The notion that any one group's religious believes should have any say with respect to the laws and regulations of the United States is by definition antithetical to its founding.
It is therefore perplexing to me that one of the most contentious issues of our time is the right to "marry" a person of ones choice. Even more perplexing is that when we face the growing movement of the "tea-party" and their ideas that government should be out of our lives in every way possible, that these same people would then say government should have a right to say who you may love and with whom you may share your life. Shouldn't the Tea-Party be for equal rights for all?
A real democracy isn't equal if its constitution only protects some of its people.
In a time when the debate as to same-sex marriage has reached a point where the majority of Americans are in favor of equality for all in Marriage, let's not loose track of what we are talking about.
My argument is not for gay marriage but is instead that we must all have equality for each and every one of us or we are not truly Free.
"The important thing is not the object of love, but the emotion itself."
Gore VidalWe are talking about two people, adults, committing to each other that they want to spend their lives together. That they want to enjoy all that life has to offer together.
Why are Americans in particular so hung up on gender and what it is and what its roles are supposed to look like?
Who and why does anyone give a fuck who wants to love another no matter what that love looks like?
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
Friedrich NietzscheSo I believe that marriage as a state sponsored institution should be abolished. If two consenting adults want to share a life together then the State should offer a civil union to those people - whether straight or gay (in order to address issues such as children and property rights). "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should be kept as such. Marriage should have no legal foundation outside of one's own faith.
So the following video which has gone viral shows us clearly that Marriage should be fun. It should be happy. It should be a celebration of the future.
This couple looks like they enjoy life and are going to enjoy life together. Let's Hope!
This couple looks like they enjoy life and are going to enjoy life together. Let's Hope!
joya and emre | wedding music video from David Robin on Vimeo.
The problem is that our government does not, and practicall y cannot, define WHAT "marriage" is. It only defines WHO can get a government marriage license. Consider how the government ties itself in logical knots trying to define a "sham" marriage as one between a US citizen and a Russian woman who wants to live in the United States.
ReplyDeleteWe're three years into the Obama administra tion. The President has said there should be civil unions for same-sex couples (I disagree with him). Where's the bill? Why haven't we seen a civil unions bill before Congress? Why has President Obama not called upon Congress to pass this bill and put it on his desk?
ReplyDeleteUnless we start seeing serious work on creating this, the best interests of the gay community still lie in going for the existing status, marriage, instead of a fantasy of civil union.
I agree with the author of the article. Marriage in the civil and the religious sense are two different things that have come to be called by one word. Plenty of people have one without the other: non-religi ous couples are married all the time without any religious involvemen t of any kind in their wedding, legal paperwork, or relationsh ip; and others have been married by a clergy person according to the dictates of their religious tradition, making them a married couple in the religious sense, though they have not pursued civil recognitio n of their union. JT
ReplyDeleteSo why not recognize these two distinct concepts as such and separate them into two distinct things? Then, couples could choose to engage in either or both, as they see fit. The legal side of things--in surance, inheritanc e rights, etc.--woul d be under the auspices of the civil union (whether it ultimately be called marriage, civil union, or something else), and the spiritual side under that of the religious union (again, the word for it isn't the most important aspect, and any group could call it whatever they wanted, anyway, because their would be no legal aspect to it.)
Such a solution would ensure that the government is not infringing on religious freedom as it pertains to marriage, while also keeping the religious views of the majority from being imposed upon those who don't share them.
You suggest, "The legal side of things--in surance, inheritanc e rights, etc.--woul d be under the auspices of the civil union..." Even for people with marriage licenses, these legal issues should be documented with simple legal documents such as wills and power of attorneys rather than relying on the default provisions of marriage. I am suggesting that it is not necessary for the government to issue marriage licenses. What is there about marriage that the government is trying to promote? Life would go on just fine without government marriage licenses. Elly
ReplyDeleteMore accurately , the state doesn't say who can be baptized; why should it say who can be "married"?
ReplyDeleteBecause there are some unethical pairings as far as conceiving offspring goes, and the state should protect people from being created in unethical ways. Marriage always approves of the conception of children and should continue to. When I marry, I want to feel the public approval and official finality that we are allowed to go and have sex and create offspring together, and no one, in any religion, can say we don't have the right to conceive children together. I'm not religious, and other people are of various different religions, so getting a certain religion's approval means nothing, I want the legal approval, the right to conceive with my spouse.
With both government marriages and government civil unions there are vocabulary problems: Mr. and Mrs.; husband and wife; bride and groom; mother and father; widow and widower, etc. Couples are going to continue to characteri ze their relationsh ip with any term they like, with or without government marriage or government civil unions. Except for collecting Social Security, no one is ever asked to show their marriage license.
ReplyDeleteAvoid all the battles and just have government withdraw from both the marriage business and the civil union business.
This is spot on. Marriage is a religious and spiritual institutio n - the government has no business overseeing it. Instead, the government should grants Civil Unions to any two consenting adults, regardless of their sex. This would grant the legal rights marriage has now. Churches and spiritual leaders and anyone else can then grant or refuse to grant the right of "marriage. " Bill
ReplyDeleteExactly. "By the powers vested in me by the State," not God, Jebus, Buddah, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
ReplyDeleteCivil unions for all, yes. And ending such a union should be less tortuous than ending a marriage in MD. Like it's the state's business to throw up roadblocks for citizens' personal decisions. Nancy
ReplyDeleteAnyone interested in participating in this project, please contact Civil Unions For All at info@civilunions4all.org.
ReplyDeleteElly, the biggest single reason to continue to have state "civil unions" is for the purposes of determing property rights. It establishes a definitive start and, more often than not, end to a relationship for purposes of dividing property. Many States still have the concept of "common law wife" to cover situations where peopel did not marry but there were issues as to property and/or children.
ReplyDelete