Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution allow for the recognition of gay marriage. Of course, they don't allow for the recognition of any marriage. I'll be willing to bet Canada's situation is similar.
Therefore, I propose that the solution to the gay marriage snafu is for the government to stop recognizing marriage altogether. It's just not something they need to be doing. If two heteros, gays, lesbos, or potted shrubs wish to go to a church and give vows to each other, so be it; it won't change their status in the eyes of the government any. Just give all tax breaks and such that apply to married people, to everyone...
Of course, the answer won't be quite that easy, but I think it could be a good start. Unfortunately, in the immortal words of Bill Watterson's Calvin, "A good compromise leaves everyone mad."
Can they adopt children too?
The real point: The church accepting the gay marriage.
Last time I checked, marriage was a religious event.
Huh, a marriage is a contract.
> Last time I checked, marriage was a religious event.
Not really. Marriages themselves have existed longer than any major religion.
A lot of Canadians these days don't even bother getting married. Those who don't want to get married with religion can do so by getting married in a court room.
Or just live with each other for more than one year in a romantic relationship (varies by province). AKA, de facto unions or common-law marriage.
In the end marriage is just a type of social contract. Some of us may ascribe higher meaning to it, but that's all it boils down to.
Is there a big difference bewteen say a "Civil Union" or "Marriage"? for a long time people were saying fuck the anti-gay marriage groups, just get a civil union. Problem is, why should gay couples be put under another "bracket" or have to undergo another method compared to heterosexual couples? >>6 Might be the case, however you must remember a marriage is seen as a religious event in todays society. It's commonplace to be married in a church/synagogue/mosque, and always with a religious leader be that a father,rabbi or otherwise.
The difference between "Civil Union" and "Marriage" is just a confusion stemming from religious terminology. Basically, if you take away all the legal rights and tax stuff from "marriage" you end up with just the priest and the holy documents.
That the legal arrangement and the religious drivel should be inseparable is a dogmatic religious stance. It comes from the times when the church was indeed a legal authority. If the seperation of church and state is to be taken seriously, however, the state must not let itself be determined by religious considerations foremost but by its own interests which are ultimately legal. The following questions that arise and should be discussed are of a political nature and have to be answered within the appropriate context.
The "commonplace" argument is irrelevant in this regard, as the common third of every human in a society is the political unity not the religious unity - freedom of religion should include freedom from religion.
>>10: I both agree and disagree. I agree that marriage as a religious ceremony should be separated from marriage as a state (as in status) ascribed to people by the government. But, as I say in >>2, I don't think giving gays the "right" to marry is the answer.
Regarding "freedom from religion," I agree that those who wish to abstain from religious practice of any sort should be free to do so; however, it goes both ways. Atheists should not be able to intrude on the rights of the pious to practice how they wish.