Is it the end of marriage?
It's been a while since I've gone on one of my Prop 8. rant, while, there have been a handful of things that have prompted me to get off my butt and rant away.
What finally set me off was a "Vote Yes on 8 and Save Marriage" bumper sticker. I've never wanted to key a car so badly (I resisted). Voting yes hurts my marriage. And I really worry that the media coverage may end up confusing people on what each yes or no vote actually means.
Anyway.... First bit of bitch bitch bitch is the "hip" new website http://iprotectmarriage.com which threatens that if Prop 8 passes kindergartners will be taught all about homosexuality (despite the fact that a judge ordered this untruth removed from the official voters guide). It implies (though doesn't out and out say it) that religious leaders will be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if they object to them (no officiant other than a county clerk is "forced" to perform any marriage unless they support the couple getting married. I think the big fear is that if the accept government funding they won't be able to discriminate--- ok, don't accept the government funding, many churches don't.
Next article on which I want to comment details a Nor. Cal. preacher who is encouraging heterosexual couples to not legally wed to protest same-sex marriage equality. It blows my mind that someone who could take advantage of the legal protections of marriage voluntarily give them up. What I like about this story, and I hope it gets more traction, is the fact that the minister is actually advocating for a separation of Civil marriages and religious marriages. In so many ways, I wish we had a situation where there was a legal construct that handled family law, inheritance, joint ownership etc (what we call legal marriage) and completely separated it in process and terminology and meaning from religious marriage.
A dear friend in high school was raised by her mother and her mother's twin brother. After my friend's mom was divorced, her brother (a catholic priest who was not working in/for the church) moved in to help raise my friend and her 2 sisters. They were a functioning family unit. Obviously marriage would be inappropriate on so many fronts (priest, sibling, etc.), but the Uncle was not a legal parent although he was functioning as one. A new construct allowing for a legal family that is not made up of traditional married parents would both fit this unique family situation (which I have learned is far less unique than I thought), same sex couples equal legal protections, and give the term marriage back to the church. This construct might allow for families with more than two "parents" allowing those who believe in "biblically traditional" marriage (which so long as no one is forced into a more than two marriage I have no problem with it for people who want it).
I just wish the preacher who prompted the discussion wasn't so against my family.
What finally set me off was a "Vote Yes on 8 and Save Marriage" bumper sticker. I've never wanted to key a car so badly (I resisted). Voting yes hurts my marriage. And I really worry that the media coverage may end up confusing people on what each yes or no vote actually means.
Anyway.... First bit of bitch bitch bitch is the "hip" new website http://iprotectmarriage.com which threatens that if Prop 8 passes kindergartners will be taught all about homosexuality (despite the fact that a judge ordered this untruth removed from the official voters guide). It implies (though doesn't out and out say it) that religious leaders will be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if they object to them (no officiant other than a county clerk is "forced" to perform any marriage unless they support the couple getting married. I think the big fear is that if the accept government funding they won't be able to discriminate--- ok, don't accept the government funding, many churches don't.
Next article on which I want to comment details a Nor. Cal. preacher who is encouraging heterosexual couples to not legally wed to protest same-sex marriage equality. It blows my mind that someone who could take advantage of the legal protections of marriage voluntarily give them up. What I like about this story, and I hope it gets more traction, is the fact that the minister is actually advocating for a separation of Civil marriages and religious marriages. In so many ways, I wish we had a situation where there was a legal construct that handled family law, inheritance, joint ownership etc (what we call legal marriage) and completely separated it in process and terminology and meaning from religious marriage.
A dear friend in high school was raised by her mother and her mother's twin brother. After my friend's mom was divorced, her brother (a catholic priest who was not working in/for the church) moved in to help raise my friend and her 2 sisters. They were a functioning family unit. Obviously marriage would be inappropriate on so many fronts (priest, sibling, etc.), but the Uncle was not a legal parent although he was functioning as one. A new construct allowing for a legal family that is not made up of traditional married parents would both fit this unique family situation (which I have learned is far less unique than I thought), same sex couples equal legal protections, and give the term marriage back to the church. This construct might allow for families with more than two "parents" allowing those who believe in "biblically traditional" marriage (which so long as no one is forced into a more than two marriage I have no problem with it for people who want it).
I just wish the preacher who prompted the discussion wasn't so against my family.