Over the last several years,
gay rights advocates have been pushing states to recognize homosexual
marriages or for the right to marry in that state. Many states
recognize civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but gay rights
advocates say it isn't enough. At the same time, many in the federal
government have been advocating for a constitutional amendment
defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Inasmuch as I'm all for equal rights, I think someone is missing the point. Marriages are religiously based. The definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman (as opposed to a man and a man or a man and several women, or a woman and several men, etc.) is based on the biblical accounts of Adam and Eve. Other cultures see polygamous marriages as the norm, as supported by their religious beliefs.
Let me say this again: MARRIAGES ARE RELIGIOUSLY BASED.
Alright, having established that, let's go back to the whole gay marriage issue. States should not be issuing marriage licenses in the first place. That is an advocacy of a religious point of view and is expressly forbidden by the first amendment.
Here's the amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
An establishment of religion IS defining a marriage based on Christian concepts of marriage. It doesn't matter WHO or WHAT is being married. If one is a man and the other is a woman and that's all you define marriage as, then it's religiously based and unconstitutional.
But a marriage brings with it certain civil rights and responsibilities. Fine. Let the government call them civil unions. Once both parties sign the contract, they're contracted. They have all the civil rights and responsibilities awarded to anyone in such a position. Doesn't matter if they're man and man, woman and woman or whatever. The state's involvement in it is strictly on the civil side and no state official can perform a marriage ceremony for anyone.
The old justice of the peace "marriage" is out of the question. That's a state-sponsored, state-endorsed advocacy of a religious point of view. The state should be utterly out of the marriage business. It doesn't matter if the state will allow anyone to contract with anyone else. The whole concept of marriage is religiously based. The state's responsibility ends with the issuing of a civil contract.
Once a couple (or group, etc.) have been contracted according to civil authorities, they can then go to a house of worship or religious leader and have a marriage ceremony performed - if that religion endorses their kind of 'marriage'. Religions are free to be as narrow or open-minded as they want to be. That's the hallmark of a religion. But the state should be blind to the desire of anyone who wishes the same civil rights and responsibilities a civil union would grant them. As long as the individuals involved are legally able to enter into a civil contract (eg. of age, consenting, mentally competent, informed, etc.), then the state has to issue one on demand for whatever fee it deems necessary.
Hell, given the over 50% failure rate of marriages, throw in a pre-contract agreement for an extra fee stipulating who gets what in case of breech of contract. Like a prenuptial agreement, only without the marriage overtones. It would save a lot of time and energy in the breaking of the contract. Or better yet, put a time limit on the contract with a renew option. It would give everyone an extra incentive to remember their contract anniversary. If they don't renew within a certain time after the contract expires, the union is dissolved. In that case, the pre-contractual agreement decides how things are split up. No more long, bitter divorces. No more religious 'annulments like it never happened' bullshit. Given the complexities of the legal language today, it may make eager couples rethink their positions BEFORE they get married rather than after.
But the bottom line is that states, and the US Government for that matter, should not be in the marriage business. It should only issue civil union licenses. Religions should decide their stand on the definition of marriages (most already have and many are much more progressive than most state laws) and perform marriage ceremonies as their tenets dictate.
I don't see the state getting out of the business of civil unions altogether, though, which is another option. There are certain safeguards that have to be placed upon such things - like age, mental fitness, a lack of coercion, etc. Religions have hardly been proven the guardians of such niceties, so the state should still ensure that all parties in the contract are at least legally able to enter into such a contract. But beyond that, the state has no business saying who should enter into a civil union contract with whom.
So why aren't people seeing this?
Inasmuch as I'm all for equal rights, I think someone is missing the point. Marriages are religiously based. The definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman (as opposed to a man and a man or a man and several women, or a woman and several men, etc.) is based on the biblical accounts of Adam and Eve. Other cultures see polygamous marriages as the norm, as supported by their religious beliefs.
Let me say this again: MARRIAGES ARE RELIGIOUSLY BASED.
Alright, having established that, let's go back to the whole gay marriage issue. States should not be issuing marriage licenses in the first place. That is an advocacy of a religious point of view and is expressly forbidden by the first amendment.
Here's the amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
An establishment of religion IS defining a marriage based on Christian concepts of marriage. It doesn't matter WHO or WHAT is being married. If one is a man and the other is a woman and that's all you define marriage as, then it's religiously based and unconstitutional.
But a marriage brings with it certain civil rights and responsibilities. Fine. Let the government call them civil unions. Once both parties sign the contract, they're contracted. They have all the civil rights and responsibilities awarded to anyone in such a position. Doesn't matter if they're man and man, woman and woman or whatever. The state's involvement in it is strictly on the civil side and no state official can perform a marriage ceremony for anyone.
The old justice of the peace "marriage" is out of the question. That's a state-sponsored, state-endorsed advocacy of a religious point of view. The state should be utterly out of the marriage business. It doesn't matter if the state will allow anyone to contract with anyone else. The whole concept of marriage is religiously based. The state's responsibility ends with the issuing of a civil contract.
Once a couple (or group, etc.) have been contracted according to civil authorities, they can then go to a house of worship or religious leader and have a marriage ceremony performed - if that religion endorses their kind of 'marriage'. Religions are free to be as narrow or open-minded as they want to be. That's the hallmark of a religion. But the state should be blind to the desire of anyone who wishes the same civil rights and responsibilities a civil union would grant them. As long as the individuals involved are legally able to enter into a civil contract (eg. of age, consenting, mentally competent, informed, etc.), then the state has to issue one on demand for whatever fee it deems necessary.
Hell, given the over 50% failure rate of marriages, throw in a pre-contract agreement for an extra fee stipulating who gets what in case of breech of contract. Like a prenuptial agreement, only without the marriage overtones. It would save a lot of time and energy in the breaking of the contract. Or better yet, put a time limit on the contract with a renew option. It would give everyone an extra incentive to remember their contract anniversary. If they don't renew within a certain time after the contract expires, the union is dissolved. In that case, the pre-contractual agreement decides how things are split up. No more long, bitter divorces. No more religious 'annulments like it never happened' bullshit. Given the complexities of the legal language today, it may make eager couples rethink their positions BEFORE they get married rather than after.
But the bottom line is that states, and the US Government for that matter, should not be in the marriage business. It should only issue civil union licenses. Religions should decide their stand on the definition of marriages (most already have and many are much more progressive than most state laws) and perform marriage ceremonies as their tenets dictate.
I don't see the state getting out of the business of civil unions altogether, though, which is another option. There are certain safeguards that have to be placed upon such things - like age, mental fitness, a lack of coercion, etc. Religions have hardly been proven the guardians of such niceties, so the state should still ensure that all parties in the contract are at least legally able to enter into such a contract. But beyond that, the state has no business saying who should enter into a civil union contract with whom.
So why aren't people seeing this?
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comment posts have to be moderated. Intelligent ones (whether they agree with me or not) are posted. Spam, threats, trolling, flaming and people acting like a complete, moronic, on-line douche-bag will be ignored and/or dealt with by the appropriate authorities - unless I decide to play with their heads and ridicule their comments in a post.