It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Oppose gay marriage? Take "marriage" out of the law

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 09:50 PM
From what I see almost all conservatives are flaming the new gay marriage laws and see it as a major threat to christianity itself, alone with other religious establishments in the nation. I oppose gay marriage because to be it is a religious thing, however I do not oppose the same rights of marriage passed onto gays themselves. That being said for us to ban gays from getting married is against the very constitutional rights the founding fathers implemented upon this nation. If folks here love their gun rights, their freedom of speech, then we should also respect the rights of all man regardless of race, creed or sexuality.

That being said marriage in itself written in the law is unconstitutional for the founding fathers established these United States to be have a seperation of religion and law. For years fringers and conservatives alike have waved the constitution in everybodies face when it came to their arguments, however they continously forget other aspects of the constitution that they fail to follow. Marriage is written in the law, however it is relgious, and in addition these laws to fall over all american citizens, regardless of their race, creed sexuality. In that sense the law of marriage itself is unconstitional and is constitutional when applied to gays.

I say that if folks feel gay marriage as a threat to their religion then take the term "marriage" out of the laws of these lands, keep it strictly christian and imploy a replacement term that follows all the same laws as marriages, besides specifically naming a priest that is who 99% of the time does marriages. Keep the religious marriage law to christianity itself and then in that sense nobody here will have to worry about gays and other kinds of sexuality taking part in it.

So the question many here would then ask, well what if I want to get married but at the same time have the laws and rights of marriage? Well you have to go through the replacement law that carries out "marriages" but at the same time you can also choose to do so under christian churches, although that have no direct link to the law of the land, just purely choice.

I think its only fair and I feel it will make everybody happy. If folks here well and truly feel this isnt fair then maybe you should reconsider where you stand with the constitution.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 10:11 PM
What I want to see is, one single cogent explanation of how gays getting married undermines, harms or even offends marriage. The biggest complaint most people have against gays is that they sleep around, what is wrong with them trying to live by the same standard?

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 10:16 PM
that would be the logical thing to do. That way any 2 people can have a sort of civil union and get the same benefits now as marriage. The thing is though, there are churches now that give marriage to gays so really even then they would have their gay "marriage".

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 10:17 PM
I would agree, it doesnt harm anybody. I think the issue, that I share to an extent, is that marriage is a religious thing, and that the bible opposes gay marriage. Thats why Im saying keep marriage strictly christian then, dont keep it in law... its unconstitutional in any case according to what the founding fathers inacted.

I believe in god, I am a christian and try to be a good one all the time, but at the same time I recognize that God intends me to preach, not force my beliefs on anybody else. When Jesus was walking the earth he preached, he didnt forcefully convert anybody. Marriage in law is both unconstitutional and a force of religion upon citizens of all kinds.

I say take it out and make everybody happy.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 10:20 PM
I fully agree and have been in this mind a long time
Marriage is a man woman union- of religious foundation for a nuclear family type situation.
this was put into the law book why?
the law should confer a spousal union of two individuals getting together for what ever reason- and the legal rights to care for each other, and provide a commonality.
the marriage thing is purely a ceremonial getting together which is same socially but not legally (other wise you wouldn't have to get a marriage license and a legal proceeding to do it, and get married in a temple or church later in you own faith)
the law should be re written to strike marriage out of the wording.
after all the country now has a more than 52% 1st marriage divorce rate, and how does allowing same sex couple to marry make marriage less socially important or relevant. more than half of the hypocrites get divorced not honoring marriage and the family anyway

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by fiorano
after all the country now has a more than 52% 1st marriage divorce rate, and how does allowing same sex couple to marry make marriage less socially important or relevant. more than half of the hypocrites get divorced not honoring marriage and the family anyway

Yeah, I sort of laugh when I think that gays might actually bring back some decency to marriage. It's a joke how it is now with the amount of people that get divorced, marriage is in shambles... strange that some gays want it but go figure

posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 02:51 AM
I've always thought this, and suggested it many of times while out with friends having political discussions.

A friend of mine is gay - so naturally my view of gay marriage is quite liberal.

However, we do have a friend who is quite religious in her beliefs, and defends to the death - that marriage is only for a man and a woman.

"Fine, take the word marriage out, and call it a civil union." I told her.

And why not? If it's the wording that irks people, then change the damn wording. It's not that difficult, and straight people are not the only people with rights to happiness. If two people are happy - why shouldn't they get "married" or "unioned" if they so choose?

Times have changed, societies views on certain subjects have changed... The terminology should also change to accommodate all.

Personally i think marriage is an outdated concept... With the rate of divorces, casual sex and second marriages - the idea that marriage is something sacred has gone out the window. For the sake of tax breaks and benefits - okay. Do it. Sign your name on the dotted line and wear the rings if you want to - you should have the choice no matter who you are or who you love....

- Carrot

[edit on 4/11/2009 by CA_Orot]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:04 PM
This has been in my head for a while also. If they want to be joined legally, as family, they should have every right to do so. But just call it something else to keep everybody from getting in such a snit about it.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:12 PM
So its a religious thing...yet by getting married you get given privileges by the state? so what is it? a religious or state affair? anyhoo i don't think many homosexuals would really care as long as they get all the state given privileges a married couple do under law.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:17 PM
I disagree with the idea that it "is a religion thing".

it isn't, many, many couples have bypassed religion all together and are married. common law marriage predates this nation, and well, all that was required to be married was for the two to live together and act like they were married.

it seems to me, that although you are trying to protect your idea of marriage from the intrusion from gays, that in the process you are willing to throw alot or people who are married now into the category of not married, at least by your terms.

top topics


log in