Gay Marriage

[kandrathe]

Marriage already defines a rather broad spectrum of "unions," depending on who performs and recognizes the marriage. So here's the question that finally convinced me that "sperate but equal" is simply not enough: if civil unions and marriages are identical in every way except name, what good is a seperate name?

The problem is that all unions have been dumped into the "marriage" bucket, some of which were just civil unions or domestic partnerships. You have a large class of those in the "married" bucket that were tolerant of the non-religious unions due to religious freedom issues, but are less tolerant of gay marriage as it is an an abomination in their religion. Times have changed but the dogmatists have not.

If we're going to allow civil unions to homosexuals while denying them the term "marriage," then the reasons need to be carefully considered. If the reason for said denial is to appeas the religious groups in the states, then you said it nicely in the above quote: Let the devotees of a religion be married, and those who do not want the religious baggage have something else. If, on the other hand, homosexuals get civil unions while, say, atheist heterosexuals get to be married, then we have a problem. Then we're somehow arguing that a heterosexual atheist couple is religious, while a christian homosexual couple is not.

I think you caught the gist of what I was saying. If the state wants to continue to sanction unions for whatever purposes then all unions should be treated as civil unions, and non-religious unions would just lack the church ceremony. Let the religious devotees keep the word "marriage" -- and the non-religious people be content with "civil union" or "domestic partner". I wouldn't think anyone would have an objection to going down to the courthouse to file an application for a "license for civil union". Just remove the word "marriage" from it and the church people will have no objections.

Taking that just a tad further -- I'm curious if those who stand against homosexual marriages also believe all homosexual activity should be outlawed. In other words, is it only being actively married that causes these social harms? If so, how on earth is that possible? If not, I fail to see how it can be OK to allow gays to be gay, and yet not allow them to be married.

Well, I don't find homosexuality objectionable or disagree with gay marriage. If a church will allow them to marry, then they can be married. I just disagree with the state being able to co-opt the word "marriage" and redefine it to include a new class of people, that another group within that "married" class find objectionable. The objection is based on traditional religious grounds, and it means that the state became involved in something it should not have. So, my suggestion is a compromise to appease both sides. For instance, I would have the same problem with the word "citizen" being changed by law to include only those with military service, or a particular race, or affiliation.

Let's put "marriage" into a context in which you might be more sensitive. Say, we all started adopting American Indian ceremonies and claimed we were becoming one with the All Maker. Or, say, we teach our children Hebrew and then have Bar(Bat) Mitzvah ceremonies. The difference is that the state has not attached any legal status to being one with the All Maker, or being confirmed. These are just religious ceremonies reserved for the members of that belief. It would be an affront to American Indians, or to Jews to include into their custom non-believers. Anyway, that is where I'm coming from on the issue.