Should we just have civil unions for straight and gay couples and leave marriage to the churches?

All gay and straight couples should have rights to civil unions where they all receive equal legal benefits and responsibilities. Marriage would be left up to the respective religious institution which doesn't have to bless gay couples if it doesn't want to. Does that make everyone happy now?Should we just have civil unions for straight and gay couples and leave marriage to the churches?
Probably not their are some gay activist out there that want to destroy the tradition of marriage. I say let them have the same chance like everyone else get married and loss half your stuff when it fails.Should we just have civil unions for straight and gay couples and leave marriage to the churches?
No.


Recognizing same sex couples as legally equal to married couples may very well end up persecuting organized religion, which our Founding Fathers sought to protect exclusively with the press, and did so first before anything else in the Bill of Rights.


Equal status mean equal access, meaning gay couples can adopt. Religious institutions offer adoption as worship through charity work. Due to their religious laws, homosexual couples would not be allowed to adopt, but state regulations would insist they be forced to adopt to them in violation of their religious laws. This is a direct violation of organized religions First Amendment Rights to no laws prohibiting the free exercise of their religion.
I am all for it as long as legal/government benefits/rights are not given to those who marry in a churches unless they also enter into a civil union...and that a church has the right to allow gays to marry if that church believes it is okay...





Of course, people aren't going to go for this so why not allow them to marry...like it really impacts on other people's marriages...those that believe it impacts their marriage probably shouldn't be married...
I would favor that 100%..





It is funny that there are older couples who wed in churches but don't seek government approval for the union since they can't afford to lose the money the government would take from them if the were legally married..





You wouldn't be forfeiting marriage. You would get married in a church but you partnership would legally not be call a marriage but rather a partnership..
What you're saying has been my position for years.


The State should not discriminate against people with the legal benefits and responsibilities of a union.


A church can then make their own decision on whether to 'sanctify' a union with the sacrament of marriage. Some will, many won't.
That would be spectacular!





In France, you get ';Married'; at City Hall...





If you want to have something at a church for the family... feel free... but ONLY doing the Church Thing doesn't mean you are LEGALLY MARRIED.





That would be the perfect solution to this bullshit...





It is about time we took the ';God'; out of Marriage...








Penn %26amp; Teller: Family Values Part 1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmAGBbOm鈥?/a>





Penn %26amp; Teller: Family Values Part 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ciihd0i鈥?/a>





Penn %26amp; Teller: Family Values Part 3


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCe5pWjMo鈥?/a>
I don't think the government should have the power to discriminate between married and single and should stay out of the marriage business altogether. To do that we would need to reform the tax code and any other law infringing on the marriage concept to get the fingers of government out of our personal lives.
That is a perfect scenario. The government should have nothing to do with marriage and it should be left up to the churches. There are all kinds of churches, so if you shop around, you'd be able to find one that condones pretty much anything.
Yes.





The state should only care about the registration of a partnership that's declaring the intent to share assets, debt, etc.





The church should only care about the religious aspect of it.





The should not be mingled, because that just stirs up the loons.
I've thought that all along. Let the sanctity of marriage be something that the religious institutions sanction. If a church, temple or mosque wants to sanction a same-sex union that is their business, not the state's.
they have did that in Europe and the marriage rates are on the decrease. many Americans are also to conservative to relinquish their right to matrimony
Works for me. Other countries have separate church and civil ceremonies.





The problem is that conservatives aren't content to live and let live -- they want to deny other people's rights.
That will never happen.





Conservatives and normal Americans would not forfeit marriage for civil unions.





The only hope in my view is to give gay couples marriage.
Actually, yes, since I think government should be entirely out of the topic altogether.
There is no way to make everyone happy with this issue.
I have no problem with civil unions.
I've been saying that for years. Keep religion separate from government.