lawsuits certain to ensue over the terms of contracts pertaining to "marriage" and "spouse", and would save an enormous amount of money over civil unions in rewriting contracts to cover both marriages and civil unions.

Not having marriage for all is, on its face and at its core, discriminatory, and that is morally abhorrent.

benefits to being married and the fact that a class of people are discriminated against and as a result, cannot legally obtain these benefits makes it a civil rights issue. Just like when only white males were allowed to vote. Everyone else was being denied their civil rights by denying them the right to vote.

a moral issue.

It's also a constitutional issue.

And those churches that perform gay weddings and welcome such unions into their community, that's wonderful. They are on the side of the angels.