Granted, I'm a slow processor... Not to be confused with an idiot, it takes me a long time to think through my feelings on topics and events... I often don't trust my initial reactions and must take time to think it through... anyway, like I said, slow processor... So I again broach the topic of Gay Marriage. Inspired by Joe.My.God's recent mention of Elizabeth Edwards' support of gay marriage I ask this: Why does government have a say in the issue? My understanding is that the opposition to two people of the same gender being 'married' is an interpretation of the term itself. While one church may see marriage as only between a man and a woman, other churches do not. Who is the government to interpret religious text?
Now I do see the civil aspects of the situation: someone needs to regulate... Take care of the blood work (careful with kissing cousins, etc...) to be sure people know what they're getting into and to be able to profit off the unions... But what if the government performed civil unions, regardless of orientation, and sent it on to the church to be recognized or denied as a true 'marriage'. This way everyone would be sharing the same legal rights but would still be subject to the beliefs of the particular church they choose to attend.
In my mind I do not want the government telling me that my Unitarian Universalist Church cannot perform marriages any more than as a Southern Baptist wants the government telling them that they must perform these religious unions.
To me we are unclear as to what, exactly, the battle is that we're fighting. Is this really a matter of marriages? Are we really clear on the differences? When 'we' talk about legalization of gay marriages, are we telling churches what they must do? Have we jumped into a situation that is unclear in vocabulary, idea and goal?
(side note: I did try to track back to Joe's orignial post, but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Very worth reading if my links don't tke you there directly.)
