Someone with some sense!

[caumann]

Gay marriage is a hot and controversial topic in the US.  In my view, marriage needs to be distinguished from similar civil contracts enacted by the state.   The following article from USA TODAY says as much, but more eloquently.

By Oliver Thomas

Want to break up this summer's family reunion a little early? Mention gay marriage. Some of the

Comments

[jazzfanatic]

I agree with this guy for the most part, and his argument is not a new one. The root of the issue is that there are two distinct and different things we call marriage - one is a civil contract, the other a religious sacrament. Most people really don't think of it this way, because they are both called marriage and most people get them both. However, there are plenty of straight couples who get married (a civil contract) by an official appointed by the state (as we did in Vancouver) and never set foot in a church or stand before a member of the clergy, and there are plenty of gay couples who get married in a church or in another setting by a clergyperson (as we did in Mesa) but cannot get a marriage license.

It would make the distinction easier if we could call the civil contract a civil union and the religious sacrament a marriage, and do that consistently for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. But I think it would be almost impossible to introduce this change into the vernacular not only in U.S./Canadian society, but in societies around the world. "Marriage" is the currency that everyone deals in. And would people really start referring to straight couples who have only a civil union but not a church wedding "civil unioned" rather than "married?" I doubt it. And will the anti-gays actually refer to same-sex couples who are married in a gay-welcoming church as "married?" Hell will freeze over first. Same-sex couples have already been getting married in churches for years.

When it comes right down to it, the distinction between a marriage and a civil union up to this point has been opposite-sex vs. same-sex, not church vs. civil contract, and I have little faith that this will change.

Until the day comes when all forms change from having two boxes labeled married and single to two boxes labeled unioned and single (because marriage would be completely a religious covenant and would confer no legal rights), and the mindset and discourse of the general public changes to include civil unions and to differentiate properly between marriage and civil unions, this will not work.

Now, to pick at a few of his points:

> Current practice strains the patience of the parties and blurs the church-state line.

Really? I fail to see how, on either point. It seems simple to me.

> Constitutionally, it protects churches from having the government dictate to them which relationships they should or should not sanction.

This is not, and has never been, in question. It's a non-issue. Conservatives use this as a fear-mongering tool, but it's a red herring.

> Conservatives should like the arrangement because religious institutions will not be forced to recognize relationships that they feel are contrary to the teachings of scripture.

Conservatives despise the idea of giving same-sex couples even civil unions. They vociferously fight against letting us have anything at all, or granting us any shred of legitamacy. And again, if gays were given full civil marriage equality today, no religious institution would be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

> All it requires is for some wise state legislators to take the First Amendment seriously enough to get their state out of the religion business and put marriage back where it belongs. In the church.

It's not that simple. All 50 states AND the federal government which, in the U.S., confers 80% of the rights of marriage, will also have to revise every law that uses the term "marriage" or "married" and change it to "civil union" or "civil unioned."

That is even less likely than expecting people to change their mindset and vernacular.

In theory, separating church marriage from government-issued civil unions a great idea, but it will never happen in practice. They will forever be intertwined, so marriage equality is the only answer.