1.) yes some religions do define it that way and they still would be able too. The law would NOT change the "religious" definition of anything therefore it would STILL be sacred to the people it currently is.
Of course it would.
The difference is, adding gay unions to legal marriage would effectively "force" those who believed otherwise to accept it as a valid marriage, if only in the legal sense.
If they hold marriage, the word and the definition that goes with it, as a sacred part of their religious belief, then legally defining it as something other could potentially be argued as a violation of their constitutional rights.
Much simpler to rename all legal marriages to something else, thus eliminating the whole issue.
For some, anyway.
2.) sorry religion can in fact DENY you marriage under their religion as you say, a church can choose not to marry ANYBODY they don't want to and the law wouldn't change that. I have a friend that had to go to 3 churches before he could get married and then only if he took classes and converted. There was nothing he could legally do about because the church reserves that right based on religion.
That's what I just said...
And of course he couldn't do anything about it legally, any laws that allowed him to would violate the constitution.
3.) Again i get what you are saying but it shouldn't be needed, no religion is trying to stop other marriages not based on their religion so why do it in this case. Changing the word sidesteps equal rights IMO
No.
It doesn't.
As long as it is changed so that every legal union, no matter the sex of the partners, is called the same thing legally.
The religions can then hash out who will allow gays to be married under their religious rules.
Completely equal under the law.
4.) again they don't have to accept it except legally and all religions already have to do that for many things because this is AMERICA first. Legal trumps religion on certain things. For example you are a sinner by some religions if you drink, have premarital sex or masturbate. But those things aren't illegal right? Some religions don't want you to eat meat at certain time, food places are still open? right
Of course. Any laws that dictated such things on a religious basis would violate the constitution.
In the same token, any laws that dictate to a religion ALSO violate the constitution.
Thus, if a law dictates that the word "marriage", in legal usage, is redefined as including same-sex unions, it could and probably will (if such is enacted) be argued as a violation of the US constitution.
5.) like i said in the OP its fine to believe that but once you try to stop it IMO its wrong because you are in fact forcing your religious beliefs on others and acting like you are not a hypocrite (not really YOU but you know what i mean
)
Quite.
Which is why I will never support a law banning the completely legal religious marriages between two persons of the same sex.
6.) I agree 100% it is unconstitutional and it will eventually change because we get smarted as time goes on certain things, mainly discrimination
Uhh...What?
7.) I agree to a point but would have no argument for gays who said calling it something different is still discrimination. Now this example is just humor and stretching but just giving an example for you to see. OK Mr Obama you can be president but were gonna call you something else instead, you just get all the rules or president but we cant call you that. Now when somebody else fully whit becomes president we will go back to using the "word" president. Again yes i know that's a crazy example but I'm just saying it makes it easy to see why some find that offensive oppressive and discriminatory
so that's what i see gays thinking is wrong with that
That is a completely unrelated and unreasonable comparison.
At no point did I suggest that we call gay marriage something else under the law, separate but equal (yes, I used that deliberately) from heterosexual marriages.
8.) What I'm saying is that right now there is only ONE type of marriage, the LEGAL. The religion is secondary and isn't needed. SO currently they aren't separate and still called marriage with or with out religion so nothing would change.
No.
There are currently
two types of "marriage".
The religious kind, which includes all religious ceremonies performed for the purpose of joining two persons as one under the eyes of their (insert entity here). As well as any two persons who just decide they will consider themselves married under their religious beliefs.
And the legal kind, which is a legal/financial contract. One of its purposes is to legalize the tax breaks that the government wishes to extend to people. Those tax breaks are in place to encourage people to get married, creating citizens who are more stable, and to encourage the production of children.
9.) But there is a right to marry and equality and that isn't being preserved. I do understand what you are saying that since it wasn't allowed before than preserve is the wrong word but equality and marriage is allowed and is being denied to a certain group.
There is no right to marry, at least legal marriage.
That is a
privilege that the government has extended for the purpose of encouraging stable families/financial situations and procreation.
Religious marriage is a right, as part of the right to freedom of religion.
10.) Just don’t see how keeping the word the same effect them at all. Right now I could marry anybody I want with out religion and they don’t have to accept it except legally and that’s fine. No need to change that just because it gay marriage,
Depending on the area you live, you cannot currently marry anyone you want.
Like, for example, you cannot marry your mother.
And it’s the forcing of exception through legal means that is the issue I see here.
