I see it as a seperation of church and state issue. Right now, two men can be married in a Unitarian church, but the marraige would not be recognized by the state of Indiana or the federal government. Likewise, a person who got divorced but did not get an annulment prior to getting remarried would not have their marraige recognized by the Catholic Church, yet it would still be recognized by the state that it took place in.
Marraige usually consists of two things. It consists of a expensive party in a fancy building with stained glass windows and a legal contract. Let the entities who own the fancy buildings decide who may get married inside. And let any consented adult enter into whatever legal contract they choose.
Or we can go back to the good old days, when a man had his wife, and his secretary, and the babysitter. And a woman had her husband, and her gardener, and the mailman.
While Massachusetts was the first State in which same sex marriage is legal, it was the State supreme court that made it so, and no elected official or legislative body. The first State in which the legislature authorized same sex civil unions was Connecicut. Marriage, civil union - what's the difference. None that I can see, but a lot of same sex couples think that there is a lot of difference and are very upset with Connecticut. The rational solution (which, being rational, is unlikely to happen) is to go back to the idea that only a religious group can authorize a union to be called a marriage, and can have any rules they want regarding what a marriage is. On the other hand, the States can authorize the legal relationship of what we now call a marriage, but they have to call it a civil union. That way, any couple (or more, for Mormons, Muslims, etc.) that wants to call themselves married gets to. What some, particularly from the religious right, seem not to understand is that when church and State are not kept separate, the State is more likely to have more control of what churches can do than vice versa. The Jerry Falwells and Par Robertsons of the world shold be careful what they ask for.
ReplyDelete"Or we can go back to the good old days, when a man had his wife, and his secretary, and the babysitter. And a woman had her husband, and her gardener, and the mailman."
ReplyDeleteOr, for the LGBT advocates - the man had her husband, his gardener and the mailman. And the woman had....