Reply #39: Sorry, AP -- you're making a noble effort, but you're just plain wrong [View All]

[ShimokitaJer]

In fact, your confusion over whether or not the legal definition of marriage is a religious one is a big part of the problem with the debate over gay marriage.

Church and state are separate, correct? That means that, while the government has the right to recognize marriages, it does not have the right to legislate them AS RELIGIOUS BONDS. It has claimed the right to require registration in order for married couples to receive the legal benefits that the government has decided to grant, but it can claim NO jurisdiction over the religious aspects of marrage. That's why, if anybody decides to get ordained by some rubber-stamp church over the internet, the government is required to recognize weddings that person performs as long as the couple involved claims that person as their "spiritual advisor." The couple would still have to get a license and register the marriage if they wanted the LEGAL benefits of marriage, but the government has NO RIGHT to tell them they aren't married. If you look at it this way, there should be no "legal marriages," only religious marriages and legal civil unions (even between opposite sex couples). If marriage is a religous institution, the government has no right to legislate it.

By the same token, if an ordained minister (of any church whatsoever) decides to marry a gay couple, the government has NO RIGHT to deny that they are married. The big issue right now is whether or not to grant legal rights to married gay couples. And the way I see it, separation of church and state means the government CAN NOT selectively choose to recognize SOME church sanctioned marriages and not others. If they recognize ANY marriage, they are required to recognize ALL marriage.