-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Marriage vs. Civil Union
- Thread starter dawny0826
- Start date
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Yes, and why is supporting same sex civil unions but not marriage not good enough? (I've heard this complaint about Obama.) To me, marriage, (as the term is used today), belongs to the religions and you can't tell a religion that they have to perform marriage ceremonies that they do not believe in. I want to see same sex relationships get everything they deserve, including calling their relationship a marriage if they wish, but not to the extreme of forcing the Catholic Church to perform wedding ceremonies. (After all, we UUs don't need the competition 
.)
.)
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Civil Unions: Separate and Unequal
The main issue is civil unions do not grant 1138 federal marriage benefits and creates a class that is separate, implying they are not worthy of the rights the majority holds.
The main issue is civil unions do not grant 1138 federal marriage benefits and creates a class that is separate, implying they are not worthy of the rights the majority holds.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Thanks, that was very informative. I would be for civil unions only if it was just a different name for marriage, not as it seems to be used today.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
No. Those are federal marriage benefits, not "civil union" benefits.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
And the thing is, since the church is a private institution, even if gay marriage becomes legal on a federal level, an individual church will be able to legally refuse to hold gay marriages.To me, marriage, (as the term is used today), belongs to the religions and you can't tell a religion that they have to perform marriage ceremonies that they do not believe in. I want to see same sex relationships get everything they deserve, including calling their relationship a marriage if they wish, but not to the extreme of forcing the Catholic Church to perform wedding ceremonies. (After all, we UUs don't need the competition.)
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Which is no problem since gay and lesbian couples really just want legal recognition.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
And there are churches that will perform the ceremonies, the Unitarian Universalist Church for one. I do think that it should be the churches choice in the matter but I don't know many who think otherwise.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
The thing is, even marriage doesn't give us the federal benefits while DOMA is in play.
It also bears noting, however, that not all states' versions of civil unions bestow all the state benefits, either. Many don't.
Another article: A Primer On Same-Sex Marriage
It also bears noting, however, that not all states' versions of civil unions bestow all the state benefits, either. Many don't.
Another article: A Primer On Same-Sex Marriage
That's interesting. Here in Canada a civil justice of the peace wedding gives all the rights that a married within a church gives to you. They mean the same thing. I guess that's why churches here have questioned why they have to be told to perform church weddings for gays when a civil justice of the peace wedding would (if allowed by government for gays) give gays the same rights as anyone else. I didn't realize you had a seperate list of rights that showed differences between church marriage and civil marriage. Does that apply to non gay marriage too?
I don't think that churches should be forced to marry people they don't want to, but I think that claiming the word "marriage" for religions alone is almost as silly as saying that only churches should have pipe organs.
While I strongly doubt that the word has exclusively religious origins in the first place, since when is etymology a claim on ownership anyway? Could the French also take back all the English words that originated with them?
I think that religious groups demanding that they and only they get to define the word "marriage" has somewhat less rational or logical basis than the Academie Francaise declaring that we have to use words like "beef" and "mansion" the way they say.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
No, not civil marriage, civil union. It's the bone they're throwing us for being denied marriage.
There's no difference in rights between a civil marriage and religious.
Are churches actually being forced to marry same-sex couples in Canada, or am I just misreading you?
Smoke
Done here.
In that case, marriage should be a religious matter. It should not be registered or recognized by the state and should not result in any change of legal status or rights.
Every religious group decides who may and may not marry under its aegis, and the fact that someone may legally marry doesn't mean that any religious group is required to perform the wedding. No religious group is required to marry divorced persons or excommunicated persons, perform mixed marriages, or bless any marriage it objects to. A Hindu and a Catholic may legally marry, but the Catholic bishop has the legal right to refuse to marry them. The idea that any church will be forced to perform same-sex marriages if same-sex marriages are legalized is utter nonsense.
Smoke
Done here.
A civil union is not a civil marriage. It's a second-class category, usually (but not always) reserved for same-sex couples, who are (in most states) not allowed to marry.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Yep, I was uneducated on the true differences between civil unions and marriages but kind friends have since schooled me.
I don't know if that's what challupa intended to say, but no, they're not required to do that.
IIRC, City/Town Clerks are required to issue marriage licenses to anyone eligible even if they don't personally agree with the marriage, but no church or religious officiant has to marry anyone who he or she doesn't want to.
Oh okay civil marriage and civil union means something different. Go figure!
In 2005 Canada approved gay marriages. The churches have been fighting it ever since. Some provinces have actually taken it upon themselves to "push out" commisioners of marriage licenses that are not giving them to gays. This has the churches upset. They have been thinking of making it alright for individual employees in government offices to refuse to give a civil marriage license to gays if it offended their religious beliefs. Having said that though, the government office must make some kind of arrangement that the gay couple can still get that license, just not through that particular employee. They have to have reasonable access to marriage licenses. As it stands right now (I believe) it is up to individual provinces to protect the rights of clergy that do not want to perform gay marriages. So, I would imagine that some provinces have done that and others haven't. Where this law is not protecting the clergy, they probably are required to, although I'm not sure. I will post a link to the Supreme Court hearing to give you a better idea of what Canada has decided. It is still ongoing though with many churches petitioning Ottawa to get rid of the right for gays to marry.
Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Reference : What Are The Implications For Churches And Religious Officials?
No I didn't mean to say churches are forced into it but I did post the link to the Supreme Court hearings that has left it up to each province to legislate.