A Resolution of the Gay Marriage Issue

[kennetha]

I think I have the perfect solution.

Step 1. (a) Let the Churches have the word 'marriage.' (b) Let the State keep some such words as 'civil union' 'civil commitment' (or let the State invent some other word with a nicer ring.

Step 2. Let civil unions be between any two consenting parties.

Step 3. Let the civil rights and privileges associated with civil union be the same for all.

Step 4. Let the State recognize any marriage formed by the Church as Civil Unions before the State

Step 5. Let any Church recognize as marriage all and only the Civil Unions they deem appropriate.

Step 6. let there be no distinction in law between Civil unions which are recognized by some Church or other as "holy" marriages and those Civil unions which are not recognized by some Church or other as "holy" marriages.


This way everybody gets what they want. THe state treats all citizens equally under the law. CHurches get to define marriages in ways that are consistent with Church Doctrine. It's an example of rendering unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's (Civil Union/Commitment) and rendering unto the Church what belongs to the CHurch ("holy" matrimony.)

Are there any problems with this approach? I can't see any offhand.

[goletian]

1. ive yet to find any evidence that marriage is inherently religious. why should the church have it?

[kennetha]

3. social peace

[WillParkinson]

5. Tell that to women when they wanted to vote...

Blacks when they wanted to be free.

[Bryn]

23. I remember reading that pagans started marriage thing first

and Catholic Church rejected it before they finally adopted it. I think it was a researcher named Barbara Walker who wrote it. I tried goggling it, but unable to locate.

[goletian]

24. religious folks invented marriage just like they invented morals, lol. nonsense.

[anonymous171]

2. Give civil unions the same legal benefits as marriage.

Then everyone is happy. Then in 20-40 years after all these reactionaries are dead we can change it.

[No Elephants]

4. Writing songs about civil unions is too hard. Let the church have "holy matrimony."

[kennetha]

6. I take your point.

"Civil Union" is an ugly phrase. Certainly a better more lyrical more evocative term is necessary.

[No Elephants]

10. No, my point, though made as an attempt at humor, is that marriage should be the word for

everyone. This is about equal rights, not semantics. No one had to change millenia of language usuage or the kinds of liccneses the city or town issued for my hetero marriage. We don't have to do that when members of the GLBT community marry each other either. If we do, it's like saying "This is so hideous, we had to change the language we've been using forever, for feck's sake."

Churches already have "Holy Matrimony" anyway; and the state has no business in mucking around with what is "Holy" and what isn't anyway. Let the marriage license remain the marriage license and separate church and state. That is what is supposed to happen in this country anyway. We have gone way to far in allowing religion to control secular law.

[WillParkinson]

7. So churches that are willing to marry gays....

Can use holy matrimony? The problem isn't solved.

[kennetha]

8. Churches don't have to recognize other Church's marriages.

But the Civil thing, whatever we chose to call it, would be guaranteed equal protection of the laws. So I don't see the problem.

[WillParkinson]

12. No, you wouldn't....

Until they start with "the only TRUE marriage is one that's performed by our church, anything else is a false marriage".

Giving in to bigotry will not win the day.

[CTyankee]

13. As I understand it, because my marriage was essentially a civil one

it would not be recognized as a "real" marriage by several religions. However, I am not religious so it is irrelevant in my life. I have a marriage certificate from the town of Woodbridge, CT which I produce when evidence is requested that I am married (to confer benefits, for instance, when I wanted to be put on my husband's health insurance policy at his job).

To me the problem has been that the public has often been sold on the idea that gays want "new" or "special" rights. We need a restatement that basically is what our CT state supreme court has just said: it is an equal protection issue and the 14th amendment applies. Equal protection is for everybody, it is already in our U.S. Consitution. Period, the end.

[WillParkinson]

20. I'm an atheist...

I don't care about church marriage.

What I care about is my family saying in their eyes I'm not married. (Mine wouldn't do that, btw.)

Things like this can still cause schisms in family settings. I know it can either way, but full marriage rights are the only guarantee for couples.

[WillParkinson]

21. Bah...

Stupid Time/Warner forcing me into Dupe-land.

[No Elephants]

9. Point is, each church can choose for whom to use it. They don't HAVE to use it for anyone, nor do

they HAVE to withhold it from anyone. It's theirs to give or withhold as they please. City Hall would not issue a "Holy Matrimony" license, but a marriage license. If something is totally within your control, it's yours, regardless of how you give or withhold it.

[Hepburn]

14. Soooooooo......does that mean that the secular world can have....

...UNholy Matrimony? :evilgrin:

[Peace Patriot]

11. "This way everybody gets what they want." I think you mistake what the fascists

who put Prop 8 on the ballot want. They don't want to prevent gays from marrying. They want civil war.*

And, frankly, I don't trust ANY election result tabulated with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by corporations whose ties to far rightwing causes would make your hair stand on end, with virtually no audit/recount controls. California has a somewhat improved election system--improved from terrible--but it is still far, far, FAR from transparent, and EASILY riggable.

So they let Obama win, cuz he's so popular that to reverse his win might bring a 'Boston Tea Party' down on their election theft machines, and they go for tweaking close races, and poisonous initiatives to divide the left.

They have the easy capability to do this. That's what they're doing, in my opinion.

--------

*(Or I should say, civil war is the main thing they want. And if they cause grief to gays, so much the better. We need to start recognizing these ploys for what they are--there is a black hand behind them, someone like reclusive, rightwing multi-billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who is not only the major investor in one of the big three election theft corporations--ES&S--but also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals. I'm not sure ES&S is still allowed in California--they are so bad. But their brethren at Diebold (now called "Premier") still are. (ES&S is a spinoff of Diebold.) Look to the POLITICAL motive, not the religious one. Religion is merely being USED. The purpose is to "divide and conquer," and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if there is written "Project for a New American Century"-type plan somewhere, outlining just how to bust up the coalition that elected Barack Obama. Believe me, the bad guys own the voting machines, and they can use that power as a meat clever, as they did in 2004, or as a subtler surgeon's scalpel--for instance, to favor pro-war, pro-corporate 'Blue Dogs' in our primaries, to produce a Democratic Congress with a 10% approval rating--worse than Bush's. We need to look to vote counting system. We really do!)

[NorthCarolina]

15. There are many inclusive Churches that would step up and offer "marriage" to LGBT citizens

which is why I don't believe this solution would work to soothe the haters.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Future tense not correct

Many Churches already perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, have for years. Religion is free and unregulated now and always. The government is the entity that holds all all legal power of contract, and it is the government that withholds equal rights.
The Churches are now free to do as they like, as they would be under any other law at all. No church is needed to make a marriage, none.
Note that when disolving a marriage, like the straights do, they go to court, not church. The church holds no legal power to make or disolve that contract. Never did, never will.

[NorthCarolina]

17. You are of course correct, and well said to boot

I was just addressing the basic comment of allocating the word "marriage" to the church. I guess my choice of tense however wasn't the best as I am well aware that gay affirming churches have been marrying gay couples for some time now. Coffee hasn't fully kicked in yet I guess.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. I hope I was kind!

I just hammer that point home, as many people, both supporters and the other side, fully misunderstand the issue.

[Hepburn]

18. So some religious organizations took a word and decided...

...that only they have a right to use it and apply it, right? So why in the hell under the First Amendment is anyone allowing this to happen?

:shrug:

That word MARRIAGE belongs to EVERYONE and as far as I am concerned, the RR and their asshole churches can ESAD.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

22. "Why can't black people be happy? They have their own restrooms!"

:eyes:

[Left Is Write]

25. Of course there are problems.

There are plenty of marriages that were neither performed by nor sanctioned by churches, but they are still marriages. I strongly suspect that most of those couples would like to continue referring to themselves as married and would prefer not to be "downgraded."

There is no need to change "marriage" to suit religions. Religions DO NOT GET TO DECIDE on the rights of others. "Marriage" is not a word that belongs exclusively to religions - it is just as much a legal definition.

Marriage for all.

[TankLV]

26. NO. Not the "same" thing at all...

EQUALIY demands the SAME in EVERYTHING.

Period.

It's really a simple concept...

You should try it sometime...