posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:12 PM
I believe in a separation of church & state. Part of it has to do with marriage. Marriage can mean either two things, depending on if someone is
religious or not. If they are religious, it is a holy bond, something from God, and only has meaning if done in church. If, however, they are not
religious, marriage is only symbolic, and has much less meaning.
So, my point is, when people argue about whether homosexuals should be allowed to get married or not, I'd like to argue that no one should be allowed
to get legally married. It should be up to the church, not the state.
Civil Unions should be allowed for any two people, but only for certain reasons: making name-changes easier, allowing visitation at a hospital,
sharing bank accounts, and so on.
When it comes to marriage, it is, as I've said, religious in nature, and should only be done by the church. If someone is not religious, it has
little meaning except symbolic meaning. The physical "rights" are supplied by the Civil Union.
And that is my opinion. It's a complicated subject, but I hope this makes sense. Let me give an example or two to clarify.
Two people are, say, Catholic. To them, legal marriage means nothing. They DO get legally married, but the REAL marriage is in their Catholic
Church, where it becomes something holy and sacred. To them, the legal aspect means little or nothing. It is the religious part which has deep
Two other people are agnostic. They don't go to church, and are not religious. They want to get married for the symbolism. They love each other
and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They go and get legally married, have a big party, and then go on a honeymoon. To them, the
marriage DOES have symbolic meaning, but not nearly to the degree as the religious couple.
So what I propose is, to allow Civil Unions for any two people over 18, and leave marriage up to the church. Some churches are okay with marrying
homosexuals, and some are not.