Welcome to Gaia! ::

Again, I tell you, stop with the personal attacks. I have in NO way indicated that I am intolerant or disgusted with gays. Nor am I, so do not presume to know me or my thoughts.

I am in no way on the "offensive" whatsoever. YOU stated that there is "something wrong with me", I am on the defensive. I am in full support of gays having the same legal rights as everyone else. Do I think they should be allowed a religious ceremony? Yes. But you are not going to change the Churches mind on this. Forcing them to marry any couple that they do not wish to is intolerance in itself. They can refuse to marry a gay couple if they wish, that is THEIR beliefs and THEIR choice. They may not be in anyones face about gay civil unions either, they may simply not condone it or wish to take a part in it. It does not matter if they are not helping society. It is their rightful choice to believe how they want. I personally have nothing wrong with gays getting married, in the Christian sense, but I also don't believe the Churches should be FORCED to do it. This is why civil unions are a good medium. The church isn't forced to provide their religious ceremony, and everyone still gets the same legal rights. If you're worried about the actual ceremony itself, you can find anybody to perform it, wherever you want (unless of course it's in a church that refuses to let you use the facilities), however you want. It is not the ceremony itself that makes it legally binding, it's the paper work.

And that is YOUR personal belief, and you cannot force that upon the church. If civil unions were allowed, it would be holding no one back, but perhaps themselves.

I am talking about a solution that would make both parties happy, while giving gay couples every legal right that straight couples receive.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. We cannot force that religion to simply change their beliefs and ways, no matter what we think of them. That is intolerance in itself, as I have said. Instead, I suggest a civil union. Which, in all its legal rights, is the same thing. If you're worried about the actual ceremony, you shouldn't be. Rent out a park, pavilion, hotel, maybe even find a church that will either do the service for you or allow you to use the place, it doesn't matter WHERE you have it, pick a place. Do whatever you WANT for the ceremony. If it's a civil union the church can't do s**t, other than refuse to let you use their church.

I'd also like to point out that I am not the only person who believes this to be a good middle ground. There has also been at least one post that out right dissed the idea of gays and them having any kind of legal union. I have no idea why you are attacking my ideas and opinions, which are clearly FOR gays having a legal union.

Yes, I understand this, that is why in my idea of a civil union I believe they should have the same rights as any couple would in a marriage.

Yes, churches are allowed to refuse who they wish, however, it would not make sense to make it legal if the church would simply refuse them all. I am speaking for those areas where there are only churches who are completely opposed to gay marriages. If your area does not have a willing church, a civil union would be the alternative. We could even go so far as to say this would be an alternative for those who do NOT wish to take part in the religious ceremony of marriage. I know of quite a few gay couples who would hate to have to deal with the church. This also provides an alternative for other religions, or non-religious people. It really just comes down to a title, and as this really is a church matter, as you have said, the state is tied up. This is why the idea of civil unions is presented. It allows the state to create a legal way for gay couples to receive the same benefits as straight couples, without violating the separation of church and state agreement. This would also put down the idea of the state showing preference for one religion. As it is, that is exactly what is happening in most states. Most states do not allow even civil unions. Creating a civil union "system" that is equal to/the same as the marriage "system" shows no preference. People of all religions and sexual orientation are allowed the same legal rights. One is simply called by a different name. Again, I say, my idea of a civil union would include the exact same benefits as a marriage would. The title is different, the church doesn't get butt-hurt (those that would I mean), everyone has the same rights.

Yes, ideally. However, it would still be a legal double-standard that a straight couple could go to the local justice of the peace and obtain a marriage, while the same sex couple gets a "civil union." It smacks of the same kind of legal standard that was established in Plessy v. Ferguson. Certainly you see the problem with a legal standard of separate but equal?



You speak of the church as though it were a monolithic body. There are 38,000 denominations of Christianity alone. Not all of them have the same stance on same sex marriage. Not to mention, people are more than free to establish their own same sex marriage tolerant church. And, once again, you can always get your marriage at the justice of the peace or other local officiating judge or civil servant. My brother did just that, his wife is a non-practicing Shinto, and he' an atheist.



Not necessarily. You could also get married at the local secular officiating bodies. Or just go find yourself a willing ship captain. Churches are not the only bodies that perform marriages.



To which, again, there is always the option of being married before a judge. Legalizing gay marriage permits this. Retaining a civil union position, no matter how generous they are, still preserves a system where one legal institution is off limits to citizens.



That speaks more to the notion that there shouldn't be marriages at all at the state level. Civil unions only for everyone, and "marriage" would be something akin to communion; something between you and your church in which the state has neither interest nor involvement.



The problem is it does show preference so long as the state honors church marriages. This means that the marriages performed by the Catholics, for example, will be accepted by the state as a legal marriage. The marriages performed by the ELCA which join a same sex couple would not. The only things that remedy that are the state getting out of marriage altogether (meaning, legally, nobody is married, everybody just has civil unions), or legal recognition of same sex marriage, in which case both rituals are accepted. Ecclesiastical officials can't officiate a civil union, only a local official can. The state would still maintain different standards for two religious ceremonies from different churches.



The only churches that would get butt-hurt are those who maintain an interest in dictating what non-members are and aren't allowed to do. That is outside the interest of society to protect. And it would still put an institution outside the reach of citizens, declaring a separate, but equal institution to accommodate them. We've been down this road before.

The problem with civil unions Lord is that if gays do engage in a civil union it does not apply to taxes or anything that has to do with the government ... on taxes there isnt a civil union box to check so that you can get tax refunds and to fill out your taxes at all without saying you are single. So it is up to the churches or the government to change.

I must say something towards Christianity ... all of the gay men that I know are Christian... there has been a survey that showed that 87% of the gay men (in the US specifically) are Christian. And most Lesbians are Pagan/Wiccan.

Can you please explain this to me... Idk if I'm spazzing out or if Im just not getting it...

I have a question for chu Dragoness that pertains to my older post... what about Christian gays?? What do you feel they should do?

The churches with the biggest objections here usually aren't targeting their own church membership. Catholics, for example, aren't saying "no gay marriage for Catholics," they're also saying "no gay marriage for Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, or anybody." They have all the power in the world to say "no gay marriage for Catholics" but it's none of their business what non-Catholics do. It's not society's job to enforce Catholic doctrine on non-Catholics.

The distinction between civil unions and marriages is a legal double-standard. It creates an institution, marriage, that is straight only, and civil union, which is "for anybody," but in practice is the only option open to gays. Even if we made it legally equal to marriage, it is an exercise in maintaining a separate but equal institution. The courts didn't look too highly on that distinction in Brown v. Board, maybe we ought to defer to that wisdom where it comes to civil unions vs. marriage.