Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Do you think that this is a good solution for the gay marriage issue?

The state should not recognize religious marriage- rather that all unions, regardless of gender, should be referred to as civil unions, and legally all treated the same, the same requirements, etc. Let the church have marriage, and they can decide which marriage ceremonies they will perform in the eyes of God, but that will have no bearing on what unions are recognized by the state.

I think that's a good suggestion for this whole gay marriage issue. It's not really "marriage," so it doesn't redefine the term, but also settles it off so there's no breach of human rights.

10 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, I think it is the right solution, but difficult to sell politically. The state should not give any marriage licenses, they should ONLY sanction civil unions - because that's what they really do - they establish a civil contract between the two people.

    Churches should be the only entities that can 'marry' a couple, and they should make their own rules.

    A church 'marriage' would have NO legal protections - it would simply be a religious sacrament, with no special meaning in law.

  • 1 decade ago

    It is the only solution. In fact, it can be more simplified by the State recognizing a civil union by signature of the two parties. A religious ceremony may follow, as sanctioned by the Church. However, you best prepare for the gay argument that this does not elevate homosexuuality to the correctness in Society that heterosexulaity commands, a new injustice.

    "Civil union": rights & consequences of present day marriage!

  • 4 years ago

    nicely i imagine people must have the right to get married to people of an similar gender no matter if or not they don't approve of each and every of the regulations surrounding it. yet another answer is to take the note "marriage" out of all civil files and go away it for the churches. All couples, gay or immediately, would nicely be allowed to wed in a civil ceremony with an similar rights as a church marriage. The leaders of churches can confirm no matter if or not they marry gay or immediately couples, in accordance with their religious beliefs or what their congregation helps. i'm a huge believer in separation of church and state, yet marriage has traditionally been allowed to straddle the line between both. This answer may uphold the structure and enable us extra practice what we pontificate: religious freedom and equivalent pursuit of happiness.

  • Bob
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    It is a good idea. Marriage is just a word though. The people who say they are protecting marriage are doing of the sort. They are merely protecting their own little world views by denying others their civil rights. This solution would be fine in my opinion, but the people who are against gay marriage would be against civil unions just as much.

    "Protecting the sanctity of marriage" is just a nice spin on discriminating against our fellow Americans.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I think you missed the point here.

    The reason 4 the gays & Lesbians to ask for the State recognition because they wanted to be treated the same way as a regular couple when it comes to health insurance,pension & inheritance .

  • I don't care. Gay people getting married doesn't save the markets and the war.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago Hows about we give the gays civil unions and leave it at that.

    Marriage = 1 man 1 women

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago




  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    sounds like a good idea. now you need to sell it to someone in power.

  • 1 decade ago

    i think anyone should be able to get married

    the term was revised for blacks and non land owners so lets let homos get hitched to

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.