On Friday California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed another homosexual marriage bill Friday, saying voters and the state Supreme Court, not lawmakers, should decide the issue. He also said that he supports state laws that give domestic partners many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
This got me to wondering.. actually I have been pondering this for a while.. if domestic partnerships already afford many the rights and responsibilities of marriage.. why is it that civil authorities like state governments.. and not religious authorities like temples, mosques and churches.. determine who is married and who is not? It seems that civil authorities should validate contracts like civil unions and religious authorities validate covenants like marriage.
I think that I must be missing something because many religious folks seem to want more civil involvement in religious affairs advocating a Federal Marriage Amendment. I wonder what is the core issue on this topic? Are we religious folks opposed to both homosexual civil unions and marriages or just one of these? If we are consistent then it seems that we should be either for or against both. It seems that citizens have civil rights and as such may have a right to a civil union. In the same sense it seems that the government should not be in the middle of a covenant situation. Maybe someone can help me understand this one a bit better?
1 comment:
I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply. You can click here to see my comment policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wish I could understand it a bit better myself! I have wondered if civil unions were they way to go (as you said, marriage is a religiously based institution, so how can same-sex activists force their beliefs on religious people?)
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I don't think that homosexuals should be treated any different from anyone else. People make all kinds of choices in our society that my faith regards as a wrong choice. And yet, I am taught to love those people. But, if they want to enforce their beliefs on my faith (by redefining marriage), then I cannot agree with that.
It's interesting to note that some homosexual activist groups in Canada oppose legislation that is undemocratic and supports the minority view instead of the majority view (because they wisely understand this is a dangerous precedent that at any time could go against their favor rather than in their favor).