(no subject)

[mamculuna]

More thoughts on Prop. 8.

My son, who is gay and lives in CA, says his first reaction was to feel that once again he'd been called a second-class citizen. But then he returned to his usual thoughts about it: he thinks marriage should not be something done by the governments at all. Marriage should be handled by churches, period--for gays or others. What we really need is a federal law on domestic partnerships, covering all the legal rights (again, for everybody, not just gays)--and that's all. Whatever you do in church should be unconnected to this.

I have to say I agree. Many people who don't have any problem with the legal rights for partners in same-sex relationships get upset just because of the word "marriage." Fine. They can belong to a church that doesn't do that. Meanwhile, gay people can go to a church that does marry them. The govenment is not involved--it's just allowing any partners to have insurance, adopt children, visit in hospitals, etc. Should work for everyone, and might be easier legislation to pass.

Until we do that, I'll support gay marriage legislation, so here's my version of the Gay Marriage Meme:

If you're religious and support gay marriage, then paste this meme in your LJ.

I am [insert religion here] and I support gay marriage.

Why? Because... [answer].

I'm Buddhist and I support Gay Marriage, because I believe all things are interdependent, and that each loving union means more love in the world, more good faith and commitment, and that makes each of us happier.

Comments

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

You know what? Those are all excellent points. I'm just not sure how on earth we can agree to split off "marriage" from the legal rights and resulting benefits that come from gov't "sanction". I mean, what your son says makes sense, but I'm not sure we can wrap our heads around the idea. But maybe I'm not getting enough input from those who *do* oppose gay marriage from a purely legal standpoint? Either I'm among liberals (both Christians and non) who support gay marriage, or conservatives (both Christians and non) who think homosexuality is a sin/wrong.

Forgot to add: You make a compelling argument, and I think I'd be happy with the gov't just doing the legal partnerships thing, and leaving marriages to religious organizations. It'd just take a lot of mental adjustment.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

I agree--it would be hard for people to understand, at first. In many European countries, I think it is separate, and certainly having the religious ceremony of "marriage" regulated by the government goes against the US First Amendment separation of church and state

Of course, the same people who don't like gay marriage also don't accept the concept of a separation of church and state, so realistically, this probably won't happen. Too bad the Founders didn't see it coming.

[rebekahroxanna.livejournal.com]

Now, I think that religion should be left out of the whole mess around marriage. If a church wants to bless a couple, then fine, but why in the world should we let religious groups dictate what is a matter that impacts rights and responsibilities under federal and state laws. (For example, married couples can file joint tax returns. Why should a church be able to say X and Y are married, but A and B cannot be married?) My particular congregation, for example, will not permit a wedding in the church between folks who have no relationship to the congregation. So, I can't agree to marry C and D who go to the university two blocks away and who have never set foot in the church. Why should they get to decide?

I think your son and I agree as long as marriage and legal partnership are the same thing.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Well, he thinks using the word "marriage" is what is so upsetting to the anti-gay marriage people. And the domestic partnership he currently has gives him and his partner all the legal standing of marriage. I'm sure they could find someone to bless their union if they want to solemnize the commitment, and call it marriage in that church. That would allow every church to make the decision that suits them.

[rebekahroxanna.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree with that. And if they ever want a ceremony with a minister, you know where I am!

It's interesting to me because in the middle ages, marriages were "blessed" at the church door, not even inside the church. I am impatient with people who don't know the history of marriage and how modern marriage as we know it is.

[lemur-catta.livejournal.com]

I agree that it would be an ideal solution if spiritual/romantic 'marriages' were entirely seperate from domestic partnership law.

As far as I know, few governments consider religious marriage ceremonies valid without certain separate legal licenses and language and religious communities don't generally recognise state marriages without the required religious rites.
In that way the two things are already mostly separate.

If the most emotionally loaded terms could be left out of the legal issues I would think there wouldn't be much for social conservatives to argue against.

Then, trying to prevent people of whom one didn't approve from choosing who to share their insurance benefits with, or sponsor for citizenship , or leave property to, or let visit them in hospital would be seen for the simple bigotry that it is.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And if people want to go off and huddle in a congregation of bigots, they can do that.

Marriage in the Christian church is a sacrament, and none of the other sacraments have anything to do with the state. Why should that one be different?

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that DOMA has to go.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Absolutely!

[wombatina.livejournal.com]

That's what I THINK TOO!! Why is that so difficult? Just get rid of the word marriage and we'd be done with this BS. GRRRRR makes me sooo very angry.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Really. What if we had the government controlling who could be baptized or have a funeral?