Some religious clergy in America are refusing to oversee the legal union of couples until same-sex couples have the same right. The national movement has the goal of making clear a distinction between the obligation of the state to grant people equal rights and a church's role in the sacrament of marriage.
Clergy are allowed to act as agents of the state by performing marriages. To some, this tradition seems like a violation of the separation of church and state.
In France for example, every couple must be married by a civil authority, and only afterward, those who choose can also be married according to their faith.
One American reverend has a suggestion: "I would love it if we reserved the word 'marriage' for what the church does, and 'civil unions' for what the state does." Perhaps separating the religious ceremony from the civil act of marriage would give everyone equal rights. Would you support this?
Vicenza
Chevignon
Alviero Martini
How about the state keep the term 'marriage', and the church change to 'theological union' or 'theological ritual'? The term 'marriage' has a rich history attached, which many couples--gay, straight, or otherwise--hope to be a part of without having to resort to consulting a religious institution. So, why not instead take away the powers of the church (absurd they even hold power in the first place), retain the state's regulation of marriage, and if couples choose to carry out a religious ceremony then have them do so. I like the French solution.
Is separating the term 'marriage' and 'civil union' a way to give the people equal rights? Well, a straight couple can have a civil union and can marry if they wish. A gay couple can only have a civil union, and if they're religious and wish to have a 'marriage' they wouldn't be able to because certain ecclesiasts 'believe' homosexuality to be contradictory to their interpretation of a religious tome--an interpretation that is unapologetically discriminatory (or is it the tome that is discriminatory?).
Isn't the 'American reverend's' suggestion more "separate but equal" rhetoric?
1I don't really want to give my opinion on what America should do since I'm not American. But here in The Netherlands you have to get married by civil authority first, just like in France, and I think that's a good thing.
2all marriage should be civil marriage, let religion do whatever it wants without treading on our civil rights.
3I agree... I like France's solution.
Not every heterosexual couple gets married in a church anyways... bleh.
I hate how people argue so much over words. I don't really care what its called. I can call it my own thing... just as long as I have the same rights I expect when I marry/join/whatever with someone. That's probably just me, though.
4Okay, now heterosexual couples can know what it feels like for non-heterosexual couples who want to get married but cannot do it in church.
Secondly, the whole foundation of "marriage" is based on property rights. Women, as objects, were legally owned by their husbands. Even now it is still about material matters, such as money, land, car, you name it. A marriage doesn't prove the love that exists (or doesn't exist) between two people; it cannot represent anything of worth, because the important things in life are abstract ideas.
5I like France's policy.
And if the US couldn't find a way to do that, then I like the reverend's suggestion, mostly since I've been saying "ban "marriage", civil unions for all, and call yourself married if you want to, but keep it out of the legal terms".
6omg! thats what i've been saying to do forever! i'm a christian and when i tell my christian friends that i think gay people should be allowed to be married there'll all like "what!? thats against the bible! nah nah anh!!!" and i'm like i think its fine if they do it legally, just not spiritually ya know??
7Alright I am going to have to disagree with most of you here. Take away the name "marriage" from the church??? Separate church and state? PROPERTY RIGHTS??? Marriage is a union designed by God and can only work with God's help (and even then is difficult). So how about the State keep the name civil union, and ya'll can do whatever you want with that. But marriage is God's union of a man and wife, and "nature" supports that by allowing the parts of man and woman to fit together, and by blessing the union with offspring. I love how the world tries to steal God's wonderful designs and then ruin them by taking God out of them. Well back off all of you, my marriage is centered on and blessed by Him, and it rocks!
8I actually like the reverend's suggestion!
9I really like the idea Libertarian Party members have, that the government either shouldn't recognize any marriages (leaving people free to marry/not marry whoever they wish or that if they are going to recognize heterosexual marriage than they should also recognize same-sex marriage.
10Marriage is a piece of paper and a ring, but anyone who wants to be married should be married. I agree with Phil personally.
11Phil - Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church, and had been for centuries before the US had even been dreamed of.
I've been trying to press the idea of separating church marriage and legal civil unions for years - I'm glad it's finally catching on.
Anonymous#10 - I like the idea, but it's not sensible - the government will need to step in to rule on divorces: custody, sharing of assets, etc, so they have to have some idea of who's married and who's not. Just because my boyfriend lives with me doesn't mean we get to fight over custody of the cats if we break up!
12I agree with the pastor. I want to marry my boyfriend in a few years so we should have a legally binding civil union first then get married. If there are churches who do not oppose marrying homosexuals then they would be able to under this set up and churches that did not agree would not be forced to. I agree with chat. Win/Win for everyone
13Equality for all!
14I wish everyone could get to a solution here. I was married in the Netherlands. My husband is Dutch. The government there seems to have things figured out. Church and state are divided. They run that country like the military. First they don't mess around with engagements. You have to let the city know, and then you have to be married within a certain time frame. If you say you love someone you had better mean it there. You have to have a Civil Union first, even the Catholics. If you choose to have a religious ceremony it comes after. I think the gays have a right to everything the same. Also Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and other European countries. We didn't want a church wedding and neither did he. We were married in a Windmill by a Civil Servant who was selected according to the area of Amsterdam my husband was from. It was all very very much about the bringing of two people together, love and commitment. Oh, and you get to sit down, and drink water if you need to. I breath easy in this wonderful perfect sense. In a way it is symbolical. There they sit down and think, smile and find resolution, and here we stand up and shout with anger, with seething hatred. Sit down everyone. Please.
15^^ Dikke Kus- I thought you were connected to the Dutch- I recognised your user name! I am living in Holland right now
16I think it sucks they don't have engagements here, the girl misses out on a ring!
Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.