A proposal to solve the whole thing.

[dianaiad]

Here is an article I'm thinking of sending to....someone.

I'm sure it's useless; everybody is so intent on holding his or her own opinion regarding this and in pounding the other side into the pavement that it will be ignored or argued with. However.....

What do y'all think?

Who'd read it?

[center]A Proposal to solve the marriage problem in the USA.
[/center]

[center]Get government out of the marriage business, period. [/center]

mar•riage/ˈmarij/
Noun: 1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2. A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

Almost every definition of the word ‘marriage’ includes two very important ideas: ‘formal union,� and ‘recognized by law.� The purpose behind getting married seems to be…to form a family. The idea of a formal recognition of a familial (sexual) relationship has been around since before written history began.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this, though I have heard precious few people comment on this, is the wording “recognized by law.� Please notice; marriages are not MADE by law, but only recognized by law. Marriage, as an idea and an institution, predates the USA, is practiced and defined very differently by many different cultures outside of the USA (and within it, state by state, as well). Marriages have included polygamy, polyandry, monogamy, groups with both men and women in the relationships and homosexual relationships.

Even in today’s American culture, when a couple decides to ‘go get married,’ they are thinking about the wedding ceremony that is performed by their clergyman (or the Elvis impersonator or the friend on the beach) and about the vows they take there…vows that are not, and cannot be, enforced by civil law. They are not thinking about the license they paid for three days previous, or the signing of the certificate—which doesn’t apply government rights to that marriage until it is properly filed by the officiator.

No, the government doesn’t define, or make, the marriage. The government recognizes a marriage that the participants have made.

Today there is a huge controversy about whether or not gays may marry one another. In California, where gays had every single one of the civil rights that the government could grant a recognized marriage, it was not enough; gays wanted to be recognized and approved of culturally as MARRIED.

This is understandable; why not, if they have made a formal commitment to one another, and they have all the civil rights, why can’t they call themselves ‘married?� It doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, on the surface.

However, it is unreasonable. Since “marriage’ as an idea does predate any law or right attached to it, and since the whole idea is about families and what cultures and belief systems think marriage ‘really’ is, then having the government dictate to everybody who they can consider ‘married’ is going to cause problems. It is, in fact, establishing a religion…or at least a religious stance. That is fundamentally against the First Amendment. There are many cultures and belief systems that do not think that gays can marry one another. Not ‘they should not,’ but rather ‘they cannot.� To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs in order to comply with something so completely against their own ideas is indeed ‘establishing a religion.� However, that is, as far as I can see, exactly what gays want here. It’s not that they want the equal rights; in California they HAD those. They want the forced cultural and religious approval to which they have no right.

However, they DO have the right to those legal rights; whether or not gays may marry is a religious, moral and ethical problem, not a legal one. The government has the right to assign civil rights to whomever it wishes, and not only should, but MUST, ignore religious and cultural opinions in doing so. If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again. Certainly if a homosexual couple belongs to a culture/belief system/church that accepts their marriage, then they have a right to BE married…and certainly nobody can tell them that they are not, within those beliefs.

It’s a quandary and a problem…and a problem that government is not well equipped to solve. I know this, because my own belief system has seen, to its huge cost, what happens when the government decides to enforce its definition of ‘marriage’ upon a group that believes differently. We have been ejected from our nation, made legal prey by the governor of a state, had close to HALF the armed services of the USA sent against us in order to remove and arrest the governor of the territory we were finally able to settle.

That was a while ago, true. However, less than ten years ago one of our offshoot sects had their towns invaded by men with full body armor, automatic weapons, tanks and guns—and the authority of the state—and the women and children taken away in Baptist buses, interned in a facility where the sanitary facilities were ‘Andy Gumps� in the back parking lots, and the children removed from their mothers because the state wanted to enforce ITS definition of marriage upon a group that disagreed.

I can’t tell you how often I have been told that, if gay marriage were made legal that nobody would force religions to accept them. Please pardon me if I am skeptical; given the above examples, I have a right to be.

But…do I have the right to keep those who do not share my faith from being happy and getting married because I don’t want the government interfering with MY freedom of religion?

It’s a problem.

Here’s the solution.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let’s get back to the idea that the government only RECOGNIZES marriages, and does not make them. In fact, let’s not even do that. Let ALL aspects of marriage that the government can enforce be given a name that reflects the government’s ability and power; make ‘em all ‘civil unions.’ Remove all legal power from clergymen who perform marriages, so that ‘marriage,’ that institution that predates law and is recognized so differently by so many different nations and states, means only the part that is managed by the church, the culture and the couple.

Make this a two tiered event…if a couple wants both the marriage and the legal rights that the government says can go with it, they have to sign the civil contracts with the government..and that’s what they would be called; civil contracts, or civil unions. THEN, if they want to, they go get married according to their own beliefs or in whatever fashion appeals to them. They can do both, or one, or the other. The ‘wedding’ will have no legal power…just religious or personal, and the civil union has no religious meaning; strictly legal contractual stuff.

That way anybody can marry…and I do mean really get married...as they wish, AND they all get the rights; gay, straight, whoever. At the same time, though, religions cannot be sued, fined, or legislated against if they say to someone who hasn’t been married according to their beliefs “sorry, you ain’t married.�

A gay photographer who specializes only in gay weddings…and advertises this…cannot be sued for discrimination by a straight couple who wants him to shoot their wedding, and vice versa. (as far as I am aware, though there ARE such gay photographers who specialize in gay only weddings, none have been sued. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the ‘vice versa’)

It’s not even as if this is so unusual and outrageous an idea. “Two tiered� weddings have been around, in many other nations, for quite a while.

So that’s it. That’s my idea. Get government entirely out of marriage. Everybody wins; gays get the rights, gays may marry, and those who disagree with gay marriage can’t be forced to change their religious behavior and beliefs, even as they will have to, in non-religious public arenas, obey the law regarding civil rights. Everybody wins.

[McCulloch]

There is already a two tiered event, if a couple wants the marriage and the legal rights that goes with it, they go to the government and sign a the civil contracts with the government. THEN, if they want to, they go get the approvial according to their own beliefs or in whatever fashion appeals to them. The ‘wedding’ will have no legal power, just religious or personal, and the marriage has no religious meaning; strictly legal contractual stuff. THAT is how anybody can marry and religions cannot be sued, fined, or legislated against if they say to someone who hasn’t been approved according to their beliefs “sorry, your marrage isn't holy.�

Here it is, the solution to the problem. Marriage, by itself, licensed and recognized by the state and holy matrimony, sacred marriage, temple marriage or whatever they want to call it recognized by religion.

In Ontario, and elsewhere I suspect, ministers of religion are licensed by the government to officiate at weddings. They are allowed to not just conduct the ceremony, but to handle the paperwork and attend to the legalities. It is convenient for couples, they need not have two events, one religious and one civil. Both are handled by one person. Now, by separating the civil from the religious, whatever names you wish to use, you deny churches the opportunity for some revenue. So, I really doubt that too many churches would be in favor.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

How about getting RELIGION out of marriage (unless those getting married wish it to be a part of their institution)?
In other words, religion can't impact the legal aspects of marriage and the legality of marriage has no impact on the religiousness of it.
Sounds like separation of church and state - d'oh!
After all, even today a couple can get married without any religious interaction of said vows.

I would extend this to all things religious. Basically, unless it impacts one personal religious beliefs directly, religion has no grounds to create change.
If apples were sinful in religion X, religion X should not let their followers eat apples, but have no impact on the eating of apples of people in religion B, C, D, on and on.

Or, to put it bluntly, religion should mind its own business.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 11 by McCulloch]

Churches shouldn't charge for weddings in my opinion. If this is such a grand and wondrous thing of God, it should be free - just like salvation.
Otherwise, the church is a business and Jesus, according to the bible, doesn't seem to like combining the two.
But, churches are a monetary scam to the 2nd highest level in human society from my experience so I doubt most any church would elect to do marriages for free.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 11 by McCulloch]

Churches shouldn't charge for weddings in my opinion. If this is such a grand and wondrous thing of God, it should be free - just like salvation.
Otherwise, the church is a business and Jesus, according to the bible, doesn't seem to like combining the two.
But, churches are a monetary scam to the 2nd highest level in human society from my experience so I doubt most any church would elect to do marriages for free.

Mine does... Though they are generally part of the regularly scheduled church service as a big part of it is making this declaration to the community you are a part of. It's when they take it out of the community that additional costs arise. But generally they are just that and nothing more, costs to cover losses not to profit.

[McCulloch]

Churches shouldn't charge for weddings in my opinion. If this is such a grand and wondrous thing of God, it should be free - just like salvation.
Otherwise, the church is a business and Jesus, according to the bible, doesn't seem to like combining the two.
But, churches are a monetary scam to the 2nd highest level in human society from my experience so I doubt most any church would elect to do marriages for free.

Many small churches barely scrape by financially. And depending on the size of the event, weddings, funerals and private christenings, cost money, and are not the kind of charitable work that the contributors expect that their tithes and offerings are going to pay for. Particularly, when the events are not part of the ordinary schedule of services or the participants are not regular members of the congregation.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is only right that they charge for such services.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

How about getting RELIGION out of marriage (unless those getting married wish it to be a part of their institution)?

That's like asking 'how about getting GOD out of religion?"

Marriage has been around a great deal longer than governments have. Oh, governments have assigned different rights and obligations to folks who are married, but that's the government recognizing something not invented by the government....as it should be.

Unless for some reason you believe that marriage began in, oh, 1789 or something?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 11 by McCulloch]

Churches shouldn't charge for weddings in my opinion. If this is such a grand and wondrous thing of God, it should be free - just like salvation.
Otherwise, the church is a business and Jesus, according to the bible, doesn't seem to like combining the two.
But, churches are a monetary scam to the 2nd highest level in human society from my experience so I doubt most any church would elect to do marriages for free.

(waving hand, just because...)

My church doesn't charge.

But then, we don't pay our local clergy, either. Temple weddings are free. Getting the use of the local church for the reception is free, too. We don't have to pay the officiator, the organist, or anything.

Just sayin.'

Of course, we pay tithing so we don't have to do the 'add ons' for stuff like this.

OK, back to the regularly scheduled conversation.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 17 by dianaiad]

Of course, we pay tithing so we don't have to do the 'add ons' for stuff like this.

OK, back to the regularly scheduled conversation.

That's like saying I don't pay for public infrastructure but I do pay taxes...

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 17 by dianaiad]

Of course, we pay tithing so we don't have to do the 'add ons' for stuff like this.

OK, back to the regularly scheduled conversation.

That's like saying I don't pay for public infrastructure but I do pay taxes...

Actually, that's like saying that I pay taxes, so I don't have to bribe the postman to deliver the mail.

We tithe...and that's what the tithing funds are used for. We don't pay extra for such services because we don't need to. Or rather, the church doesn't require the extra revenue.

However, this is a bit off topic.....

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 19 by dianaiad]

It is a bit off topic to stay on topic.

Not ‘they should not,’ but rather ‘they cannot.� To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs in order to comply with something so completely against their own ideas is indeed ‘establishing a religion.�

How is removing the ban on gay marriage establishing a religion?

What religion specifically?

It’s not that they want the equal rights; in California they HAD those. They want the forced cultural and religious approval to which they have no right.

Nope they don't get SS benefits when loved ones pass. They don't get tax breaks on federal taxes. When they move out of state their "civil unions" are not recognized. On a state level there are some equal rights but not at a federal level that marriage entails. So it's separate but not equal.

As to what they want I know what they want no more than I know what an alien on alpha centauri wants.

Who is "they"? Do all LGBT individuals have the same wants and desires out of government? How do you know what "they"(whomever that is) wants? Maybe you are just projecting your own fears onto other people.

Certainly if a homosexual couple belongs to a culture/belief system/church that accepts their marriage, then they have a right to BE married…and certainly nobody can tell them that they are not, within those beliefs.

Yes this is true and that is why gay marriage bans are also unconstitutional. I feel like there is a dead horse somewhere on this issue.

I can’t tell you how often I have been told that, if gay marriage were made legal that nobody would force religions to accept them. Please pardon me if I am skeptical; given the above examples, I have a right to be.

Sure you have a right to be skeptical whether that skepticism is well founded is another question altogether as your above example had nothing to do with gay marriage or the government saying one thing and doing another. Plural marriage is not legal(not that I am against it) child rape is not legal. The government is quite specifically saying they will come after you for doing those things. It does not support your thesis that LGBT individuals will force your church into making gay marriage ceremonies . Gay marriage has been in effect for 11 Years. Please find one instance where a church was forced to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

But…do I have the right to keep those who do not share my faith from being happy and getting married because I don’t want the government interfering with MY freedom of religion?

Nope you don't have the right because it is unconstitutional for you to violate the religious freedoms of others. You have yet to prove that gay marriage interferes with your religious rights. I have been waiting for quite some time for this argument to be made rather than fear based claims.