After hearing what Mike Huckabee said about the issue of Gay Marriage on The Daily Show, I have come to the conclusion of what will resolve the debate on Gay Marriage once and for all.

 

Most prominent anti-gay-marriage politician would argue that a homosexual couple can civil union instead, stating that it grants, to a large extent, similar privileges to marriage.  They also would argue that marriage is a term to define "man-woman" unions, because it is so written in the bible.

 

I am a firm believer of separation of church and state, so it seems blatantly obvious the solution to this issue is leave the task of defining marriage out of government.  Since marriage and the very definition of marriage is a religious matter, it has no business for the government to sponsor it. 

 

Couples should go do the paper works for the government to recognize their union, but if they want to be "married" they go to the church and do the religious ceremony.  That is pretty much how it is done anyway.  So I say do it properly.

 

All future couples should only be recognized as civil unions in the eyes of the government, and marriage or not will be the task for individual's religion to determine.  If your church strongly believes in anti-gay-marriage, fine, then no gay marriage will be recognized by your church and its believers.  But there are other churches and people that would.

 

I am sure I am not the first one come up with this idea, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

Bookmark: HemiDemi MyShare Baidu Google Bookmarks Yahoo! My Web Del.icio.us Digg technorati furl Bookmark to:YouPush Bookmark to:你推我報

Posted by hansioux at 痞客邦 PIXNET Comments(1) Trackback(0) Hits(117)

Shorten Url Recommend to Front page Forward by E-mail Forward to Guestbook
Posts on this date
▲top

open trackbacks list Trackbacks (0)

Comments (1)

Post Comment
  • #1 Dorasaga on 2008/12/16 01:59

  • The separation of State and Church has been a huge debate since... God Knows!*

    Let me take a sidenote first-- one problem about church preference: It is tough to change church. There's a social thing there. Once a church comes to influence a believer's life, it can be a dominant force.

    It's tough to start resolving the problem of union/not is through the approach of another church "and people that would."

    *I'm sure there's a historical reference that'll properly list down the events that proved this matter in discussion. Though, I will not bid myself good luck for the research...
  • My point is if prop-8 supporters claims that "marriage" is defined by religion and based their logic on religious claims, then this issue should be resolved religiously.

    That means, those who believe in one religion should do it one way, and if the others who can find another religion that tolerates their behavior and do it the other.

    And since the supporters of prop-8 claims that the practice and concept of "marriage" is defined by Christianity, then I don't see why the government has to endorse it by having an entirely separate standard, benefits, and laws around one religion's concept of union. That's the church's job.

    The government should just do away with "marriage" all together. Just give everyone "civil unions", that's all government needed to know to regulate anyway.

    Those who are married and approved by the church can get their marriage certificate from the church.

    hansiouxreplied on 2008/12/25 01:31

Comment Permissions: Allow commenting

Leave Comment

*Name/Nickname
E-mail
Personal Website
Comment Title
*Comment
* Private Comment