Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union
As a matter of morals, ethics and political philosophy, I support gay marriage. But as an ardent proponent of separation of Church and State, I would prefer civil unions, in which homosexual couples have identical rights and obligations as married heterosexual couples. I’m certain of only one thing; this distinction will be will be too subtle for both the fervent supporters and opponents of gay marriage.
When the smoke clears from the obfuscating rhetoric, gay union speaks solely to constitutionally guaranteed rights of gay couples to enjoy the benefits accorded to married heterosexual couples. Gay marriage, on the other hand, opens a discussion of how deeply we should allow religious beliefs to color our civil discourse. For the opponents of gay marriage, it is simple. Their religious beliefs trump constitutional and common sense guarantees. The proponents’ preference for marriage over union appears to have little to do with protecting their civil rights but rather sticking a finger in the eye of those religious types who they believe have oppressed and persecuted them for centuries.
The danger created by both sides of the gay marriage debate is that it blurs the lines between the appropriate roles of Church and State and gives both sides an excuse to meddle in the affairs of the other. In listening to the debate I clearly get the impression that the gay marriage debate is purely a religious debate in which the State is only playing the role of monkey in the middle. Hence my preference for universal gay unions, which would guarantee the same rights to both homosexual and heterosexual couples and avoids the obvious religious wars.
While guaranteeing everyone their rights, civil union also recognizes the millennia- old tradition of marriage being a relationship between a man and a woman and keeps separate Church and State affairs.
If you are going to make that argument, shouldn’t you remove the term “Marriage” from legal jargon altogether and make it a church matter only? It still creates a double standard and still blurs the separation of church and state to allow heterosexuals to use the word marriage, when many non-Patriarchal(Abrahamic) religions will endorse their version of marriage regardless of sexual orientation. I think that they ought to print the licenses to say something like The State of (___) formally recognizes the Civil Union of Party One(Sign______) Party Two(Sign_______), and allow the churches to commemorate it in their own fashion.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I’m not even opposed to allowing a trained church official to officiate the signing of the civil union document as long as the license remains secular and uses secular terminology.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
i think a marriage is between a man and a women.i do believe in civil union between two men or two women.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
If two men can “marry” what is the rationale for opposing polygamy?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Good question, poligamy is next on the list for sure. Marriage was orifginally concieved between one man and one woman so as to prevent bigamy. Now that the door has been opened so that marriage is of any nature, poligamy is next on the list.
After all, how many men have wanted more than one partner? How many women have wanted more thanone partner? Why not have 2 men and three women in a whirlwind thing called mariage?
It seems that “gay” people have doen farm more harm than they realize. The beginning of the fall of a country.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Exactly how many people do you know that want to live in polygamous marriages? Good grief. Gay people meet, fall in love, and form families….wow….what a threat. I know what would be better for society; to encourage gay people to remain single and live hollow lives of promiscuity…that would be much smarter than encouraging them to pair off and be stable.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Although I agree that it is important to maintain the separation of church and state, I find your argument completely unsound. While legally recognized gay unions provide homosexual couples some constitutional rights you are overlooking one of the most ESSENTIAL rights - the right to freedom of religion, press and expression.
The 1st amendment clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Many homosexuals have incredibly strong religious beliefs. You argue that the title of “marriage” holds strong religious connotations. So by barring gay couples the right to recognize their union according to the traditions of their faiths, including the religiously based concept of “marriage”, are we not clearly prohibiting these couples the right to the free exercise of their religion?
April 30th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
History has clearly shown, and continues to show, that fundamental clerics of any and all faiths, and their zealous followers, are the wrong persons to decide on any persons civil rights. We need to get the state out of the marriage business and the church out of the civil rights business.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
But why not make marriage back in to a strictly religious institution and allow a secular equivalent to be performed simultaneously? It wouldn’t cost the state any more money than it would normally, except to change the paperwork(Which some politician will find a way to embezzle from, I’m sure, but that is the price you pay for mixing two institutions that shouldn’t have been in the first place, i.e. religion and government). The church can go ahead and use the word marriage on its own turf, and among like minded people but for the state the term changes to civil union and we no longer have to split all these hairs.
Also, marriage is only about religion because religion was the same as government, business, and family when the idea was defined. Until 150-200 years ago, marriage was almost always arranged in exchange for goods, services, or political favors, making it little more than church sanctioned prostitution. The idea of religion and marriage being inextricable isn’t properly reconciled with the secular modern world where these business transactions are no longer necessary and women actually have rights.
May 1st, 2009 at 1:20 am
There is no major religion in the world that does not hold that homosexuality is a sin - as is lust, gluttony, infidelity…..(Unitarian Universalists…you are not a “major” religion). Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin and all that. That is a religious matter and one for the conscience
I have gay friends in committed relationships. I love them as members of my family. I do not wish them ill, nor do I wish to put a stop to their happiness. What I object to is further government intervention into a religious union. Marriage was co-opted long ago to raise revenue for government. I agree with the statement that the preference for marriage has to do with “sticking a finger in the eye” of the religious community. In order to obtain government largess, we all have to go through a “civil union” of sorts.
Another side to this is the insistence that, without “marriage”, things like being able to visit the significant other in the hospital or make medical decisions is denied. That is just plain untrue. Power of Attorney. Further, nearly everything in marriage outside of government largess can be obtained through contract. Marriage is unnecessary if that is the goal.
Bottom line, go to the courthouse for a union. If you can find a religious person who is willing to commit a sin by sanctioning a “gay marriage”, great.
But hey, that’s just me.
May 1st, 2009 at 2:39 am
@ Tessa,
You make my argument that Same Sex Marriage is only about religion. As I understand it you would force all organized religions to accept same sex marriage even if they oppose it. At the moment, Religions that accept Same Sex Marriage are free to conduct same sex marriage as an individual religious right and freedom. It is the concept that it should be imposed on those that don’t believe in it that violates their religious freedom.
The State should not be involved in either case - Do what you want but don’t impose your religious beliefs on others should be our motto
May 1st, 2009 at 4:43 am
I’m torn on this issue. On the one hand, government really should abolish all licensing requirements for marriage and tax incentives too. On the other hand I can see why they would incentivize marriage as a means of promoting the family unit, the basic building block of any strong society. If the government would just get out of the picture all together this would be a non-issue.
What about a hermaphrodite (no not tranny’s who are men who look effeminate). It’s both a he and a she, what should it’s rights be?
May 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
@Steve
Assuming you mean the worlds largest religions(Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism), major religions all see homosexuality or some facet of homosexual intercourse as a sin(Buddhism and Hinduism see anal sex as a sin, but not homosexuality or any form of same-sex attraction). But that’s irrelevant. The law must protect all Americans, not just mainstream Americans. If that means we must further secularize the way government sanctions relationships between people, I for one might start regaining my respect for them. Apart from the fact that it’s ridiculous that the government is involved in this anyway, but I’ll take what I can get.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Surely at this point you know that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution but in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists who were concerned about religious interference by the state when he used the term “wall of separation” to reassure those citizens that they were in no danger. The activist Supreme Court judges rather recently began to intone the phrase when one only need read the Founder’s documents to know that they did not want a state church such as Great Britain had and from whom they were separating from.
May 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Anyone who has done any serious study of the founding fathers knows that although they never wanted religion to be a government institution they also knew that only a religious people, of any faith, could sustain freedom.
Washington, in his farewell address reiterated the principles of the Northwest Ordinance,
I could go on for days quoting various founding fathers all on this topic but I’m sure that would get boring. It is important to note though that even Jefferson felt this way, despite how people use one sentence of his out of context.
The major point was that religious principle, mostly love they neighbor, is indispensable in supporting a free nation. I’m not a religious person but I do believe in treating others kindly; in helping someone in need. Its rather unfortunate that this has even been to my detriment at times. I’ve helped some people that couldn’t get past the fact that I was helping just to be a kind person and I’ve been taken advantage of, rather severely at times, because of that persons inability to accept that someone wasn’t trying to take advantage of her.
Anyways, I’m getting away from my point. . . .The founding fathers meant for this nation to be rooted in religious principle rather than forcibly removed from it.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
To begin I believe homosexuality is a sin as outlined in the Bible. However, in our society judges and pastors are put on the same table both able to officiate a wedding and sign the marriage certificate. This is not separation of church and state. To add, some traditions will not acknowledge a divorce given by the state still requiring some acknowledgment by the church.
I propose and would support completely all things known in the US today as marriage be switched to civil unions. Make the union for any two people gay, straight or just roommates and give the same privileges contractually as given by marriage today. If a couple wants a “marriage” let them follow up to their legal union with a spiritual marriage officiated by their faith.
June 14th, 2009 at 5:54 pm