I live in L.A. and right now there is a very heated debate about prop 8 and the legalization of gay marriage. Yes on prop 8 means a ban on gay marriage, No means no ban. I say to everyone No on prop 8 and No on Yes on prop 8. I find a bigger problem here. Why does the government get to decide what marriage is? Marriage was always a religious action and it wasn't until about a hundred years ago, in the u.s., did the government even get involved. Why would a heterosexual married get more benefits than a homosexual couple? I don't think that should be the case. If prop 8 doesn't pass it takes away rights from certain adoption agencies and religious sects. That is not fair either. If gays want the right to get married....guess what, they have it. They can get married to someone of the opposite sex just like I have the right to have a civil union with someone of my same sex. If a civil union has access to all the same benefits, then whats the deal? Churches are happy and Gays are happy. In my opinion, if you're not religious than the only reason for marriage is tax benefits and possession issues in a divorce. If you take away the governments role, than its just for divorce issues. Thats lame. I say some kind of contract should be made up by the Justice of the Peace or something about possessions and thats that. The sacred rite (and I do mean rite not right) of marriage left to the religion of your choice. I would love to hear anyone's opinion about this. I'm not as educated as I could be. I have more gay friends here in L.A. than not and we've talked about it. They, of course, are against the ban, which is fine. We still hang out and get along fine. (and they jokingly admit gay marriage will lead to more divorces and thats it lol) Look, I love my gay friends a lot and I want them to be as happy as possible. This isn't about bigotry, this is about the government and its infringing actions on our freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Here's what I've heard.
If a church refuses to marry a gay couple then that church will lose its tax-exempt status. They will still have the right to function and meet but will be forced to pay from any offerings that they gather. I have also heard of ministers in Canada that were sued for refusing to marry gay couples.
Also the LDS church has the Family Services organization which will cease to be legal and will be open to lawsuits when they refuse to place children in gay-families. Quite frankly the issues are pretty complicated and only in writing this little comment do I realize how little I actually know!
From what I've heard and read thats all true. Thats why the government shouldn't even be invovled ideally, but until then a rework on civil unions would be nice. marriage is religious and thats that.
The state gives the church the right to marry people legally in the Temple. If they refuse to marry gays in the Temple, they not only lose their tax exempt status but lose their right of marrying people in the Temple. Couples then have to have a civil marriage first then be sealed after ward. If prop 8 did not pass in CA then they would allow Gay marriage to be taught in school. In fact they already had a cirriculum ready to be taught if the prop would not have passed. It is a religious issue, that is why the LDS church fought so hard for it to be passed. Temple marriages would have never been the same.
oui oui
HERES A REVISED WRITING THAT I FEEL IS MORE ARTICULATE: I feel there is a more serious problem at hand. I feel marriage should be privatized, religious institutions should be free to sanction marriage as they see fit. Also, if a couple is not religious and wants to get "married" it should be treated like any other contract: The state may be called upon to enforce it, but the parties define the terms. (including a gay couple) That's how it was originally. This way there is no infringement of church and state. Religious institutions wouldn't loose their definition of marriage and neither would gays. The government has no place giving tax benefits to hetero or gay couples, that is crossing the line in my opinion. I think core principles of freedom are being jeopardized. We must attack the root and not hack the branches. Ron Paul said, "...federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation..."
Ah, ok I better understand what you are saying. I agree wholehearted!
Post a Comment