The ceremony of Marriage is often dictated by religion....

[WCGreen]

Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2013, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

But the legal ramifications are guaranteed by law.

The people are allowed, under the Constitution, to worship in their own way.

But those Religions who choose not to perform a marriage ceremony can not dictate to those who don't subscribe to that religion what they can or can not do.

I know it sounds like I am for civil unions, but that is not the case.

What I am for is that all the rights ceded to the Marriage Ceremony be granted too any two people who wish to join together and form a marriage under the law.

We have a freedom of religion that should go both ways. We allow people to express their beliefs but no one should be forced to suffer the consequence of those who do not conform to any religious belief.

For example, Estate Tax Laws, both state and Federal, should apply to anyone who joins together as a married couple under the rule of law. No religion should dictate how commingled funds are untied once the legal marriage is nullified by death or the legal system.

No one is forcing Gay Marriage down anyones throat. If your religion does not accept gay marriage then so what. Don't perform the ceremony bu you can't deny anyone who wishes to take part in every other aspect of your religion because that would be a constitutional situation being that those two people are being denied their constitutional rights to worship as they see fit.

As long as a civil marriage has taken place then all rights guaranteed by the constitution to those who choose that path for life are free to walk through those doors and fully participate in any religion. If you deny them participation, then that would say jeopardize your religious status under the IRS and that would cause all sorts of problems for you and your followers.

The problem as I see this is how do we cleave the bond between civil marriage and religious ceremony. Not with civil unions accepted in only certain places but a universal marriage so that all the rights granted to those who were joined by a religious ceremony are granted to all those, gay or straight, who wish to be married.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I completely agree with your last sentence.

...but a universal marriage so that all the rights granted to those who were joined by a religious ceremony are granted to all those, gay or straight, who wish to be married.

K&R

[SharonAnn]

2. In at least Chile, Italy and France, the only legal marriage is the civil one. The religious is

The religious wedding is optional and is NOT the legal one. That way, religion doesn't control the definition of "marriage".

If they've managed to sort it out, why can't we? Allow people to have a civil wedding or they can arrange a religious one if they prefer (and if that religion will permit it).