« So, are the smear attacks over? | TabRivera79's Blog | Saving just a bit of the tax payer dollar »
A new Proposition
In light of the recent vote on Proposition 8 in California, a friend of mine and I propose the following. I'm going to use her words, because she's so damned awesome:
It's the wording, you know. I've thought about this a lot, and the only
solution I can come up with that doesn't activate the Jesus freaks is to
define marriage as "a religious institution that, as such, has no legal
standing." That way, anyone and everyone can get a civil union, and a
civil union is the only arrangement that provides legal protection. But
if you want to get "married" you talk to a priest, cause the government
isn't involved.
solution I can come up with that doesn't activate the Jesus freaks is to
define marriage as "a religious institution that, as such, has no legal
standing." That way, anyone and everyone can get a civil union, and a
civil union is the only arrangement that provides legal protection. But
if you want to get "married" you talk to a priest, cause the government
isn't involved.
So any church that wants to perform marriage ceremonies can do so as they see fit. Anyone who wants religious approval can go to the church of their choice, or fight within their churches to gain approval for their unions in the eyes of god. But any adult couple that wants to join in co-owning, child-sharing, joint-tax-filing prosperity must do in a government-provided civil union.
Yeah, it'll mean getting two ceremonies if you want religious approval. But it will definitively remove government from what is, in essence as it relates to the topic of gay marriage, a RELIGIOUS debate.
Thoughts? Bonus question: if I get a lot of support behind this, who wants to join in with me to get this to be the actual policy in our states and, eventually, our country? Or am I behind the times, and is there already a fight like this going on? :-)
Advertisement
How about we limit it to a single religious ceremony and completely eliminate the government involvement? Remove the benefits of "marriage" completely and make single people equal within the sphere of government and both the benefits and associated penalties. Thus, "marriage" or "civil unions", etc are the exclusive domain of the individuals involved - no government may interfere as they do not even define the terms. Seems it would resolve these conflicts very simply.
November 6, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a good idea; although, I think one of the reasons this ban passed in California (albeit my voting efforts against it) is that close-minded individuals were scared their kids will grow up confused as to what sex they are naturally attracted to. There were several commercials out here in California showing a little girl coming home from school saying "Guess what Mommy, I learned today that I came marry Jessica!" If it is this fear these individuals worry about, it will be hard to convince these same individuals to vote in favor of same sex "civil unions". Then again, the rest of the individuals voting for the ban were likely religious advocates that want to preserve religion as they know it and in that case you may win them over with separating "marriage" from "civil unions". Regardless, I encourage you to keep the efforts moving because this is how change comes about.
November 6, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have long been in agreement with your friend. Going a little further, I think a strong argument can be made that the government ought not to be interested in life partnerships until children appear.
It's interesting to note that other countries don't tie themselves up in knots over this. I think Sweden does not make a real distinction between heterosexual & homosexual partnerships. Canada & France have civil unions of which heterosexual couples may avail themselves. It's one of those issues over which the U.S.'s hyperreligiosity lays out unnecessary obstacles that waste time, money, & energy.
November 11, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink