A Constitutional Amendment to Ban Marriage
An acknowledged leader of the Evangelical Christian Right was interviewed on "Face the Nation" a few years ago. Though a few of the topics allowed him to be a shill for the Bush Administration, he really only hit his stride when discussing the "culture war" du jour; Gay Marriage. Absolutely convinced in his belief that gay marriage meant the certain destruction of all civic, civil and religious order, this acknowledged leader invoked bizarre scenarios that opponents of inter-racial and inter-religious marriages wielded decades ago.
That was when I leaned forward a little.
If there is one thing I've learned over the years about ideologues, it is that they will unknowingly refute their core teachings to justify their True Belief. When Dick Cheney and his lesbian daughter were alluded to, this "man of the cloth" refused to even consider tempering his vitriol. When asked, if in a similar position as the then vice president, would he accept his daughter's wishes to have the same equal rights as all other citizens? His response was to plead it was all a hypothetical. That he didn't know what he would do.
His refutation of a core teaching of his messiah was certainly obvious to me. Some might think it was a refutation of the teaching to, "love thine enemy." Others might think it was refuting the precept of forgiveness. It was certainly a refutation of both of those virtues. But an even more basic teaching was refuted; the simple act of empathy. This acknowledged Christian leader refused to have empathy for another human being.
It just didn't sound Christian. But it was True Belief, nonetheless.
The same arguments that lawfully denied members of different races and/or religions to marry decades ago, is being used in this current debate. It was patently wrong then, it is absolutely wrong now. The world did not come to an end when blacks married whites, when Jews married Catholics.
Even though this acknowledged Evangelical Christian leader might pray and hope for the world to end, it will not end when gays can legally marry.
So in a stern response to the effort by the Evangelical Christian Right and other True Believers for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage, I have proposed a counter Amendment. One guaranteed to provide Due Process for all and one that will certainly raise a few eyebrows. For this attack on Gays by the Christian Right is an attack on all free thinkers, Gay or Staight.
It is one thing to marry in a Church. But when the Church says who can marry, then a Statement needs to be nailed to the "Wittenberg Gate."
Putting this Proposed Amendment in the hands of our Government Representatives would make a statement. It would loudly proclaim that no longer would the iron hand of Religious Zealotry strangle the throat of Freedom. It would state that a separation has existed between Church and State and that We The People, demand that it be honored.
Proposed:
A Constitutional Amendment to Ban Marriage to be ratified as:
The 28th Amendment.
Whereby the ages old institution of Marriage is couched in Religious Decree, and whereas the government of The United States of America in keeping with the Standards of a Separation of Church and State, therefore the government of The United States of America shall make no law recognizing a religious marriage as valid.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to enter into a civil union shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, race, national origin, religious affiliation or economic status.
Section 2.
All persons entered into a civil union in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are contractual entities of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of contractual entities of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person or contractual entity of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person or contractual entity within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 3.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
© 2005 and 2009 by Justice Putnam
and Mechanisches-Strophe Verlagswesen
I rec'ed this, but I'm not going to be signing any petitions. They don't do anything, with the possible exception of nominating petitions.
March 12, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hold no real hope that the petition can do anything; but the argument I propose has something to it, I believe.
March 12, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thus my recommendation.
March 12, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I signed it. Sounds OK to me. I could get into some meaningless discussion of the old Common Law Courts, Ecclesiastical Courts, and the King's Bench, but who cares? hahhahaha
You are licensed by your state to get married. The OATH is given by a judge, justice of the peace, minister, priest, elvis presley...
It is the OATH that formalizes the union.
I agree with Grouch, but if one of these attempts brings in a couple million signatures, it becomes politically significant.
March 12, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I check the petition every now and then; I get a laugh out of signees who are clearly against what I have proposed, but signed it anyway just so they can make a derisive comment.
A couple million signatures is but a dream... alas.
March 12, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Justice, I am not against this. I find your petition laudable. You are a good man and this is a good goal. And if it passed tomorrow that would be fine with me.
March 12, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote this to Robbie Love below, but it certainly applies here as well:
*****************
I should also say, that since I have been and continue to be a performance artist; this is also "street theater." The petition is like those art installations where the "audience" writes a love note on card stock paper tied with cotton twine to floating balloons that float aimlessly about the room.
If the only action taken is that the audience thinks about "it," then I have "succeeded" in my "story-telling."
**************
March 12, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes yes yes good point
March 12, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I agree all marriages should be banned. Marriage is an ancient tool used to subjugate people and in many cases marriage is used to coerce money out of the partner with money, whether its a man or a woman. It definitely promotes equality in theft and that's about it. All marriage should be banned.
March 12, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo and signed.
March 12, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Novel idea. Makes it clear how problematic it is to empower religious people to perform a civil function. Not only that, but many religions make it difficult to marry, unless people do certain things first!
March 12, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!!!! This idea has been rattling around in my head for some time and it's good to hear someone articulate it!
My in-laws, who were from a European country, had two anniversary dates, one for their 'civil' marriage (in which the state recognized their union) and one for their 'church' marriage (in which it was recognized by the church and they had all the appropriate ceremony). I don't know for sure, but it was my understanding that legally they were not considered married until the civil ceremony was performed, but once that was accomplished, they were married for all legal purposes. Whether or not to have a church ceremony was up to the couple.
It seems such a simple -- and fair -- solution. Few people oppose 'civil unions' for same-sex couples but the word "marriage" triggers all sorts of emotions and tribulation. So ... let the government be involved only in the legal/civil union aspect and let the various churches decide when, how and whom "marriages" occur.
Many state laws are written in terms of "marriage" and the quick way to change them is to define the term "marriage" as "civil union" and the terms "husband" or "wife" as "partner." That's the government's only concern -- civil, legal unification of two individual's identity under the law.
Bravo!!!! It probably won't happen but, at the same time, I wonder if anyone will be able to make a cogent, logical argument against it.
March 12, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. When I married my second wife, Flore, we had two ceremonies, one here in the states in the Oakland Courthouse, and the other in the "Marie" in St Ceneri, France.
A church wedding is not recognized until a ceremony is performed and "ratified" by the local government and then the "State."
March 12, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've thought more and more lately that we really ought to do away with marriage as a legal status entirely. Marriage it seems to me is a term that is religious and not an appropriate legal term to begin with. Why not abolish the legal term "marriage" and have only domestic partnerships for all thus separating the two issues once and for all? We would then avoid a great deal of the truly idiotic and completely bigoted noise out there about the issue of gay "marriage".
Other than straight homophobia, much of the opposition to gay marriage is based upon this one word and it comes from religious leaders and people who base their bigotry on religious teaching (or myth as the case may be). In truth, marriage as an institution has two faces: one religious and the other legal.
The religious face has to do with the allegedly holy nature of the institution, it's role in reproduction and maintaining and supporting the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing. the religious face of marriage is ancient and concerned with morality and the role of the sexes more than the legalities of property ownership and the like.
The legal face was and remains more or less a property contract and declaration of a legal partnership more akin to a business partnership than a holy institution that entitles the parties to certain rights having to do with the unique nature of the partnership that binds the parties uniquely for legal purposes as one and which can only be unbound through a court of law.
You can be married a thousand times in a church or bunches of them without ever being legally married. It's the marriage license that makes one married, not the religious ceremony. The religious ceremony has no legal effect unless and until a marriage license is paid for and then completed, certified, etc. by a member of the clergy or a justice of the peace.
If the question to the public was whether or not two people, whether of same or opposite sexes should be able to enter into domestic partnerships that provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities bestowed by a marriage license wouldn't we see a whole lot of the resistance to gay marriage disappear? I think we would.
So, why not let marriage remain a province of the churches, synagogues, mosques, tent meetings and what have you, but strike it as a legal term and make it void of any legal meaning? That way, government and the law is no longer involved in "marriage" at all but only in the contractual union between two people who wish to be considered a legal partneship with certain property and other retains pertaining specifically to that partnership.
The inability of most people to separate the potential religious issues involved in gay marriage and the legal issues is the biggest obstacle to progress in my opinion. Right now, any church that wants to can marry anyone of any sex that they want to and no church is required to marry same sex couples or anyone they don't approve of being married. Gay marriage would, of course, have absolutely no impact on churches to marry or not to marry whoever they want to marry, but many people don't get that because they see the two things as one when they aren't.
Just a thought.
March 12, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Thanks.
If there truly was a separation of church and state this would not even be an issue.
'All are created equal ......'
Really?!? Seems like it's still that some enjoy more 'equality' than others.
March 12, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the point of my argument; that, what I call, for lack of a better term, "civil unions," or "conractual entities," are nothing but "hand-shake agreements" between private parties that are recognized by the State.
Property can be exchanged, protected and inherited by these "hand-shake agreements."
If one wants to be "married" in the "Eyes of God," they can do that, but untl it is recognized by the State, (by license, as it is now) then the legal transfer of property, etc is not in force.
What happens in church stays in the church; what happens in a representative democray is enjoined for All by Equal Protection and Due Process.
March 12, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and an excellent point it is.
It has always seemed weird to me how vital semantics have been in this battle. Advocates for equality are pressing for the same legal recognition as any other couple. It isn't a matter of approval. It's a matter of legal relationships and recognition of same the advocates of equality are after.
What the anti-equality people get wigged out about is the word marriage. If you ask most of the opponents if they think same sex couple should be able to visit eachother in the hospital, make medical decisions on behalf of their partners, be granted benefits like health insurance and the like I think they would agree. But if you call it marriage, they go nuts.
It's an odd fight in that we are fighting mostly over issues that are completely superfluous to the legal issues at hand. Marriage is a private matter that really does not involve the state at all. Domestic partnership, civil union or whatever you choose to call it is a legal status conveyed by what we call today a "marriage license" and it is the title of that form that is causing so much broohaha. Change the title on the form, make anyone over the age of consent eligible if they have the money for the fee and bingo! Problem solved. I know it isn't exactly that easy, but it seems some form or fashion of this path is far shorter than any other.
March 12, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a believer, but I take religion seriously enough to grant to people who are that their beliefs mean something - something in particular - that does not bow to fashion, popular sovereignty, or for that matter, internal consistency.
Truth does not answer to you, you answer to Truth.
So I find both sides of the gay marriage debate equally intellectually bankrupt. They simply aren't arguing about the same topic. They don't take each others' beliefs seriously. Which is fine, and which is normal, but since this is a purely semantic argument (who gets to call what "marriage"), the only thing that's really at stake is whether Jerk A (Let's call him "Jerry Falwell") or Jerk B (Let's call him "Dan Savage") get to say they're "won" a "battle" for their "cause" in the culture "war".
It's about ego, not rights or morality.
March 12, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is not moral about spousal benefits and visitation rights in a hospital?
How do we determine Truth? If it is to apply to all it must be arguable and evidence-based, as in courtrooms. There is considerable harm from suppression of sexuality, and little from honesty and openness.
What evidence can the resisters offer to support their fears? Can they offset the constitutional arguments? Can they even handle the logical paradox of defining Man and Woman?
And while there have been known cultures that encouraged men to couple, that men and women do so even in cultures where it means death should convince the reasonable person of the sincerity and depth of the feelings modern couples wish to see sanctioned by society.
There are differences in the logical power and associated evidence wielded by the two sides; they are not equally bankrupt. False equivalency is cheap, but not useful.
March 12, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Wright wrote:
"How do we determine Truth?"
THIS is the point. The two sides don't agree on this. Someone of faith would disagree that "If it is to apply to all it must be arguable and evidence-based, as in courtrooms."
You don't argue with God.
They might agree with "There is considerable harm from suppression of sexuality, and little from honesty and openness." but question whether material "harm" is relevant.
My point is not that anyone is right or wrong, my point is that this is a fight over the definition of right and wrong, not the content.
March 12, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we have to have universal laws, the religious citizen has to agree to the standard of discernable Truth. Revealed Truths are not disposative in court.
What is the alternative to arguing over the morality or merits of the proposition? We have to discuss it, and indeed there will some logical pitfalls. Too bad, but there you are.
I don't admit an equivalence, though, in the search for useful Truth. We do have a procedure, sanctioned by the Constitution. It does not include reading from the Bible as evidence for anything. That is mere assertion, when compared to another party that brings to bear Constitutional arguments, and evidence from the scientific community.
I'm glad to leave the unconvinced behind, but there is a right and wrong here, and right is on the side of expanded civil rights. Just as trying to restrict rights to exclude African-ancestry people of more than 1/16th "blood" is hopeless, or to find some fine distinction between separate-but-equal schools, we will eventually hit a paradox when a cross-dressing man marries, and is later exposed, or when a sex-change patient fails a DNA test. There are people with an extra chromosone. There is an unaddressed paradox in the validity of "normal" marriages that have no intent to procreate, set against same-sex marriages that wish to raise children.
Two sides can disagree over the way to find truth in a murder trial, but someone killed the victim, and society has a method for determining guilt. Similarly, it is not relevant if the opponents of gay rights think they have a lock on Truth. What is relevant is who has the votes, and what courts decide. And arguments can persuade judges, and voters.
March 12, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously I don't disagree that arguments can convince judges, or voters (I am an attorney, for heaven's sake, I'd better think so).
However, those arguments don't have to be rational, nor does one need approach them with, for instance, the assumption that "right is on the side of expanded civil rights"...
Moreover, when you stop talking in the language of neutral principles (and that's all it is... language), and start talking about right and wrong, you're on the same (unshifting, but also invisible) foundation that Rick Warren is; a moral foundation that doesn't have rational underpinnings.
March 12, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right is on the side of expanded civil rights as long as the Constitution is valid. Not a belief, just follows the principles embodied in our government.
If we define all evidence as belief-based there is no point in arguing, or having courts.
March 12, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Courts are a means of resolving disputes, not finding truth. But that's a side note. My real dispute with you and probably several other people here is the idea that the Constitution is somehow universally and always on the side of "expanded civil rights".
This simply isn't true. The Constitution provides specific protection for certain enumerated civil rights, and has been interpreted to protect a few more that are not enumerated. In my view, this was bad Constitutional interpretation (I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided), but since I politically favor most of the results (I am broadly for abortion on demand), I rarely complain.
But the idea that there is any general bias in favor of "more" or "less" civil rights in the Constitution is simply wrong. There are some civil rights in the Constitution, there aren't others. It's not complicated, and it isn't ever expanding.
March 13, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this reasoning is that if you're saying that marriage is a religious function which the state recognizes, rather than a state function which some religions also recognize... well, then you're basically saying atheists can't be married, and the rather quite large numbers of atheists who have ever been married by civil authorities with no religious trappings involved were doing so under the auspices of some sort of sham.
Why civil unions for all? Why not civil marriage for all?
March 12, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I am saying is that Religion has pushed itself into the public square and forced legislation at the expense of a Separation of Church and State; in the same way Religion kept inter-racial and inter-religious marriages from being legal.
If the church can determine who can marry in a court, atheists are on the list to be denied Equal Protection as well.
Already, in California, because of Prop 8, hetero couples who are married under common law are no longer "coupled." Common Law marriages are no longer recognized.
March 12, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A constitutional amendment whose only effect is to change a word (from "marriage" to "civil unions") is just plain ridiculous on the face of it.
"Marriage" ceased being a purely religious word a very long time ago. It is the common vernacular for civil unions. Even atheists "get married". You can have a religious wedding and if the pastor or priest is not licensed by the government to marry you, the civil union will not be recognized. Therefore banning this word would be yet another step toward fascism and do nothing to further the case for equality in the States.
Public opinion is moving solidly toward the implementation of equal legal rights for all civil unions. Homosexual unions should obviously have the same binding legal impact of a heterosexual one, regardless of whether they were married by a priest/pastor or civil servant.
Banning a word will accomplish nothing. Furthermore, going after the religious connotation of the word will only make those opposed to gay unions even more vehement and set the logical *legal* arguments back several years. You think things the religious right is whacky now? Just try doing something like what you've suggested...and make sure to lock your doors and windows.
March 12, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My whole point of this endeavor is not some mistaken belief that this will come to pass; but to show the irony of what the Religious Right has been doing; they define "marriage" and so do I.
Also, I should remind you that the fascism you warn against exists already by these machinations of the Religious Right.
March 12, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should also say, that since I have been and continue to be a performance artist; this is also "street theater." The petition is like those art installations where the "audience" writes a love note on card stock paper tied with cotton twine to floating balloons that float aimlessly about the room.
If the only action taken is that the audience thinks about "it," then I have "suceeded" in my "story-telling."
March 12, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
... sorry about my typos... sheesh!
March 12, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather ban the whole concept, whether you call it civil unions or marriage. The concept is so old testiment and is subject to abuse. Basically, in the end in many instances it winds up being legalized theft if the "marriage" doesn't "work out." Forget about it, just get rid of it.
March 12, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I sign it, will someone come and take my washing machine away?
March 12, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you have a civil right to continue your domestic chores with the current technologies.
March 12, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whew! Because that there washing machine was the most liberating thing I've ever experienced! The Pope told me so, so it must be true!
March 12, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that; it's wonderful to be touched by such civic Grace!
March 12, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Dick Cheney and his lesbian daughter were alluded to, this "man of the cloth" refused to even consider tempering his vitriol. When asked, if in a similar position as the then vice president, would he accept his daughter's wishes to have the same equal rights as all other citizens? His response was to plead it was all a hypothetical. That he didn't know what he would do.
My answer would be that I think that to consider a relationship between two people of the same sex as a "marriage" is wrong. Perhaps if my daughter were a lesbian, that would change my mind, but that wouldn't make it right, it would just mean that I am weak and might be willing to forget my moral principles if it were convenient.
If I had a relative who had swindled people out of billions of dollars like Bernie Madoff, I might have a change of heart about how serious fraud is and how seriously it should be prosecuted. But that is a result of a conflict of interest, not of empathy.
His refutation of a core teaching of his messiah was certainly obvious to me... This acknowledged Christian leader refused to have empathy for another human being.
Why? Because admitted that he didn't know how he would act in a given situation, or because he didn't say that his moral beliefs have to be changed if they are inconvenient?
March 12, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
His "moral beliefs" lacked empaty. pure and simple; he refused to empathize, to put himself in the other's shoes.
March 12, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
His "moral beliefs" lacked empaty. pure and simple; he refused to empathize, to put himself in the other's shoes.
That doesn't exactly answer my question. How do his beliefs "lack empathy?" Is it specifically because he would not answer the question of how he would feel if he were in Cheney's position, or are you stating that any moral beliefs that involve the disapproval of homosexuality are a priori "lacking empathy?"
March 12, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's part of my argument, the homosexuality issue was beside the point; he failed in his basic job of Divinity of the Christian Faith, to know "that the least of these... "
I don't respect the so-called "masculine divinity" this fellow ascribed, nor the politics and legislation that would deny Equal Protection and Due Process.
This "moral" leader is not ordained above crititcism; and the danger is that I can ascribe my own "moral" beliefs against he and his kind and we can have a real pitchfork and torches battle.
But I prefere to respect the basic tenets of a Representative Democracy; that Equal Protection and Due Process for All means just that.
I'm not in a theoligical debate, but a debate about Civics.
March 12, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to look at things through a simplistic lens and I can't embrace the fact that this has to be a battle of right and wrong. Shouldn't this be about people being free to believe whatever they believe and moving on? Obviously if your personal belief is causing someone physical harm, punch their arse out and call it a day but anything short of that, how does another persons belief truly affect you to the detriment of your well being?
I have a theory, the majority (and maybe all) of man's problems start from insecurity. If I can look in the mirror, accept and embrace all that I am, good, bad and in between, I stop caring about what others do or don't do as long as it doesn't cause me physical harm.
Emotions I can handle, (some days better than others) lack of money, shelter, food, I'm pretty resilient I'll figure something out. Physical harm, NOW we have a problem because mama don’t play dat. I’m aware this is unrealistic for some, simple for others but love, respect, acceptance and understanding of self seems to be the key and to paraphrase Marlon Thomas, let others be free to be.
March 12, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marlo...geeze, I wish there were an edit feature.
March 12, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%. Marriage is a loaded term, and the idea that people will get over the religious implications of that term are not realistic. I grew up Catholic, and while I am not religious any longer, I still respect the beliefs of those that are. Marraige is a sacrament, along with Baptism, communion, confirmation, penance, annointing of the sick, and holy orders are REQUIRED by the faith. The reality is that in the eyes of the state, marriage is most similar to a filing for corporation, a legal status that allows certain privilidges and duties to be obligated to. All people should be allowed to enter into that contract (one life partner per person at a time) to recieve those benefits. Religious ceremony, and the ancillary conditions brought about from the act have no bearing upon how the state views your status. You could get married by in a ceremony officiated by the pope in the vatican, but until you file your marriage license with the state, the church ceremony is meaningless.
Great topic for discussion.
March 13, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
March 13, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your perspective, Justice, but don't quite understand this part of the sentence:
"...and whereas the government of The United States of America in keeping with the Standards of a Separation of Church and State, therefore the government of The United States of America shall make no law recognizing a religious marriage as valid."
I support the amendment!
March 13, 2009 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simply being married in a church is not enough to be recognized as part of a civil union and contractual entity.
Thanks!
March 13, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to be a word missing - I guess I'd better go look at the Amendments, become more familiar with the phrasing used.
I agree it's a great topic for discussion.
I like to start with the definition of words when I consider issues; in this case, doing so simplifies nothing.
It's a subject not amenable to general statements (which I like to make, I've discovered.)
Exclusionary practices tend to result in adverse consequences. Discriminating between gender in social practice especially tends to result in adverse consequences.
(So much information is available on line, one becomes obligated to be specific; for finesse, to be able to quote supporting documentation available for others to evaluate. Which is a segue into the disclaimer that I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, saying something from recall, without first checking references, which can be embarrassing... but.
I believe it was Wm. DuBois who said words to the effect of:
While any man is in chains, I am not free.
That has been a guiding principle for me since I read the words. Our individual freedoms require universal freedom; otherwise our freedom is endangered.
It's a principle fit for many situations, and IMHO this is one of them.
March 13, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink