this brings an interesting concept into question.

Is marriage a religious concept?

as the Government provides tax perks etc to married couples, does this not become a separation of church and sate issue?

:hmmm:

It's different laws and regulations with regard to gays and their cohabitation, the Church has of course some countries rejected this pretty hard, because they do not like turning on gay anyway

What you're really saying is gays can't be religious. They're many gay churches and pastors, so they have the religion part covered should they desire a religious wedding.

Marriage isn't an institution of the church, DOA's can marry, ship captains, judges, etc..

A religion can't be forced, but any priest can be bought.

[gay couple walks to a priest]
A: we'd like to get married
P: what ??? I can't marry you too, it's unholly
A: oh no, and we saved 3000$ for the ceremony
P: now now my children, the good Lord will make an exception

Well not now it isn't but it used to be. What exactly is the governments justification for requiring people to beg their permission to get married?

Perhaps, you have to show a decent A-hole :O:

In different cultures, for the last 2000 years some marriage laws applied to government. Marriage itself existed before that dictated by the customs of the people.

Wwhen church and state shared power, many religious codes were written into secular law. This was mostly for the elite class, the poor still did things like jump over a brookstick or had sex and called themselves married, but then the man retained all the power. Women and children were often left in poverty after divorce, so more secular law was written in over time to protect them, much more in the last 100 years.

Like most things government got involved. They define it's legal status for our so called protection. If you want those legal protections and benefits you get a legal wedding. You can still call yourself married, just has no legal status.

Have to remember most of our secular law evolved from religious laws. Judges needed standards to apply for divorce, most of those standards however apply for divorce.

And for the elite classes, marriage was often about little more than creating political or military alliances, the transfer of property and power, or the acquisition of it through a binding connection to another family or ruling dynasty. The use of the church to sanctify and validate such a union was incredibly useful at a time when people believed that to go against the church was to risk one's immortal soul, possibly through excommunication if the family of the party you offended had the right connections.

Exactly. Take the religious aspect out of it, like we're supposed to, and what is left is a lot more accurately termed a "Civil Union" than a marriage.

So maybe instead of allowing gays to get "married" the government should stop issuing marriage licenses.

I could go for that.

as far as im concerned, Civil unions should be allowed to homosexuals, and under these they should be allowed every right that a married couple is allowed under law. to do otherwise is against the laws that that nation was founded on.

and I applaud that firm for not representing a law that is clearly discriminatory and in violation of the constitution

Go for it,:yep:

Do you really think divorce lawyers would allow that...:D

If the government isn't in the business of marriage, then who sets the marriage laws for property rights, parental rights, etc...Family law is a big business and the legal status of marriage is it's foundation. No legal marriage, no family law.?:06: Do we just let each decide his own marriage and leave it up to divorced couples to work it out on their own....

Guess we could let each church make it's own rules, but who decides legal recourse...Pastors...

Sorry, even I trust government more than the church on these matters. Just a fact, anything people can fight about needs legal laws and marriage is where most fighting takes place.

Marriage is just a religious blessing on a Civil Union. The Civil Union covers all those things without bringing religion into it.

It's like using the term "Birth certificate" instead of "Baptism certificate".

Does the law make a difference between "marriage" and "civil union"? Even if it's just the name, if there's a difference there's no reason we should deny it to gays.

Why are you so much against gay marriage August?

Birth certificate
 

The first legal gay marriage is now certified, January 14, 2001: signed, sealed, delivered.

http://i.imgur.com/3IcCz.jpg

Why do you ask?

Just curiosity. Why don't you want to tell?

Anyway, answer the question: does your law make any differences between the words "marriage" and "civil union"? Even if it's just the word.
If, according to your laws, "marriage" is just another word for "civil union", then why do you oppose gay marriage if it's exactly the same as a civil union?
If it's something else, why do you deny gays the rights heterosexuals have?

I never said I didn't want to tell. I just hesitate cooperating with antagonists who are hoping that i'll give them enough rope to hang me with.

In any case i'm dreadfully sorry to disappoint you but I do not oppose Civil Union for gays at all. I oppose government sponsored Marriage regardless of the happy couples sexual orientation. To me they're different things.

If it's, as you said, just a name then I guess you'd have no problem with renaming the Birth Certificate to the "Certification of Gods Latest Miracle" right?