Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue? How Do We Untie This Knot?

If a same-sex couple want to be seen as "married" by their church, then it's a religious issue - but one that may never be fully accepted by any religion (at least of the Abrahamic faiths).

However, if a same-sex couple want to be seen as "married" by the government then it should be granted without question. Federal recognition of a "couple" - hetero or homosexual - grants them the same level of benefits like Social Security, survivor benefits, rights to visit in a hospital, etc. In this respect "marriage" is viewed as a civil union, whether it has the support of a church or major religion really shouldn't be the government's concern.

It was religion interfering with government, forcing unconstitutional acts like the "defense of marriage act" or pushing state legislatures to pass "marriage bans" on same-sex couples that this issue became so knotty. The government can't possibly be a broker in personal relationships, or legislate who can or who can't be in a relationship, yet that's what we have because religion has such deep ties into the government (they've never truly been separated), we have our government "granting" rights to who can be married based on what our churches think. That's nonsense.

If two people, straight, gay, or lesbian, apply for a marriage/civil union license, take the blood test, and take their vows (whether in a church, magistrate's office, or even a boat captain) then they should be 100% recognized as married in the eyes of the government and that means all the benefits hetero couples enjoy.

reply to post by popsmayhem


Interesting. You simultaneously support the will of the people while admitting the will of the people is biased and unfair.

Is there a magic number of people that should vote? The 50 is too few I guess. Unless they are homosexual then they are too many?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Interesting. You simultaneously support the will of the people while admitting the will of the people is biased and unfair.

Is there a magic number of people that should vote? The 50 is too few I guess. Unless they are homosexual then they are too many?

Yes, the magic number is the number
of voting people in each state..
If it passes it passes, if it does not,
it does not... Why should the federal government
and the supreme court that at one time supported
slavery then enslave the states into whatever the hell
the federal government wants...
It should be up to the states.

reply to post by popsmayhem


People's constitutional rights shouldn't be up for popular vote.

If an entire state decides by popular vote to make you a slave, you'd be okay with that? How about they decide by popular vote to make you a second-class citizen? Still okay with it?

Everybody has equal rights, whether you like it or not.

If a same-sex couple has been together for 30 years, and one get's sick and is in a hospital, that partner of 30 years can't visit them as a family member. Can't get survivor benefits. Can't share SS benefits. Is not seen by the courts or the government as a domestic partner. All because a majority vote in some states decided to keep them second-class citizens? Our right's should never be up for popular vote.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Interesting. You simultaneously support the will of the people while admitting the will of the people is biased and unfair.

Is there a magic number of people that should vote? The 50 is too few I guess. Unless they are homosexual then they are too many?

I think a better example might be pointing out how inalienable rights work within a democracy. Some things you just don't want subject to popularity contests.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Kali74

 

Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue?

Neither.

It should simply be a personal choice, which should not have any correlation to the government or the church. None of their dam business.

i agree...just because these religous people have a constitutional right to "freedom of religion"...does not give them the right to pass laws based on a mythical "god". the arrogance of these people, along with their naivate of the "rest" of the constitution, disqualifies them from decison-making affecting my life

Reply to post by jimmyx

Government involving itself is arrogant.

It is stepping in and becoming god.

Going to city hall and applying/asking if government would so graciously sanctify your union is beurocratic prayer to a very real god on this earth.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

A private union between two consenting adults shouldn't even be a Government issue -- not even a State's Right issue in my opinion, but support State Governments and their People to not recognize such a union. Absent the religious, spiritual or personal reasons and convictions that two people want to form a union (traditional marriage, common law marriage, etc) the only reason Government plays a role is to mold society into what is deemed acceptable by the Government and/or the People.

As for the "religious" issue, the Government should have no role in dictating how any particular religion decides how it conducts or accepts unions -- gay or straight.

My solution? States (here in the United States) should only recognize the contract that two consenting adults have agreed upon, that is it. They then stay out of the business of marriage and leave that aspect of it to religious institutions.

Post Script--

To clarify my position on the State's Right issue: Since I believe in private property and contract law, a State's decision to not honor a contract wouldn't fit into my point of view. No "extra" privileges should be granted by the mere act of "legally" becoming a couple. Asking the State for their permission (with the contribution to their coffers) to validate a relationship is ridiculous.

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

It's none of the states business period. On federal, state, or local level.

Interpersonal affairs are just that.

Let the PEOPLE DECIDE..

If it is passed, it is passed, if it is not, it is not..

Why should a small few be able to take everyone
by the cahones because they say so...

every time the people have decided with a no I might add some judge comes in and reverses the vote.

Originally posted by rebellender

every time the people have decided with a no I might add some judge comes in and reverses the vote.

Giving the feds more power
thinking they are gaining
rights are just loosing them
more everytime they clamp down
on us... These people really need to
look deep down and think about this..
It is a dangerous road..

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Asking the State for their permission (with the contribution to their coffers) to validate a relationship is ridiculous.

But isnt that the dream of every little girl? To one day stand in line at town hall, fill out an application, pay $50 to the state, seek out a state sanctioned justice of the peace, spout off some hocus-pocus gibberish, then spend the next year and a half changing names and beneficiaries while lugging around copies of government approved documentation?

It's a magical time in a womans life. Oh, the romance of it all!

reply to post by popsmayhem


You seem to be ignoring or not understanding the possibility of no government involvement.

Whether it's the fed or a state government involvement in interpersonal relationships carries the same dangers.

It doesnt matter if 50 out of 70 vote one way or 20 million out of 30 million vote one way or 200 million out of 300 million vote one way. Permitting any person or group to dictate the parameters in which you will be allowed to live your life is abhorrent.

reply to post by Kali74



so why do we insist on bringing inflammatory topics onto an open forum for discussion which will bring hundreds of pages of the same quibble as page one.


Kali, Homosexual rights in America have only been made an issue because it is a Voter base. Dems have trolled the gutter for votes on many issues.

Like Race this topic has become a Politically Correct Topic, where there is no real social reform,only repression of bias.
It is for this reason and this reason alone that we continue to have heated discussion on Topics of Religion Race and Politics...

Answers are driven by agenda, not any other reason.....

To answer your question, of course, I should be able to have a Legal civil union with my grandfather so I can collect his possessions and pensions and home rights to insurance and so forth, shouldn't I.

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by Kali74

 

so why do we insist on bringing inflammatory topics onto an open forum for discussion which will bring hundreds of pages of the same quibble as page one.


Kali, Homosexual rights in America have only been made an issue because it is a Voter base. Dems have trolled the gutter for votes on many issues.

Like Race this topic has become a Politically Correct Topic, where there is no real social reform,only repression of bias.
It is for this reason and this reason alone that we continue to have heated discussion on Topics of Religion Race and Politics...

Answers are driven by agenda, not any other reason.....

To answer your question, of course, I should be able to have a Legal civil union with my grandfather so I can collect his possessions and pensions and home rights to insurance and so forth, shouldn't I.

edit on 12-5-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)

Why not? Marry your uncle
and cousin too... Who's to say
who you can love or not?
SLIPPERY slope people in more then one ways....

Just make new terms that define;

Married, marriage= man and woman (happy now?)

Gay "married" or gay "marriage"= legal partnership

That way everyone is happy.

It's all about the terms.

Gays can have "marriage" rights under a legal partnership.

Derp.

Originally posted by BioSafe
Its not a Government issue
Its not a religious issue
Its a PERSONNEL issue !

This, just this.

What a man and woman do, is none of my damn business, live and let live. What a woman and man do is none of my damn business, live and let live. What a man and a man do is none of my damn business, live and let live. What a woman and a woman do is none of my damn business, live and let live.

Are we seeing the pattern yet?

I should be able to have a Legal civil union with my grandfather so I can collect his possessions and pensions and home rights to insurance and so forth, shouldn't I

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, I just don't know if the example above is the best way to say it..

If you were female, it would be just as outrageous, so it's not just because of your gender that makes it "wrong" but that it's incestual. The same safeguards, rules and discouragement that are in place for male-female marriages could be used for gays couldn't they?

People get married all the time for possessions etc. and that's not OK just because they're the same gender?

reply to post by Kali74


Evangelical Republican Christians are the chief backers of legislation against same sex marriage, in a time when they should be worried about jobs and the economy they fret over marriage and abortion. Only one party has made same sex marriage a voting issues, its a attempt to keep you from looking at there record???

We should have freedom from religion. Yet we are not free, they can band together and force there religion views on us all. I live in a state that has blue laws and dry counties. Jews and Muslims thousands of miles away can't live together in peace and the rest of us must suffer. I'm so sick of living under the thumb of religions that have never showed a drop of morality, yet claim morality and righteousness. Didn't Jesus say himself that we will know them by there fruits?? What are the fruits of the Catholic religion and why should I conform to there beliefs?

The western world is crumbling around us and if your basing your vote on social issues and not real world issues we are surely doomed.

reply to post by Rocks123


I very much appreciate you stating your opinion here, I can tell it was difficult for you and I admire what you say immensely even if I disagree about the nature aspect. Your post contained an enormous amount of integrity because most people that are in opposition will side with the government overstepping it's bounds. Thank-you.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

If two people, straight, gay, or lesbian, apply for a marriage/civil union license, take the blood test, and take their vows (whether in a church, magistrate's office, or even a boat captain) then they should be 100% recognized as married in the eyes of the government and that means all the benefits hetero couples enjoy.

That's exactly how I feel. Either that or take away the benefits hetero couples enjoy.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

To clarify my position on the State's Right issue: Since I believe in private property and contract law, a State's decision to not honor a contract wouldn't fit into my point of view. No "extra" privileges should be granted by the mere act of "legally" becoming a couple. Asking the State for their permission (with the contribution to their coffers) to validate a relationship is ridiculous.

Well said. That is my concern with lack of federal recognition. Why should one be recognized over the other or why should all States be required to recognize all "marriages".

reply to post by rebellender

Is there still an issue of some citizens having an advantage over others? Yes, so I will continue to discuss it. It's unfortunate that you can't see that much of this thread so far is discussing the deeper issues involved such as inalienable rights and civil liberties.

Kali, Homosexual rights in America have only been made an issue because it is a Voter base. Dems have trolled the gutter for votes on many issues.

It's disturbing to see where you place an issue that grants liberties to some citizens but not to others, liberties that no government or representative of God has any business denying a fellow human being. Or are gays not human?

To answer your question, of course, I should be able to have a Legal civil union with my grandfather so I can collect his possessions and pensions and home rights to insurance and so forth, shouldn't I.

A not so cleverly disguised straw-man.

Originally posted by Paschar0

I should be able to have a Legal civil union with my grandfather so I can collect his possessions and pensions and home rights to insurance and so forth, shouldn't I

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, I just don't know if the example above is the best way to say it..

If you were female, it would be just as outrageous, so it's not just because of your gender that makes it "wrong" but that it's incestual. The same safeguards, rules and discouragement that are in place for male-female marriages could be used for gays couldn't they?

People get married all the time for possessions etc. and that's not OK just because they're the same gender?

edit on 12-5-2012 by Paschar0 because: (no reason given)

there you go,, you make my point

thanks, peoblem is we all dont see it that way
I am not sure we should....but I will tell you that where marketing of an idea makes someone more powerful watch out America, know what I mean!!!