Gay Marriage & Religion
In other countries this is not debateable, but in the USA where the rights of people are always in question a topic like this is open for opinion. However a recent court says it is 'unconstitutional'. Does this mean that the same God that helped the men create the Constitution also agrees with same marriage or is it a whole seperate issue? What do you think?
|Does this mean that the same God that helped the men create the Constitution also agrees with same marriage or is it a whole seperate issue? What do you think?|
I don't like the whole gay marriages thing. Here in Canada our old Prime Minister wanted to pass this one so bad that he wouln't hold a referendum. He said, "I don't want to hold a referendum, the majority of canadians will vote against it" Can you say idiot? lol. I'm not a big Jean Cretien fan or this new guy. I don't like him....i'm all for the new conservative party or canada.
|The high court of Massachusetts ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples, rather than civil unions, were constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.|
The state Supreme Judicial Court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state benefits of marriage, but not the title, would meet constitutional muster.
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions but falls short of marriage would make for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples," they added.
OK. I have my explanation on what gay marriage should and should not be.
Gay marriage should be mandated by the states. It should be just as acceptable as the marriage between a man and a woman should be in any courthouse across the nations.
Gay marriage also should be decided upon by each individual church. If a church wants to marry a couple, so be it. If they don't, that is their religion and practices, but should not direct what happens legally and outside of the church.
I know in the past I have leaned towards being against same sex marriage, mainly because of my religious views. Now, I am not so sure.
In Massachusetts this is a very big issue right now. I watched some of the congressional constitutional amendment proceedings on this issue and a women, who is Lesbian and has lived with the same partner for something like 30 years and also is a state rep, spoke. She convinced me that something needs to be done. If she or her partner dies, for example, the other will need to pay some very large inheritance taxes to keep their house. This is something that a married couple does not need to face. This could easily cost a homosexual to lose their house. Property values have skyrocketed in the last 10 years or so and the amount that would be owed as inheritance probably would force a sale of the house. Even if they own the house together, they can only own it as 50-50 partnership. Meaning an inheritance tax would be due for the 50% owned by the deceased person for the surving person to keep the house. Married couples can hold title as tenants by the entirety, which means each of them owns it 100%. Hence no inheritance tax.
This doesn't seem fair to me.
Now, some say let's have civil unions with all the same rights and privileges of a marriage, but let's not call it a marriage. What does it matter what you call it. A civil union that has all the same rights as a marriage is to me no different than calling it a marriage. So, to me, we either allow marriage between homosexuals or we don't. I don't agree with pretending we aren't allowing them to make it more palatable. Either they are married or they are not, I don't care what you call it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
I also have heard that this will further the breakdown of the family and marriage. I read a comment in an internet article that I think is right on the money which says that divorce has caused the breakdown of marriage already.
So, I guess I am still quite firmly on the fence, but feeling a bit uncomfortable in my perch.
Edited: tenaheff on 19th Feb, 2004 - 11:04pm
I have debated about responding to this post, but I feel that I have to. According to my faith, same sex marriage is wrong. I am including a quote by the leader of my church, President Gordon B. Hinckley. This is from a conference talk given in October of 1999.
Gordon B. Hinckley, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do," Ensign, Nov. 1999, 52
I have time to discuss one other question: "Why does the Church become involved in issues that come before the legislature and the electorate?"
I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues. Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.
Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.
Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.
I commend those of our membership who have voluntarily joined with other like-minded people to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. As part of a coalition that embraces those of other faiths, you are giving substantially of your means. The money being raised in California has been donated to the coalition by individual members of the Church. You are contributing your time and talents in a cause that in some quarters may not be politically correct but which nevertheless lies at the heart of the Lord's eternal plan for His children, just as those of many other churches are doing. This is a united effort.
Edited: AGene on 20th Feb, 2004 - 5:23am
What is your position on civil unions? For or against? If you don't have a problem with civil unions, then explain how this is different from marriage? If you do have a problem with civil unions and with same sex marriage, what about the scenario where a homosexual couple that has been together for years, suffers a tax burden that others who are married do not? Is this fair?
Now, I am not saying I think homosexual behavior is moral or o.k. What I am asking is outside of a religious institution, and our government laws are supposed to be secular, or at least not discriminate based upon religion, is it fair for homosexuals to not have the same civil rights as heterosexuals?
Edited: tenaheff on 20th Feb, 2004 - 2:20pm