Comments on: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses and Taking a Stand http://www.cloften.com/?p=1982 He'd rather be funny than good! Fri, 29 Jan 2016 20:05:26 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Russ http://www.cloften.com/?p=1982&cpage=1#comment-1269 Russ Wed, 23 Sep 2015 04:15:48 +0000 http://www.cloften.com/?p=1982#comment-1269 I would have chosen #2. However, I would prefer that government not be involved in the concept of "marriage" in any sense - straight, gay, more than two people. etc. If we accept that we have a secular government (I do), then we should not attempt to put religious institutions (marriage) into such a framework. A government should be allowed to institute legal protections for relationships it deems important for society stability (for the record, I don't see how homosexual relationships fall into this category). So, within the framework I would suggest there are 2 options: (1) Religious marriage with a government civil union (2) Religious marriage without a government civil union People and churches (along with synagogues, mosques, etc.) would be choose as the they see fit. Churches that oppose homosexual marriage would not be forced to perform ceremonies because all the legal protections would be available through the civil union and I am certain that there are churches that would perform such a ceremony. Anyway, that's probably just me thinking this through logically. I would have chosen #2. However, I would prefer that government not be involved in the concept of “marriage” in any sense – straight, gay, more than two people. etc. If we accept that we have a secular government (I do), then we should not attempt to put religious institutions (marriage) into such a framework. A government should be allowed to institute legal protections for relationships it deems important for society stability (for the record, I don’t see how homosexual relationships fall into this category). So, within the framework I would suggest there are 2 options:

(1) Religious marriage with a government civil union
(2) Religious marriage without a government civil union

People and churches (along with synagogues, mosques, etc.) would be choose as the they see fit. Churches that oppose homosexual marriage would not be forced to perform ceremonies because all the legal protections would be available through the civil union and I am certain that there are churches that would perform such a ceremony.

Anyway, that’s probably just me thinking this through logically.

]]>