A. There are two aspects to marriage. A religious ritual, which the government has no place in regulating... And a civil contract, which the church has no authority over. I don't care what churches do inside their property (as long as it doesn't violate the tax code requirements that allow them to remain tax exempt), but when it comes to the civil contract, none of the laws regulating it should have anything to do with religious requirements. No one wants the state to regulate church my friend. they want the church to stop intruding on civil government matters.
Q. That's the mis-communication. Why not just call it something different and churches will stop getting their panties in a wad, and allow people to list anyone they want as recipient of benefits married or not. Eliminate tax breaks for marriage (and in general make taxes MUCH simpler for all)
A. Because the term marriage is used by our government. That's what it uses. It matters not how the church defines that word. What matters is how the government defines it, and the government uses that word to convey meaning, and benefits to a particular kind of civil contract. I don't care what the government decides to call the contract that creates a civil union, as long as it makes no difference in the term it uses to describe unions of the same sex, and unions of the opposite sex. I don't think anyone cares what it's called as long as it's called the same thing for everyone. I don't believe it's a mis-communication. I believe it's a coordinated effort by the religious right to impose their religious rules onto the rest of us.
Q. From conversations with what I would describe as highly religious christian people about this topic, I really think it's the term marriage which is offensive for use with gays for most religious people. No one cares if two people want to have civil union benefits with whoever you want between 2 consenting adults. But it's currently tied to a religious belief and at least implies you cant have one without the other. And the debate seems to refuse to discuss separating the two. Current civil unions require a marriage license for many benefits I believe. That's great except It's legal for me to get married and divorced 10 times in 2 years if I want. Why should I have to get married to share benefits with someone? If I want to do both, great! If I just want to share benefits with someone, why not let me do that. I can change my mind at any time anyway, right?
A. I think the crux of the issue is this: The church can own the word marriage if the wants, but that means opposite sex couples can't use it for a civil contract either, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Ask your religious friends if they would support a law that changes the term for every couple from marriage to civil union, so that no one can have a government endorsed marriage, and each church can freely practice their marriage ritual with any rules they like. Ask them if that would appeal to them and I believe their answer will reveal to you their true colors on this subject.
Q. I think the separation is already accepted. Marriage is religious. Civil union is legal. If I want a civil union with a person and not marry them, it should be allowed. If I find a church that is willing to marry me to whomever, the government should not be allowed to regulate that. But marriage does not automatically mean a civil union is in effect. Completely separate the two. Make sense?
A. That does make sense. Then why should anyone, gay or straight, be allowed to enter into a civil contract the government regulates that is called a marriage? why can't all contracts be renamed to "civil union?" Doing that would solve the problem. Why do the religious oppose that?
Q. Because no one is proposing completely separating the two. Everyone is fighting over one side or the other instead of the third option, suggesting what we have suggested here. The religious people maintain control over their issue how they see fit and all citizens are allowed the freedom to share what belongs to them with anyone they choose, no matter what religious affiliation or lack there of. No one is forcing anything on anyone. It shouldn't matter and not even be a question on the form if you are married or not when you apply to enter into a civil contract with someone. Marriage has no bearing on any other legal issue unless I want to share my stuff with someone, then it is suddenly relevant for some reason. I think the big argument from religious people is sanctity of the family unit. The simple response is again, not the Fed's job, or any adult who is not the parent, to regulate how parents raise their kids as long as they aren't torturing, starving or otherwise permanently physically injuring them. Why has no one suggested changing the legal definition of marriage for everyone to Civil Union instead of trying to wrestle the word marriage away from the religious?
A. I think that's a great question, and one that should be examined by the supporters of gay marriage. I don't think the failure to do that has been intentional. I think they have simply been working within the existing framework of how the government regulates that contract (the government currently uses the term marriage to describe that contract) and are insisting on the same civil liberties that straight couples have, regardless of what the contract is called. If the supporters of gay marriage lose this fight, which I don't believe they will, then we will probably see this effort evolve into an effort to rename the contract from Marriage to Civil Union for everyone. I would support that as passionately as I support the right to gay marriage, because my first desire is to get religion out of government, and with that, we could kill two birds with one stone.
No comments:
Post a Comment