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

[chargirlgenius.livejournal.com]

That contract would be made for the sole purpose of you making medical decisions for her? I think that existing power of attorney laws should be strengthened to cover that. If it were only about end of life decisions, that would be one thing. But marriage covers a whole gamut of other contracts that might be theoretically possible to obtain, for quite a bit more money than one marriage license fee.

Marriages historically have to be consummated to be considered valid. Think about medieval European history. If a marriage wasn't consummated, it could fairly easily be set aside.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

Again, if the State were out of the business of defining "marriage", that rule would be gone. In its place, somebody would need to decide whether there was a compelling State interest in a "civilly united" couple having sex, and if so, how often. I'm almost certain that the courts wouldn't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole. (How many married couples are there now that don't have sex? :-))