Marriage vs. Civil Union
OK, so this keeps coming up, with lots of rhetoric on both sides.
I would like to propose a simple and reasonable solution that I think will be acceptable to all of the major positions on the issue:
(a) Marriage is a sacred thing between one man and one woman
(b) People who love each other should be allowed to be together regardless of sex
(c) Why is the government interfering with a contract between two individuals?
(d) Why is that contract limited to two parties?
So here's the first step: Universal Civil Unions. First, accept that marriage is a religious rite, and that people with little or no religious affiliation are more concerned with their personal commitment to each other than the approval of a debatable diety and/or organization and/or community. (I felt married long before the ceremony, and would feel married whether the state approved or not. Hasn't changed in 15 years, not expecting it to, either.)
So if marriage is religious, there's no need for state involvement. Let people who want to be married get married in the church, park, or hot air balloon of their choice. With or without state approval. But in order to have the legal benefits currently attached to marriage, you should also get a civil union, which is your notification to the state that you are acting together as a single legal entity in those respects previously called "marriage" by the state.
This changes the content of the forms, but not the number of forms, effort, or cost. The people who are currently licensed by the state to perform weddings can now perform civil unions, using whatever ceremony is desired. (Bring on the bagels and rubber stamps!) A one time conversion effort to replace all existing marriage certificates with civil union certificates would clean things up, but is not required.
Now the devout people who want to keep marriage sacred within the definition of their church can do so. Go do your thing and have a nice life. And the people who just want to be legally acknowledged as a couple for all of the legal/medical/social things that go with that, can do so. Their choices will not affect your precious marriage. (If you start to whine about the role of the state in your religion, or vice-versa, then you're being a control freak and need to shut up now.)
As long as the state refers only to civil unions (because marriage is none of their business), then everything works out nicely. You are married in your church if you want to, the state still gets a license fee and a data point, and we can start to discuss what sorts of legal arrangements between groups of people are acceptable without the overhanging shadow of thousands of years of superstition and intolerance.
Yeah, I know: who am I kidding. Yet another solution predicated on the rationality of humanity. That's why I write science fiction. I guess this qualifies too.
I would like to propose a simple and reasonable solution that I think will be acceptable to all of the major positions on the issue:
(a) Marriage is a sacred thing between one man and one woman
(b) People who love each other should be allowed to be together regardless of sex
(c) Why is the government interfering with a contract between two individuals?
(d) Why is that contract limited to two parties?
So here's the first step: Universal Civil Unions. First, accept that marriage is a religious rite, and that people with little or no religious affiliation are more concerned with their personal commitment to each other than the approval of a debatable diety and/or organization and/or community. (I felt married long before the ceremony, and would feel married whether the state approved or not. Hasn't changed in 15 years, not expecting it to, either.)
So if marriage is religious, there's no need for state involvement. Let people who want to be married get married in the church, park, or hot air balloon of their choice. With or without state approval. But in order to have the legal benefits currently attached to marriage, you should also get a civil union, which is your notification to the state that you are acting together as a single legal entity in those respects previously called "marriage" by the state.
This changes the content of the forms, but not the number of forms, effort, or cost. The people who are currently licensed by the state to perform weddings can now perform civil unions, using whatever ceremony is desired. (Bring on the bagels and rubber stamps!) A one time conversion effort to replace all existing marriage certificates with civil union certificates would clean things up, but is not required.
Now the devout people who want to keep marriage sacred within the definition of their church can do so. Go do your thing and have a nice life. And the people who just want to be legally acknowledged as a couple for all of the legal/medical/social things that go with that, can do so. Their choices will not affect your precious marriage. (If you start to whine about the role of the state in your religion, or vice-versa, then you're being a control freak and need to shut up now.)
As long as the state refers only to civil unions (because marriage is none of their business), then everything works out nicely. You are married in your church if you want to, the state still gets a license fee and a data point, and we can start to discuss what sorts of legal arrangements between groups of people are acceptable without the overhanging shadow of thousands of years of superstition and intolerance.
Yeah, I know: who am I kidding. Yet another solution predicated on the rationality of humanity. That's why I write science fiction. I guess this qualifies too.