Quote:
Originally posted by lurkette
I've said it before and I'll say it again - none of this would be a problem if we left "marriage" in the religious sense to the churches, and instituted some kind of secular civil recognition of conjugal rights by the government. Though I'm kind of with Art - a lot of the legal stuff can be handled through other channels, and if you're committed to each other, have a commitment ceremony or something. If you want to be "married" go talk to your clergy. I'm all for giving gay couples the automatic rights that heterosexual couples get upon marriage - otherwise it's hypocritical and unfair. But I think rather than extending a flawed process to more people we need to separate the religious and civil aspects of marriage at the legal level.
|
I agree. I don't think it should be up to the state to define marriage. There should be some sort of civil union that provides the benefits. How this is an attack on the sanctity of marriage, eludes me. Does this mean married people suddenly aren't going to love each other as much? Are my parents going to get a divorce over this, all because gays can marry each other? Although I can understand the arguments about whether or not the courts should have stayed out of it and let it go through the legislative channels, I am glad that this issue is being brought to the open for discussion. Most polls I have seen show a majority that opposes gay marriage, but I think that this majority is going to shrink within the next few years. Then again, polls are just polls, and the ones I saw were pretty close. It was 59% opposed Gay Marriage, but only 51% opposed civil unions. I'll try to find a source, it was an ABC News Poll.