Quote:
Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
I'm all for them getting the benefits, the visitation rights, etc - but that doesn't belong in my church.
|
No one could ever force a private institution to allow gay marriage within their hallowed halls. Just like they can't force the boy scouts to let homosexuals be troop leaders. Churches still have the opportunity now to refuse to marry anyone they want on any grounds they want, sexual orientation included. This isn't about whether or not all churches would perform or approve of gay marriage. Undoubtedly, many chuches would never, and some would (much like some don't allow female priests and some do). This is about the government allowing those institutions that do want to perform marriages for gays to do so, and to allow gays to have those benefits that anyone else would have. The idea that someone's church or town would be forced to actual perform or hold gay marriages is at least a misunderstanding and at best a red herring.
Actually, the idea has been suggested, and I see no reason to oppose it, that civil union or whatever become strictly a legal term, while marriage is strictly a religious term. So, if you are religious, you could get married and not get legally unionized (or whatever), or you could do both (at once as we already do, since the religious ceremony and the legal aspects are often done separately). And, if you aren't religious, you can avoid the religious connotation, or perhaps you are refused service by a religious institution, but you can still get the secular, legal benefits and social recognition. Basically, whether you are unionized (hopefully they would have a better term) or married would say more about your faith and beliefs than about what kind of discrimination you are the subject of.