Question
•
U.S. Government
Consider this with the poll question. A lot of stuff is being said about what marriage is and is not. There are multiple sides simply concerning sexuality, not to mention ones concerning poligamy, age and genetic difference. Some examples are the controversy in California, the incident(s) in Texas, underage sex or age gaps, racial or incestial. Going on you get different opinions and then different approaches. When referring to governing bodies which extend to communities, states, churches, towns, the country, whatever, it just gets longer. However, simply think about Federal and State since those are two of the most used tactics. The other two are mentioned with the only difference being one that wants marriage and one that doesn't.
I really hoped I covered this stuff, though I'm pretty sure the smart ones understand the question.
I really hoped I covered this stuff, though I'm pretty sure the smart ones understand the question.
Loading...-
Answered Undecided
I see the biggest problem with symantics.
"Marriage" is defined and administered by Churches.
"Unions" are definded and administered by the Government.
In my opinion.
If this distinction were to be adopted by all concerned I don't see where there would be a problem.
Marriage covers the civil as well as Religous responsibilities and the "Union would cover the same thing,without the "Religous" factor.
The Churches would retain their control over the people "Married in the church,And,people would still be able to get the "Benifits" and "Responsibilities of "Mariage" through a union. -
Answered State government should be the only ones allowed to have a say on this.
States should have the exclusive right to determine the age of marital and sexual consent of those living in the particular state. Though I believe the driving age should be 18, since people are permitted to drive automobiles at 16 I think that would be a good age to stipulate as the age of consent. In this day and age there should be no such thing as "common law" spouse. Any two consenting unmarried/ single adults who wish to marry should be allowed to do so in a civil marriage ceremony. Churches should retain the right to deny religious marriage ceremonies to people the church believes violate the church's doctrine. Churches should only be permitted to provide religious marriage ceremonies to people the state has deemed eligible for a civil marriage ceremony. -
That's what I mean. You said that only churches should be permitted to proved religious marriage ceremonies. If they think that God's gone from the church but they think that marriage is still Holy, they'd be pretty much left without options except to change their beliefs.
-
Sufferer of the Mazzaroth...If not the churches who would you suggest perform religious marriage ceremonies? You do realize that the government doesn't perform religious marriage ceremonies, right?
Incidentally, churches/religions shouldn't be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples if that church/religion doesn't believe gay people should be permitted to wed in their church/religion. Government should have no more right to dictate the doctrine of religion than religion should have the right to dictate the rights and laws of a government.
Any reasonable person would leave a church/religion that doesn't represent their personal beliefs. I realize it's a bit out of the realm of reality to expect reason when dealing with religion. -
No disagreement over leaving a church that does not represent personal beliefs. The only problem arises when they are the only ones allowed to perform the ceremonies. If there is a religious leader or voted leader of a particular religion that does not use churches, would he (or she for those that think it's okay) have the same authority to perform the task? I'm not saying to get rid of the church or that the state doesn't have a right to legalize that only the church may say who is officially married; I'm just offering a what-if scenario.
-
Sufferer of the Mazzaroth...In most sates, currently, civil marriage ceremonies can be conducted by a major, judge and justice of the peace. The government/law has stipulated that a religious ceremony can be conducted by a ordained minister/priest/pastor and/or church elder/decon depending on the state. Currently, it is against most states' law for any person to conduct a marriage ceremony for the purpose of marrying two people of the same sex.
Churches currently don't have the right to determine who is or isn't married. If a couple has been married solely by a civil ceremony that couple is legally married. As for that couple's status within the church/religion depends on the doctrine of the church/religion and should remain the right of the church doctrine. -
Answered State government should be the only ones allowed to have a say on this.
I think each State should decide but I think it will or has become a federal matter. It is nutty out there right now. I believe it is time for this country to have #1 Civil Unions between any two adults with all attendant legal privileges whether romantically involved or not - required of all couples. #2 For those who wish, a religious ceremony in addition to the civil union.
Grace Kelly and Prince R were joined by civil ceremony and then the church ceremony - that was roughly 50 years ago. Time for us to catch up.
If the goal is for legal union, then this would solve it. If the goal is an attack on religion, it won't. Depends on the goal.
Answered State government should be the only ones allowed to have a say on this.
I think each State should decide but I think it will or has become a federal matter. It is nutty out there right now. I believe it is time for this country to have #1 Civil Unions between any two adults with all attendant legal privileges whether romantically involved or not - required of all couples. #2 For those who wish, a religious ceremony in addition to the civil union.Grace Kelly and Prince R were joined by civil ceremony and then the church ceremony - that was roughly 50 years ago. Time for us to catch up.
If the goal is for legal union, then this would solve it. If the goal is an attack on religion, it won't. Depends on the goal.