Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetv
Good post, Rubicon.
One thing that always strikes me with "gay marriage" is that "marriage" is a religious covenant/promise/sacrament, as well as being a civil union in our nation and in Europe and other places.
Who do gay "marriage" proponents think they are, re-defining a 6,000+ year-old religious rite, when it is Judeo-Christian religion and laws that they cannot stand??
A big part of the problem is calling it gay "marriage", when the religious rite of marriage is and always has been between a male and a female. Who are gay rights proponents to change the definition of millennia-old religious rites???
A lot of this fighting would stop if gay proponents would focus on a "civil union" or "domestic partnership", and leave the religious rites alone as they have stood for thousands of years.
I can't think of anybody I know who is not okay with a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" sanctioned by civil authorities, while leaving the religious union/rite up to the churches/synagogues.
|
ilovetv, I absolutely agree with you. Any committed couple should be afforded the opportunity to form a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and with that commitment should be able to realize all civil benefits currently extended to married couples. These benefits would include inheritance rights, tax benefits, banking/financial benefits, etc. Society can call these unions - "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships".
If that couple chooses to "go the next step" and make a commitment between themselves and their God, society can label that as "marriage".