God Guns, and Gays pt 3: Gays
And now the stirring conclusion....
Gay marriage is a thorny issue. Personally I support the right of any consenting adult to marry whoever he wants so long as that person is willing. There are however two conflicting rights at stake: the rights of the gay couples themselves, and the rights of the churches who will be doing the weddings. Ultimately this is one issue that cannot be compromised on. One side or the other will go away unhappy, the other elated though the present situation is clearly intolerable. I do think however, that in discussing Gay Marriage with a more clear definition of terms will help the cause and the country immensely.
Marriage has two components. The first is the religious component. This is the part that the religious right is anxious to ban homosexual couples from. This is, in my view, perfectly within their rights. No church should ever be forced to do something that is contradictory to their doctrine. Before you get all uppity, this has already been upheld. The Catholic Church, for example does not recognize secular divorces. If you are married by the Catholic Church (or even by another faith) good luck getting a priest to marry you without having the first marriage enulled. This is just one example. The benefit of religious marriage is mainly spiritual in nature. If you are properly married you don't go the hell (or suffer whatever other penalty) for fornicating with your spouse.
There is also the civil component of marriage. This where you go to a city or county clerks office and they give you a license, which when completed and signed by someone who is able to conduct a wedding (priest, rabbi, ship captain etc) entitles you to the benefits of being married. If Jesus himself came down and performed a wedding ceremony in front of President Bush, you would still be legally single if you didn't have the marriage license.
Being legally married has several beneficial effects. These include the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital and get copies of their medical information and other records (you are after all family). It also helps when matters of an estate come up. You may receive benefits as a spouse in the case of career related benefits such as health coverage. There is a marriage tax credit, but this is a new measure introduced by President Bush. Previously tax credits were given based on the number of dependents (ie children) though I believe it is possible to claim a non-working spouse as a dependent. It is also essential to be legally married in order to adopt children in many states.
The problem is that the one and the other are linked. While it might not be a problem in a liberal state such as New York or California, without some form of compulsion you end up with a de facto ban in most of the south. The alternative is that you wind up interfering with religious freedom by forcing churches to marry gays and it is just as wrong for the government to impose its will on religion, as it is for religion to impose its will on the government. The first amendment cuts both ways.
Now I don't think that most people, if the questions were posed properly would object to giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples. Do you think your fundie grandma would object to people being able to choose who could and couldn't visit them in the hospital, if you brought it up outside the context of anything gay? I think the first step we should take is separating the actual issues of marriage from the word which is too politically and culturally charged.
Best case scenario in my opinion? The government forgets about marriage: the institution. Marriage is not an institution. Its a contract: an agreement between two people to be sexually faithful to each other, until the death of one or the other. The only roll the government should have in contracts is notarizing them so that they are legally binding. There should be no value judgement implicit in it. Ask anyone in entertainment, contracts can be horribly abusive, but they are still legal.
Family is an institution, and as any functional child of a single parent can tell you, the institution is in no way dependent on the presence or absence of the contract. All this talk about marriage falling apart as the ruin of our society is really just a smoke screen.
If I were gay I would fight for my rights, but stop looking at at a white wedding as some sort of holy grail, and start looking into the arena of real family values as some place I could compete in the argument.
Gay marriage is a thorny issue. Personally I support the right of any consenting adult to marry whoever he wants so long as that person is willing. There are however two conflicting rights at stake: the rights of the gay couples themselves, and the rights of the churches who will be doing the weddings. Ultimately this is one issue that cannot be compromised on. One side or the other will go away unhappy, the other elated though the present situation is clearly intolerable. I do think however, that in discussing Gay Marriage with a more clear definition of terms will help the cause and the country immensely.
Marriage has two components. The first is the religious component. This is the part that the religious right is anxious to ban homosexual couples from. This is, in my view, perfectly within their rights. No church should ever be forced to do something that is contradictory to their doctrine. Before you get all uppity, this has already been upheld. The Catholic Church, for example does not recognize secular divorces. If you are married by the Catholic Church (or even by another faith) good luck getting a priest to marry you without having the first marriage enulled. This is just one example. The benefit of religious marriage is mainly spiritual in nature. If you are properly married you don't go the hell (or suffer whatever other penalty) for fornicating with your spouse.
There is also the civil component of marriage. This where you go to a city or county clerks office and they give you a license, which when completed and signed by someone who is able to conduct a wedding (priest, rabbi, ship captain etc) entitles you to the benefits of being married. If Jesus himself came down and performed a wedding ceremony in front of President Bush, you would still be legally single if you didn't have the marriage license.
Being legally married has several beneficial effects. These include the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital and get copies of their medical information and other records (you are after all family). It also helps when matters of an estate come up. You may receive benefits as a spouse in the case of career related benefits such as health coverage. There is a marriage tax credit, but this is a new measure introduced by President Bush. Previously tax credits were given based on the number of dependents (ie children) though I believe it is possible to claim a non-working spouse as a dependent. It is also essential to be legally married in order to adopt children in many states.
The problem is that the one and the other are linked. While it might not be a problem in a liberal state such as New York or California, without some form of compulsion you end up with a de facto ban in most of the south. The alternative is that you wind up interfering with religious freedom by forcing churches to marry gays and it is just as wrong for the government to impose its will on religion, as it is for religion to impose its will on the government. The first amendment cuts both ways.
Now I don't think that most people, if the questions were posed properly would object to giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples. Do you think your fundie grandma would object to people being able to choose who could and couldn't visit them in the hospital, if you brought it up outside the context of anything gay? I think the first step we should take is separating the actual issues of marriage from the word which is too politically and culturally charged.
Best case scenario in my opinion? The government forgets about marriage: the institution. Marriage is not an institution. Its a contract: an agreement between two people to be sexually faithful to each other, until the death of one or the other. The only roll the government should have in contracts is notarizing them so that they are legally binding. There should be no value judgement implicit in it. Ask anyone in entertainment, contracts can be horribly abusive, but they are still legal.
Family is an institution, and as any functional child of a single parent can tell you, the institution is in no way dependent on the presence or absence of the contract. All this talk about marriage falling apart as the ruin of our society is really just a smoke screen.
If I were gay I would fight for my rights, but stop looking at at a white wedding as some sort of holy grail, and start looking into the arena of real family values as some place I could compete in the argument.