Marriage v.s Civil rights
I know the debate of gay marriage is often a very personal issue for some folks and i hope to not offend anyone in this conversation. I can understand (repeat: understand, not agree with) i understand why some Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong and thus can not or should not be given the right to be ordained by God in a church. I know the arguments on this particular element of the debate. I am happy to have them discussed here also but what i dont understand is how a country that claims to not have legal influence from religious groups can not give the same legal rights to any couple wishing to take on the civil union and commitment of most married couples in America. I dont understand why or how it is argued that this is not something that should already be happening. I mean there are plenty of couples of different religions or no religion at all who can go down to the town hall and get the papers and get the legal right and benefits. I dont see how that falls into the miracle and blessing of marriage that the Christian zelots believe is being attacked by gay marriage, but not these instances.
Still all religion aside why do we not offer a civil marriage to all couples so they can have the freedom America pushes so hard on the rest of the world – even places that dont want it or need it – yet here they continue to tell people who can and cannot get married. ( i would like to immediatly say no arguments about well then anyone can get married to animals and children etc. where do you draw the line? I draw the line at consenting adults doing what they want. 18+ your life to live)
I look forward to hearing what you all think about this.
July 1, 2008 at 8:01 pm
im going to point out firstly that it is not simply “christian zealots” who oppose gay marriage. surveys show the bulk of americans generally are quite divided on the issue. and while much attention is given to many christian’s opposition, many other religions and social groups are equally opposed to the idea as christians.
that said, i think the argument may need to be reframed. much work has been done to frame marriage as a civil right, but im not entirely convinced that such is the case, or should be. marriage is historically a religious institution. it is only in very recent times that governments have stepped in, officially recognizing marriages and providing certain benefits – cheifly among these being tax rates and intestancy. further, recognizing that most states have abolished the principles of “common law marriage” (as established through co-habitation) makes me entirely comfortable with the idea that a state should be able to pass legislation clearly setting forth specific requirements before a marriage may be recognized by the state.
so if legal marriage is simply a state government’s recognition of a social/cultural institution, a number of issues are addressed.
should there be a Federal amendment establishing the “scope” of marriage? probably not. marriages are instituted by states (though mutually recognized).
do marriage licenses then violate the first amendment establishment clause? i would lean towards no but the argument could certainly be made. its not endorsing any one religion (as all/most religions have marriages), but it is giving legal recognition to a specific “religious” institution. however, there is state recognition of non-religious marriages.
laws defining marriage arents setting out who is allowed to have a romantic relationship (setting aside laws against pedophilia, bestiality, etc). they are setting standards for who can take advantage of limited legal rules. under prior legal regimes, legal marriage assured that property passed to the wife upon the death death of the husband rather than a son or some other party because of the legal fiction that the man and the woman were the same person. clearly many of these rules and principles dont apply entirely today.
i understand you cutting off any appeals to the parade of horribles — ie. people will next want to marry underaged bears, etc. but i think to do so is a bit hypocritical (not that im calling you a hypocrite, but that argument) the slippery slope-type argument makes some good points. few proponants of gay marriage seem to be advocating the right of a group of consenting adults to be married. if marriage is supposed to be some universal right between consenting adults, how can you argue that it should be limited to only two adults at a time? or that those adults can’t be closely related by blood?
i havent read the CA court opinion so i cant speak authoritatively on their reasoning, etc. what i do take offense at is the idea that when a state has defined some type of guideline through legislation, that guideline might be “overrulled” by the court of another state where there should not be jurisdiction. Arkansas (among other states – but i use this b/c i lived there) has amended its state constitution to define marriage in that state as between one man and one woman (for the policy reason that they percieve marriage contributing to the stable upbringing of children). while this amendment is in less jeopardy than simply a state law, there are now questions of whether Arkansas must recognize gay marriages performed in other states. i object to the notion that a single state’s court could now mandate rules for other states. (side note: Arkansas believes so highly in the notion of marriage that they have introduced covenant marriages, which make divorces much more difficult… again, demonstrating the importance the state has placed on this particular “device”)
again, i just return to the notion that marriage is not some inalienable right. we tolerate states placing limitations and boundaries on who can recieve certain benefits without questioning them all the time. in this case, states have enacted legislation saying “we want to encourage the stable upbringing of children, therefore we will provide limited benefits to couples who chose to get married in hopes that they will produce and raise offspring who will be contributing members of soceity” this isnt saying that all married people must have children, its simply the means to an end. i have a hard time distinguishing it from tax credits for dependents, or cheritable deductions (we wont pay charities, but we will reduce your tax bill if you chose to donate to charities)
July 1, 2008 at 8:02 pm
ps. i did not mean to put that smiley face in there
July 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm
My take on it is that if we are to re-define what marriage is, if we cannot say “marriage” is between a man and a woman, then what is it? Like Paul said, historically marriage has been a religious institution that government has stepped in to regulate because of social institutions established and needed to be regulated. I’m fine with that. But when it comes to government now redefining what marriage is, that’s when I have a problem because if government can redefine a religious institution, what else can it redefine from a religious standpoint? Where does it stop? Can marriage be defined as between a man and an animal? I’m not trying to be absurd, just stating the obvious, where would it stop.
I believe allowing gay marriages is stepping on a religious institution that should be left alone. If states wish to recognize civil unions so gay couples can have the same rights as other couples based on social institutions we have established, so be-it. But I don’t think marriage between same sex couples is something our government should be legislating.
October 29, 2008 at 5:21 am
Let’s face the facts here. Marriage is NOT only for Christians or Catholics, or any religion for that matter. Local governments which are NOT the church process “marriage licenses”. In fact, one of my best friends just obtained her marriage license last week, and she confirmed that at no time in this process was she asked about her beliefs in God. So as far as the current legal process, there is no interjection of God in that government office. In no way does that imply or control how God is brought into anyone’s specific ceremony, which is fair as it should NOT do that. That is a personal matter for the parties entering that marriage to address as they see fit.
We’re not asking anyone to take their God out of their marriage. I’m simply asking for the same equal right to be extended to all citizens and all human beings. Your religion governs those of your faith, but our laws govern us all. I respect everyone’s religious views, but they have no place in our laws which dictate over a diverse country of many faith beliefs.