Mawwiage... is what bwings us... togevah... today

[chargirlgenius]

Many people have suggested a particular solution to the same-sex marriage conundrum. They would have the government recognize civil unions of everybody, and leave marriages to the church. This allows marriage to remain a religious institution, but allows everybody the exact same civil rights.

Only, I'm not really so keen on it.

You see, we were married in a civil ceremony, and that's the only ceremony we had, and likely the only one that we ever will have. I'm not any less "married" than the rest of you, and yes, I WANT to use the word "married". I'm also a religious person, and I know that in the eyes of God I am married.

Marriage is a human condition, not a religious one. Marriage is not something that only religious people have done. Marriage has always been considered a contract, and it wasn't even until the 12th century that the Catholic Church made it a sacrament. In the early Christian era, the presence of clergy was not required to make a partnership a marriage, even in the eyes of God.

I understand the idea of leaving government out of marriage, and once liked it. But it's not historically correct (at least from a Euro-centric perspective). Government has MORE business in the process of marriage than the churches. Once you were married, THEN you were subject to whatever expectations put were upon you by your church.

There's no reason to overhaul the whole system. There's no reason to make a complicated new set of laws to create a separate but equal condition. Use the laws we already have, and give people equal access and protections under those laws. Simply put, two people who love each other should have the ability to MARRY. Period, end of story.

Comments

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

I always thought allowing the gays civil unions and leaving marriage alone was a good compromise... and only recently have I realized that they shouldn't have to compromise... I agree that abolishing marriage entirely as a state issue isn't the way to go, although it sounds good and smart and wise, it isn't really.

I agree with all your points.. it's just stupid that it's even an issue.

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

I kind of thought that as well, but civil unions just aren't as equal as I'd thought they were. Good first step, and all, but they still leave a lot of legal rights unmet.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

Yes, the problem (as the Supreme Court said fifty years ago in another context) is that "separate is inherently unequal." If we have marriages for some people and civil unions for others, there will be a feeling that the former are "really" married, and the latter are imposters.

[usagi629.livejournal.com]

Right, and I totally agree with that.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

Edit: if we have legal recognition for some people's "marriages" and for other people's "civil unions", then in practice the former will probably get more legal recognition than the latter.