Obligatory Same Sex Marriage Debate

[Vlad Halliwell]

All of your points are valid, insightful, and well-presented. However, I am in favor of eliminating marriage as a legal construct entirely: gay, straight, or otherwise. The word 'marriage' refers to an outdated institution that severely restricted a woman's reproductive rights, along with economic enslavement. Remove the word 'marriage' from all legal code, and various religious entities can marry cats to dogs, if they so choose, without any government interference.

Replace 'marriage' with 'legal union' and remove the ability of any and all churches to sanction or refuse to sanction. Make it a legal partnership, with clearly defined rights and responsibilities, having nothing whatsoever to do with God, religion, or any church. Restrict the ability to enter into the contract only to those otherwise legally able to enter contracts (that is, competent adults), without regard to race, gender, religion, etc.

There are people (I am obviously not among them) who want gay marriage legalized because it is currently illegal in most places. They want equal rights. I'm all in favor of equal rights, of course. But there are far too many people who adamantly oppose gay marriage. I say, fine, let them win...but take away 'straight' marriage as a consequence. If gay (or trans, for that matter) people can't marry, then no one should be allowed to.  

[Vlad Halliwell]

Spoot-maker

Thing is, Vlad, in a true secular state all the churches can do is refuse their priest services and use of their land. They can't deny the legal rights of gay couples.

Frankly, I think both marriage and civil unions should be available to everyone. De facto couples and couples with exception to marriages but want to protect their rights can go for a civil union. People who want to have a marriage can have one, straight or gay.

Here's the thing. In the US, we believe (and are often told) that we live in a secular state, but this isn't strictly true. De jure (by law, in this case, the US Constitution), we have a thin separation between church and state. But de facto (in reality), that separation is a lot thinner than people like to believe. The most powerful (and often most wealthy) religious institutions wield tremendous influence over the state.

I agree, both marriage and civil unions should be available to everyone. But I also believe those two terms should be applied to entirely separate institutions. The government should only recognize and endorse civil unions, that is, a legal contract between individuals outlining certain rights and responsibilities. Marriage should (in my not-so-humble opinion) be a purely religious contract, recognized and endorsed only by whatever church is giving (or withholding) the stamp of approval.

In other words, if two people go to their priest and have him say the proper prayers, invoke the proper oaths and vows, wave a live chicken over them, or whatever the ceremony involves, they are considered married by that church. Period. No special tax breaks. No special insurance rates. No special rights under the law. As far as the state is concerned, they are, in fact, separate legal entities, just like they were before they were married.

Unless! Unless they also enter into a civil union, which (in my perfect world) would be a separate institution.

Right now, in America, anyone can claim to be married. I've known plenty of couples, gay and straight (and otherwise) who refer to each other as husband/wife/spouse, but they don't have a state-issued marriage license. They don't enjoy all the same benefits that people with a legal marriage license enjoy. As far as the state is concerned, they aren't married, but they can say they're married from now till Domesday (so long as they aren't attempting to commit any sort of fraud by claiming a legal status to which they are not entitled).

In my perfect little world, anyone can be married, according to their own religious doctrines, but the state won't give a hoot (just like they don't give a hoot now for those couples who claim to be married, but don't have a legal marriage license). The only institution the state would recognize would be the civil union.

Is that making sense?