New twist in gay marriage debate

[clintl]

I've seen here and elsewhere an opinion expressed that government should just recognize civil unions, and leave marriage to the churches. This morning, I saw this article in the Sacramento Bee. Apparently, some clergy want to move in the other direction - get the churches out of the marriage business, and leave it to civil authorities.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1051489.html

[aliajohnson]

This isn't entirely new, and it's not completely centered on the gay marriage issue. The way I see it, it's more about the issue of "drive-by" weddings. I worked for a Lutheran church for a time and it was a concern there because they felt they were just renting out the building to people who weren't the least bit interested in what the church was about. Eventually, it was decided only members could get married there.

[HeronW]

Some religions prefer not to marry mixed faith couples let alone same sex.
Some people are looking for a nice setting.
Some churches can use the money from driveby weddings to supplement to regular congregational donations.

Most marriages in the US require the civil certificate to be 'legitimized'. A few still require the blood test, less for histocompatibility than for SIDS. I think this latter is unnecessary with most couples coming as sexually active if not currently with their partner to be than with 1 or more others in the past. Babies are typed at birth in a hospital, sometimes before, and any health issues are usually dealt with there.

Aside from veering OT a tad, I think each congregation should have a say whether or not they want their house of worship to be available to non-members--of their faith or that particular group.