The most common argument stated by the opponents of gay marriage is the God created the institution of marriage for the relationship that exists only between a man and a woman. This, coupled with the proof offered in the form of failing family values, the endangering of marriage when gay couples are allowed the marriage rights, and the possible ramifications on the legal definition of marriage have spearheaded the opposition to such a measure. The problem is that all of these are based not on the legal issues surrounding marriage, but rather on the issues of personal morals and religious belief.

What should first be discussed is the role of religion in the debate over confirming or denying the validity of gay marriages. Opponents present the matter as being one of moral value, based on the fundamentalist belief system. It is the opinion of these people that the opinion of the majority should be supported by the law, and that the law exists to support their belief systems. Unfortunately for them, the American system of government does not, officially, support or tout any one religious or moral value system over another.

What this means is that the institution of marriage may very well be a religious ceremony in the varying belief systems that are present in this country, but that does not have any technical legal bearing on the legal institution of marriage. The line between the two marriages, religious ceremony and legal institution, must be drawn. The state already issues marriage licenses outside of a religious ceremony, and thus recognizes that marriage is a form of legal contract that bestows rights on the couple and a new status on them, and as such is administered by the courts and requires the signing and filing of a legal document.

It has thus been established that marriage, as a legal institution, is monitored, recorded, and approved by the state. What we are talking about, then, is not the religious ceremony of marriage but rather the recognition of awarding of legal rights to gay couples under the purview of the state. The government can not and should not endeavor to force the religious recognition of gay marriage, just as it should not interfere in religious ceremonies in other matters. In a quid pro qou, the religious community should not attempt to force a fundamentalist religious viewpoint on the government in deciding the legality of broadening the institution of marriage to include homosexuals.

In short, the religious

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Legal issues surrounding gay marriage?
We want to hear your view. Write now!