By this reasoning, anyone who gets married with the intent to have zero children should also, in fact, be refused marriage.
I'm all for skipping the sacrament, by the way.
I'm not for excluding people -legally- from the body politic which in theory is not religious, from the civil ceremony known as -- yes! -- marriage.
By all means, if they don't revere your god, they don't have to marry in your Church. They can find someone else's god to revere, and someone else's church to be married in. But they live here, abide by the laws, and, significantly, pay the taxes upon which all of our civil services are in the end based. Given that they are part of society, why should they not benefit from the legal protections of said society?
In other words: the force of civil law should apply to gay couples in exactly the same way it applies to every other couple. If you want to deny them the religious ceremony, if you want to refuse to condone it as a core religious tenet, it's your clubhouse, and I have no problems with that.
But separate out Church and State here. The State should have the right to recognize marriages absent religious attitudes; the Church should not be required to be an avenue for performing those marriages.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-06-05 03:05 am (UTC)I'm all for skipping the sacrament, by the way.
I'm not for excluding people -legally- from the body politic which in theory is not religious, from the civil ceremony known as -- yes! -- marriage.
By all means, if they don't revere your god, they don't have to marry in your Church. They can find someone else's god to revere, and someone else's church to be married in. But they live here, abide by the laws, and, significantly, pay the taxes upon which all of our civil services are in the end based. Given that they are part of society, why should they not benefit from the legal protections of said society?
In other words: the force of civil law should apply to gay couples in exactly the same way it applies to every other couple. If you want to deny them the religious ceremony, if you want to refuse to condone it as a core religious tenet, it's your clubhouse, and I have no problems with that.
But separate out Church and State here. The State should have the right to recognize marriages absent religious attitudes; the Church should not be required to be an avenue for performing those marriages.