Marriage, Government and Religion
This is where I wade in and piss EVERYbody off:
It seems to me as if this “marriage” thing is an illegal mix of government and religion already. If “Marriage” is a religious concept, perhaps it should stay there. The government can authorize “Civil Unions” or whatever they are called, between Party A and Party B. If you want to get married, find a church willing to marry you. But it should have no legal meaning or status or tax break or hospital access… etc. That should all be available to all equally under the “Civil Union”. And of course any church can decide who they are willing to have married by them or on their facilities.
What do you say? Would this “protect the sanctity of marriage”? (Or do people really want something for themselves that other people can’t have?)
Personally, I tried to talk my boyfriend into eloping downtown (I did that once already) but he wants to have a ceremony. No one is getting me in any church for it, though. I’d be happy with a “Civil Union,” unless we can get Wavy Gravy to marry us.
UPDATE: I may have been unclear. Here is my (first attempt at) clarification from the comments section. Please comment if I’m still not making sense.
I’m saying if certain straight couples don’t want “marriage” to be available from the government to gay couples, then maybe all couples, including straight ones, should be restricted to “civil unions” from the government. And all rights should be thus available equally.
In other words, just change the name of the legal concept of “marriage” to “civil unions”, and let the religions deal with the religious crap.
I am good with your plan…and I would be considered a “conservative” by this society.
Any mix of “the state” and religion has problems when compared to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. I am good with a “Civil Union” for everyone.
That’s actually what I’d like, too. One category under the law, call it whatever you want. Go to city hall for your civil union lisence (really just a contract) and then go to the church of your choice (if you wish) for marriage.
The cynic in me says it will never pass because of all the govt and business forms that would have to be changed and reprinted…
you are my new favorite new commenter, btw… I loved your comment today.
Does this mean I am now bipartisan too?
Chicory: Wow. It’s silly how good that makes me feel, thanks
the reason that people want equal access to marriage as LEGALLY defined – not religiously, but LEGALLY – is because of things like enduring power of attorney, child custody, transfer of property etc. There are many municipalities in which a “civil union” would not grant me the right to keep my daughter if my partner died. there are many, many cases where one same sex parent has died and the child was taken from the survivor and given to the grandparents, who may or may not have approved of the relationship to begin with and may bar the parent from ever seeing their child again, without any legal recourse. this is a case law issue rather than a statue issue, because obviously it arises out of how different courts interpret the law. if the law recognizes ALL marriages as legal rather than restricting “legal marriage” to refer to those being between a man and a woman, then this issue doesn’t arise any more.
nobody is saying that the first southern baptist church of mobile, alabama should be forced to hold gay marriages in its chapel. what we’re talking about is the rights afforded to married couples under current law – if you are saying that a same-sex couple should not have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples, well, i am curious how you arrive at that notion. if you had gay friends with children, as i do, you might have cause to reconsider.
Heh. No, you have me backwards. I’m saying if certain straight couples don’t want “marriage” to be available from the government to gay couples, then maybe all couples, including straight ones, should be restricted to “civil unions” from the government. And all rights should be thus available equally.
In other words, just change the name of the legal concept of “marriage” to “civil unions”, and let the religions deal with the religious crap.
And the “heh” – I’m laughing because it is so easy to come off wrong on the internet without realizing it, and I clearly did.
And I do have friends… with toddler twins… who just got married about a month ago… although I have thought of them as married for the 12 years I’ve known them.
You make absolutely perfect sense to me:) I agree with all of it.
I haven’t jumped in here because I agreed, and didn’t think discussion was necessary.
I understood you to mean that what we now call “marriages” we should simply relabel to “civil unions,” retaining all the rights currently associated with it, and let the religions add a sacred layer called “marriage” if all involved so choose.
It works for me. I don’t care what you call it. I’ve always viewed it as a legal agreement, whether or not you also make it a religious sacrament.
And that way, the government can butt out of the bedroom. (Sorry.)
It seems like the weddings that have been performed by religious leaders would still fit both categories. But I think the folks who voted yes on Prop 8 (or yes on Amendment 2, here,) wouldn’t quite see it that way.