I had no idea that my first post on this blog would generate 23 comments and a long, long discussion on the relationship between marriage and faith and government and gays. Interestingly it was quite a civil dicussion, for the most part, and unless I missed it, free of venomous bile and uneducated hatred.
So here's an additional two cents to keep the discussion going.
Even with 11 states passing bans on gay marriage, there is every indication that the majority of the people in this country support legal civil unions, protecting the equivalent legal rights of gay couples without recognizing the union as a "marriage." I would suggest taking this one step further. The government should not recognize marriages of any kind. The government should ONLY recognize civil unions - whether between man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. Churches may recognize and sanction marriages if they so choose - but regardless of what the church calls it, the government should recognize it as a civil union.
After all, many Christians (and many followers of other religions) view marriage as something instituted by God and defined by God. Marriage is seen as a union between two souls that have been brought together by a higher power for a higher purpose than the two could achieve individually. Yet in this country, marriage is not reserved only for Christians, or only for those who believe in God or in any particular picture of God. Atheists, for example, might never get married in a church but may well get married by a justice of the peace. But if marriage is a religious institution, how could atheists be married?
Or try this. In Catholicism, marriage is deemed one of the seven holy sacraments - along with baptism, confession, communion, etc. Yet Catholics do not go to the government to baptize their children, they do not go to the court house for confession (well, hopefully not anyway...), and do not ask a judge to administer communion. Why then should the government be involved in legally recognizing a Catholic marriage, when they do not recognize the significance of any of those other sacraments?
The reason, of course, is that marriage in the government's eyes is a legal contract, a way of joining two people legally and granting them certain privileges, rights, benefits, and legal protections because they are united. The government does not treat it as a union of souls or as the bringing together of two people by God for a greater destiny. It's a legal contract, plain and simple.
And that's where the government should leave it - as a legal contract. Let the church marry people - the government should simply call it the civil union that it really is.
Some gays have said that treating gay unions as something other than marriage brings back the old "separate but equal" concept of this country's segregation days. True enough. But rather than change the legal definition of marriage, let's simply call them all civil unions and let organized religions continue to define marriage on their own terms.
Posted by Mark at November 8, 2004 10:58 AM