Preethi brought up a good point about civil unions versus marriages. I can understand the fear that many religious institutions have about allowing same-sex marriages but I don't think that defining the definition of marriage (a religious term) within a state constitution is the answer.
I forgot to include one my most important opinions. I think it would be a good idea to have the government recognize civil unions between everyone: both hetero- and homosexual couples and leave the religious term "marriage" for religious institutions. This part it is harder for me to put in words. But basically, it would allow religious organizations to define the term "marriage" and yet keep the government from discriminating against any couple because all partnerships would be legally recognized through civil unions rather than the religious term marriage....
But then again, I'm not a political science major and my spark for politics didn't arise until the past couple of years....
1 comment:
Good point!! Honestly, I have no clue how to address this issue without sounding insensitive to either cause.If I had it my way, this decision wouldn't fall into the hands of men who will never know what it's like to be on the opposite side of this issue. Churchs should police their own values. On that note, how are you? It's been a while, and i'm glad to have a blog buddy on this network-thingy!!
Post a Comment