?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The Gay Marriage debate; my analysis - One person's lack of compassion does not equal another's comfort.
One person's lack of comprehension does not equal another's consent.
fixx
fixx
The Gay Marriage debate; my analysis
I’ve been hearing some frighteningly *moderate* talk even from some of my gay/bi friends whose parents are right wing or moderate Republicans. I’m realizing I need to make a point which seems really obvious to me, and maybe here I can even get some useful feedback the result of which may be a resource others can use while making their case.

My point is based on these three observations:
1) It is my opinion that the majority of US citizens, even those who can’t stop thinking of homosexuality as somehow "Evil" feels that if two people love each other and care for one another, they should have the right to engage in some sort of “civil union” so that they have rights at least similar to a married couple when it comes to issues of medical care in the event of illness or accident.

2) As all of you surely know, the very concept of marriage is a "Religious Institution" itself, meaning that Marriage is not actually defined by Government but by religious institutions and is therefore defined both by history as well as by each applicable religion, so even if one religion accepts "Gay Marriage" a large majority of US citizens will say *their* church disagrees.

3) As we also know, the separation of church and state has not been well exercised since this country was founded. "God" has been artificially ADDED to our money and our pledge of allegiance over the years clearly by people wishing to foist their religious beliefs on others. To my way of thinking no true Americans should want such governmental influence on religion, even if it currently appears to "support" their religion.

Now for my point:
IF Marriage itself is a religious institution and its definition is not to be defined by government but by religion then it ought not be considered a governmental institution _at_all_. In other words, Marriage should be defined by each church, sect or religion any way it pleases unaffected by government, and Government should not acknowledge ANY religions marriages at all, regardless of the sexes of the participants. Government should view all legal partnerships as just that, dry gender less legal contracts, "Civil Unions" if you will, regardless of the genders involved. This is the ONLY way I can see that it can be universally fair to all US citizens and at the same time not offend anyone of any religion.

[edit: Some people claim that they are offended at the thought of gays using the word "Marriage" to define their civil union in legal paperwork, my answer to that is that the word marriage should not be used in legal paperwork and that settles that. Nobody can tell anyone not allow couples to call themselves "husband and wife" or "husband and husband" or even "mommy and daddy" in private if they so choose, so that’s an issue for people who want to debate "freedom of speech" laws]

[edit: Some other people are concerned that the government might try to FORCE their churches to perform gay marriages. I'd say there's no chance of that, as for some reason that seems to be the only area where the separation of church and state seems to still be protected, but for the record I would personally be against the government being permitted to force ANY religion to grant any sort of marriage, civil union or bond they did not wish to, up to and including racial biases if they so choose, not because I am a racist either but because I believe that churches are about individual beliefs more than about what is actually right or wrong.]
10 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky
Comments
moodymuse From: moodymuse Date: July 9th, 2005 05:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
you don't actually know me, but I ran across your blog and wanted to let you know that I wholeheartedly agree.

To join two people or more in the eyes of the government should not have one iota of religion involved. Many of the other issues center around healthcare benefits for partners, protecting assets, tax breaks, and privacy concerns (only "family" in the icu kinda things).

The ceremony that joins people in the eyes of whatever God(dess) they choose should have nothing to do with the legal binding of the government.

my friends have all heard a similar rant to yours many times ;-)
Lynn
tacnukesoul From: tacnukesoul Date: July 9th, 2005 08:34 pm (UTC) (Link)

My Thoughts Exactly!

I believe in Civil Unions for both gay and straight couples, sexual and non-sexual. Civil Power - Civil Union.

Marriages are between you, your deity, and your intercessor (if any).

You're never going to get all the churches to agree on anything. Case in point: a friend of mine got married outside the Holy Mother Church. The bride had an Episcopal wedding and a divorce. While the Church didn't consider the wedding valid, the divorce was still a "no go."
fixx From: fixx Date: July 11th, 2005 07:23 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: My Thoughts Exactly!

I posted this publicly to share and invite comments from absolutely anyone. This does not mean however I'm not going to be curious as to how people came across this entry of mine.

OK I give up, you've stumped me. Of the four comments I've received at the time of this writing, three of them I concede came from people I'd not (yet) friended, and of those three I automatically understood how one of them came across my journal, the other I asked because I was curious, as I must now ask you.

I see we have several common friends, but I'm wondering how you came across this particular posting of mine?
tacnukesoul From: tacnukesoul Date: July 11th, 2005 12:45 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: My Thoughts Exactly!

Easy - you're on aramintamd's (my DW) friends list. I read her's to cover some people not on my friends list.

I hope it's not a problem.
fixx From: fixx Date: July 11th, 2005 05:03 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: My Thoughts Exactly!

No, no, no, not a problem. Clearly LJ was designed to work this way. I was actually wondering if somewhere along the line someone posted a link to it in a community or journal.

As for people not on your friends list, there's only one "problem" I see with your solution and that is that it greatly reduces the chances that a person, say me, would friend you back, were they unaware you were reading in this manner instead of friending them directly.

PS: I know what "SO" is and what "BDSM" is, and I'm pretty sure what "PCMCIA" is, but I have absolutely no idea what "DW" is, please explain.
tacnukesoul From: tacnukesoul Date: July 11th, 2005 05:20 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: My Thoughts Exactly!

I wouldn't expect a person to friend me just because I was reading their stuff. Now, if I replied to someone and they backtracked to my lj and found the writing worthwhile, then I could see friending me. Your LJ was more a target of opportunity - the thought was very much what I've said before.

I may have to try subdividing my friends to see if that makes things easier. If so I may add on more people.

In "lj speak" it seems to be convention to put "D" (for "Dear," I believe) in front of relationship words like "Wife." Husband, son and daughter seem to get similar treatment.
(Deleted comment)
tacnukesoul From: tacnukesoul Date: July 12th, 2005 01:02 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: My Thoughts Exactly!

Yeah, my friend once remarked that the difference b/w murder and divorce in the Catholic Church was you could be forgiven for murder...
peaceful_fox From: peaceful_fox Date: July 11th, 2005 03:35 am (UTC) (Link)
This was excellent. I thought what you wrote was very well thought out and well presented. Thank you!
browneyedgirl65 From: browneyedgirl65 Date: July 12th, 2005 03:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yes, this is exactly what I concluded quite some time ago. The problem is the historical aspect, legal recognition of this religious process has been around for quite some time. But really, this is the only way to separate out the issues. Make a generic civil union contract available to anyone and leave it at that... (in reality, it's unlikely we'll get the government to not recognize religious based marriages, so I'll be perfectly happy with a nationally recognized civil union procedure.)

Cheers,
BEG
bittercat From: bittercat Date: July 13th, 2005 05:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
You took the words right out of my mouth.

Bravo!
10 Rubber Duckies or Leave a Rubber Ducky