Civil unions vs. gay marriage: Doesn't defining "marriage" violate the inferred "separation of church and state"?

  • Marriage should not be based in religion.

    If you say that people cannot have marriages because marriage is a union between a man and a women, as defined in the bible, that that does violate separation of church and state. Marriage is not a religious union but simply a union between two people and should not be denied to anyone.

  • It's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

    The evil conservatives who wrote such laws try to say that it wouldn't violate the First Amendment, but of course they're wrong. The fact of the matter is that it's Christianity that holds the believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and those same haters are the ones who wrote those laws.

  • That's An Excellent Point

    To me, it has always been wrong that the state quantifies marriage at all or that the designation should even make a real difference. Marriage, in a government sense and marriage, in a real sense are really two different things. I don't feel the need to have a piece of paper to quantify my relationship, however the main problem with gay marriage is that people are being denied benefits and that is why they are having to fight the government for their rights.

  • Let's keep it separate

    Lets be honest we need to separate church from state, the two should not be mixed together, who you love and what you do with your own personal life should not have anything to do with the church or anything like that, gays should be left alone to love who they want to just like any other group of people.

  • Defining marriage is defining marriage, it can have little to do with the church

    I didn't realize "the church" had the monopoly on marrying people. A marriage or civil union is merely a piece of paper on file with the government. Many people decide to have ceremonies outside the church by judges and other civil servants qualified to officiate a ceremony. Setting a new definition of marriage is just that, setting a new definition. I don't see what the difference is between a marriage and a civil union is to being with, so why is this even an issue?

  • Marraige is no longer a religious institution (if it ever was)

    In this day and age there are many people who identify as atheist who are getting married. There are legal and financial benefits to being married and it would be discriminatory to only allow these advantages for religious followers. The church sanctions and performs a great many marriages but if the government got involved with telling the churches who they had to sanction, then we might be pushing the line.

  • No, it does not.

    It definitely does not violate the rights of the church or separation of church and state because marriage is not and never was the sole institution of a church, Christian or otherwise. The concept of marriage is older than the founding of the Christian religion. It was a fundamental part of many pagan belief systems.

  • Marriage isn't a part of the church

    Although I find it disagreeable, ultimately a church should be able to choose whether they are willing to marry gay couples or not. However, marriage is a government institution, not strictly a religious one. The very fact that marriage is legally defined violates the separation of church & state. Either we abolish marriage or we allow gay marriage, period.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.