Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals

What is your point? You seem to obliquely state that defining marriage as between a man and woman is against the founding priniciples of the country, but you don't really bother to explain how or why other than some grumbling about the separation of church and state. Any US laws will be restricted in their purview to the civil aspect of marriage, and the authority of the states to issue marriage licenses to couples seeking marriage. Vermont already allows a 'domestic union' status that has equivalent rights to a marriage, but it's not a marriage. I think you're just a bit too outraged (and I'm not clear about what) to really see what's at issue here, which is ultimately just a definition of a legal term.

 

I don't know about in the US, but over here at least marriage is no longer a purely religious idea. My parents are married, but neither are religious. Rather than having a church ceremony, it took place in a registry office.
There is no legal difference and no emotional difference, just a lack of religious references.

I have nothing against religious people, their beliefs are not my concern. I simply think that religion and governmental policy should be seperate things. I do not think that there is a valid reason to deny same sex couples the right to marriage.

As for same-sex adoption, other than social acceptance I can think of no real difference between this and a single-parent family.

 

I'm not "outraged" at all. And sorry about saying you hate bush... you're "not a fan of him"
Anywho. Grumbling about seperation of church and state, yes. Because that's the only thing that this law has anything to do with. It's a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong. To condone a religious belief with state legislation is wrong. That is what I was brought up believing and what I stand by, however ignorant that may be to the truth.

 

Fraid not.. it used to be, however only when the majority of the world was religious and those who weren't seldom got married anyway, however like many outdated/evolved traditions it is now also a Civil affair (in fact, I believe the UK civil marriages outnumbered religious ones for the first time this year). Marriage has become the institution of two people who wish to declare their love for eachother and make that statement for their entire life, forsaking all others. Marriage is most definately not just a legal issue, but a statement, a public declaration.. something many people wish to make, and yet they would be denied by bush's proposal.

I am very glad that the law changed in the UK to allow weddings in other places outside of churches, so that I could have a civil wedding somewhere other than a registry office.

 

Marriage is a religous thing. Just because some people have decided to alter marriage procedure to suit themselves, doesn't mean that proper marriage is no longer a religious affair.

 

I implied it wasn't solely a religious event. Just because it stemmed from religous roots doesn't mean it is still exclusively a religious process.. if you use that argument you may as well say Xmas day is solely a religious event.

Now there are religious and civil weddings, denying gay people the right to civil weddings is unacceptable.

 

100% agreed.

I do however think that gay and lesbian couples should be able to name their partners as next of kin (is that the correct term?) so that in the event of death or whatever, the partner is left all their stuff and all that.

 

Well mine isn't.

I had a cival wedding on a historic boat in front of my family and friends (best man was gay). It wasn't religious, does this mean it's not a proper marriage?

Marriage was a religious thing but times change, in the same way people now have Naming Ceromonies for their children rather than Christenings.

Well said sweetie!

 

I agree totally, why should you force someone to give up legal rights simply because they choose to have a relationship with someone of the same sex?

 

I don't think anyone wants them to give up legal rights, but they have nearly all the same legal rights anyway. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony between a man and a woman and I think that is how it should stay.

 

So does that mean you disagree with all civil weddings, gay or not?

 

I really don't understand those who share the opinion of Bush. I don't care if you disagree with homosexuality, or it goes against your religious beliefs. Why should you be able to *control* other lives?
To Linear and those who responded similarly, it is not about whether you think the right to marry wouldn't make a big difference. Why should straight people be allowed to marry when gay people can't? I firmly believe that heterosexuals and homosexuals should have the same rights. I just can't understand otherwise.
To those who are saying marriage is a 'religious' matter. To put it simply, it isn't. There are many straight, atheist couples out there. Should those marriages be outlawed as well? But even if it was a 'religious' matter *all* of the time, I don't understand why that means homosexual marriages should be illegal. Are you saying that there are no religious homosexuals? This is most certainly untrue. There is a homosexual couple at my own church (Lutheran) as a matter of fact.

 

Correct, a proper marriage is a religious affair. (IMO)

Nobody wants to control their lives. If they really want to "marry", they can go ahead and have a little ceremony and call themselves married. It's not a proper marriage but if it makes them happy nobody's going to stop them.

No. I'm saying most religions I know of are against homosexuality and don't allow it.

 

Oh, how generous of you to allow that.
You say you don't want to control their lives, but not allowing them to have *legal* marriages is doing just that. No religion should control legal matters. You consider marriage to be a religious thing, but it isn't. It just simply isn't.
Here's something to consider. If a homosexual person's (not legal) spouse was to have some sort of accident and end up in the hospital, legally, that person would not be allowed to visit their spouse. There has to be a legal relation or permission, but an unconscious person isn't likely to give that out.
So you're saying the majority of religions frown upon homosexuality. Erm, so? Why should your religion be superior to mine?

 

I get the impression that some people have a certain tone when speaking about 'those' homosexuals in this thread. In light of that i'd just like to say i have some homosexual friends and i have made the (to some people seemingly shocking) discovery that they are in fact human beings like you or I, in fact just the same. Just because someone has a different taste in something is no need to be offensive and patronising, so why isn't that the case here?

Just a casual on-topic observation, not a critism of anyone

 

I agree with acrimonious. I happen to be homosexual, and am tired of hering that I'm unnatural (I'm not naming names, but it was said in this thread...)

 

I think my biggest problem with civil marriage vs religious marriage is that religious marriage to me is sacred.

It took a lot of time, sacrifice and commitment for me to go through a religious marrage.
Not just a trip to the courthouse, and a few $100 bucks.

Where as a civil marriage to me just seems, well less than special.
It has as much importance as signing a contract.
(Which is all you are doing in a civil marriage)

I feel that my marriage is sacred and special.
My wedding vowes are locked on my own words, not on a signed paper contract.

I didn't get married for a tax break and better insurance rates.
I did it because I love my wife and will stay with her forever.
Not just until "death do you part or divorce if sooner"

I guess I to me civil marriage should be changed to "civil partnership"
I do know quite a few homosexuals (Heck, Austin is #2 behind San Francisco)
I respect their feeling for each other, but I can't bring my self to see their relationship having the same sacred level that I hold to my own.
This may be because of my feelings, or simply that homosexuality is considered a sin in the bible, but either way, it doesn't seem the same to me.

 

If I might coin an English phrase here for a moment. What a complete load of utter bollocks.

In fact, I'm actually extremely offended at that comment and the holier than thou (how apt) attiude you posted with that statement is mind boggling.

a) My wedding had 'vows' which mean as much to my wife and I as any religious ceremony. They were chosen by us and were the ideals upon which our marriage is based.

b) Unless I read differently, you still have to sign a marriage certificate so your wedding is no less a simple contract than ours.

c) Our wedding day was the most special day of our lives, you intimate that because it wasn't in the 'site of god' it's somehow trivial.

Oh yeah.. I forgot that. We just popped out on a whim one day, took our welfare cheque and got married at the local 'Stop and Commit'. We never really thought about it, or spent months planning it and are thankful of the thousands of pounds put into the ceremony by our parents in order to ensure it was a perfect day.

I actually feel sorry for people who are constrained by the limitations of a religious wedding and are forced to say things they may not mean or attend a ceremony/location which isn't what they would truly want. My wedding at least was exactly what *we* wanted.

Personally I think civil weddings hold *more* value than religious ones as it allows people not bound by religion to publicly declare their love for one another.

 

Homosexual men have the same right to marry a woman as other men do.

That's obviously facetious, but it illustrates the point. I asked "what right is actually being denied" and if there's nothing whatsoever sacred about marriage, then what prevents the two people from drawing up a contract and having a ceremony where they invite their friends and family?

Nearly everyone here seemed to object vociferously on the grounds that marriage was not a purely religious institution in our times. So get your lawyers, and draw up a contract. No need for clergy, and you are entitled to the protection of the laws of your locality.

 

Hey, now that this is getting ugly, I need to wave my hands and say that I just find this discussion interesting, and I'm not trying to espouse a viewpoint that denigrates anyone's religious, moral, or philosophical beliefs, I just would like to know who thinks this hurts people, and specifically why?