May 24, 2007 4:19 AM GMT
Hey all - Lawerence, KS just passed a measure recognizing domestic partnerships.....I'm sure this is going to get interesting....
I wanted to get some candid opinions on something that's troubled me with the whole issue of gay marriage. Please understand these are just my thoughts....I'm not trying to change the world here....
Marriage is an institution with in roots based in religious texts. St. Paul (I think) is the one credited with inventing the modern definition (if you can call it that) we use, or think of, when someone says marriage.
To me, this means the term marriage is only applicable within the church and as such Church bodies should therefore be able to decide who they will and will not marry based on the interpretation of their applicable religious text(s).
That said, where we've gone wrong in my book is allowing the states to issue 'marriage licenses'. In the eyes of the state, or the federal government for that matter, the only pertinent issue they are involved with is the tax benefits/penalties/status associated with being 'married'. Thus, in reality it's nothing more than a 'civil union' since the state should not be actively involved in institutionalizing religious activities.
So is there not a compromise on this issue? Can we not simply say the states issue 'civil union' papers and the churches 'marry' people? That way, when people talk about equal rights under the law we can have the debate about what this issue is truly rooted in, discrimination.
Wheew - sorry for it being long...but this is something that been on my mind for a while and I thought this may be a good place to get some input….
I wanted to get some candid opinions on something that's troubled me with the whole issue of gay marriage. Please understand these are just my thoughts....I'm not trying to change the world here....
Marriage is an institution with in roots based in religious texts. St. Paul (I think) is the one credited with inventing the modern definition (if you can call it that) we use, or think of, when someone says marriage.
To me, this means the term marriage is only applicable within the church and as such Church bodies should therefore be able to decide who they will and will not marry based on the interpretation of their applicable religious text(s).
That said, where we've gone wrong in my book is allowing the states to issue 'marriage licenses'. In the eyes of the state, or the federal government for that matter, the only pertinent issue they are involved with is the tax benefits/penalties/status associated with being 'married'. Thus, in reality it's nothing more than a 'civil union' since the state should not be actively involved in institutionalizing religious activities.
So is there not a compromise on this issue? Can we not simply say the states issue 'civil union' papers and the churches 'marry' people? That way, when people talk about equal rights under the law we can have the debate about what this issue is truly rooted in, discrimination.
Wheew - sorry for it being long...but this is something that been on my mind for a while and I thought this may be a good place to get some input….
