A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?

[Shana A]

A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?
By Michael A. Lindenberger Monday, Mar. 16, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1885190,00.html

When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred.

Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. In a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. The authors — one of whom voted for and one against Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether. (See pictures of the busiest wedding day in history.)

[Genevieve Swann]

I agree. Just abolish marriage, end of problem. If someone wants ceremony that can be done anywhere any time. There are legal ways to make someone a beneficiary and a dependent without marriage.

[Miniar]

Today, there's a movement in Iceland that will make all "legal documents" equal for all couples that file them and move the "marriage" part with the religious connotations and ceremonies, out of the gov. office entirely. I think it's a brilliant solution, 'specially since the Icelandic church has pretty much stated that they see no reason "not" to marry same sex couples.

[Just Kate]

Marriage should not be recognized by the government (yes, this is coming from a Mormon).  If it is, civil unions should be granted all the same rights as marriages by the government.  Make them equal or don't involve the government.

However, even if they were made perfectly equal legally, gays would still want the 'marriage' title as it validates their lifestyle to society and we'd still be in the same boat.  Therefore, just get the government out of it!

[Constance]

This is something my wife (an ordained UCC minister) and I have talked about.

If our friends and relative can't have the same legal rights as we do, perhaps we should give them up, too. We've talked about getting a legal divorce as a solidarity move. We're still waiting to see how the appeal plays out. Also, we don't actually have the money for even a DIY divorce.

(Note to Unconditional Acceptance, should she read this: Your mother and I will remain together, don't worry. It's just the legal status of our marriage that would change.)

[Unconditional Acceptance]

Hm...I'm still not sure how I feel about doing away with marriage as a potential solution. I can see the benefits of removing the government from the process, but said government was created as a protection for the rights of the people. And the people have every power to change that government if it fails to protect their rights.

I was thinking that attempting to change the government to protect the rights of all would be at least something to try before we remove them completely from marriage. Strange as it sounds to hear myself put any degree of faith into a government I don't believe in, I still think we should try. Even if that is a rather naively hopeful way to go.

Marriage is a beautiful thing, all people deserve it. I dunno, maybe we would all be better off without the government's interference; in my experience said interference is rarely beneficial. This issue still is up in the air for me...

[Constance]

Remember, nothing would be done to the idea of religious marriage (or hand-fasting). It's just the legal mumbo-jumbo that would be affected.

If some can't have the protection, perhaps none should until all do.

[NicholeW.]

Love, trust, committment, affection, compassion and loyalty are beautiful things, qualities.

I'm not sure that marriage is. I've experienced them a couple of times and although all of those qualities were there at first, time has a way of wearing down positive qualities as other, less good ones, intervene.

A civil union certainly would leave government the taxes it currently raises by the issuance of such licenses for marriage and still allow religious to conduct their own services consecrating marriage as well. Seems like a very good middle-way.

Of course, where do the fund-raisers go after that?

Nichole

[imaz]

Love, trust, committment, affection, compassion and loyalty are beautiful things, qualities.

I'm not sure that marriage is. I've experienced them a couple of times and although all of those qualities were there at first, time has a way of wearing down positive qualities as other, less good ones, intervene.


Nichole

Having been married three times I have to agree, the actual certificate is irrelevant.

As regards to certificates regarding one's religion that isn't true of all countries. When I got married last time (!) in Indonesia I had a problem with this as I did not have a certificate stating I was Muslim and had to do a quick 'conversion' at the Ministry of Religious Affairs to obtain one. Totally ridiculous.

All Indonesian ID cards show one's religion and marital or or otherwise status. Obviously this is not a good idea since only six religions are recognized officially - Islam, Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. So if one happens to be from another religion one has to choose one of the six anyway for official purposes. Of course this leads to all kind of bias regarding employment, the Police and Government departments...

[mina.magpie]

As regards to certificates regarding one's religion that isn't true of all countries. When I got married last time (!) in Indonesia I had a problem with this as I did not have a certificate stating I was Muslim and had to do a quick 'conversion' at the Ministry of Religious Affairs to obtain one. Totally ridiculous.

I can just imagine this exchange:

"So you're Muslim?"
"Yes. I am."
"Ah but do you have proof?"
"Uh, I'm telling you I am?"
"Oh no, that's not good enough. You can't just TELL us you're Muslim. You need REAL proof."
"Sigh ... so how do I "prove" I'm Muslim?"
"Uhm, you need a certificate saying you're one."
"And how do I get one of those?"
"Oh, you go to department X and tell them you're Muslim."

O_o *blood ... dribbling ... from ... ears ...*

All Indonesian ID cards show one's religion and marital or or otherwise status. Obviously this is not a good idea since only six religions are recognized officially - Islam, Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. So if one happens to be from another religion one has to choose one of the six anyway for official purposes. Of course this leads to all kind of bias regarding employment, the Police and Government departments...

Wow, that's kinda scary ... and prone to confusion, considering I kinda fit a bit into every one of those, along with a few others! ^_^

Mina.

[imaz]

I can just imagine this exchange:

"So you're Muslim?"
"Yes. I am."
"Ah but do you have proof?"
"Uh, I'm telling you I am?"
"Oh no, that's not good enough. You can't just TELL us you're Muslim. You need REAL proof."
"Sigh ... so how do I "prove" I'm Muslim?"
"Uhm, you need a certificate saying you're one."
"And how do I get one of those?"
"Oh, you go to department X and tell them you're Muslim."

Mina.

Don't forget the bribe, sorry, I meant contribution, to make things run quickly and smoothly!

[mina.magpie]

Don't forget the bribe, sorry, I meant contribution, to make things run quickly and smoothly!

LOL! Gotta LOVE bureaucracy! ^_^

Mina.

[Hazumu]

The anti-gay want to keep traditional marriage in the church(es) and same-sex couples out of marriage.

If the legal union was handled by the government and didn't have the word 'marriage' attached, same-sex couples could get -- er, uhm -- 'unionized'? -- and get all the benefits that traditional couples receive from the government when they get 'unionized'.

Sure, the churches get to keep the word 'marriage', but there are more churches that will 'marry' a same-sex couple than there are that will make it exclusive to traditional-couples-only.

The RWA anti-gay H8ers WILL fight this tooth and nail.  I wish I could get a penny for every lie every one of them spouts 'defending' their position.

Karen

[Vicky]

In some European countries, the civil part of a "coupling" of people is handled at the local city hall by a registrar, and then the couple can go to whatever church they want to for a blessing by their chosen higher power and then party, or go straight home and party.  This is the way it is for any couple, whether you go to a state accepted church or not.  Regrettably, many countries that do it that way are still stuck in the one of each major gender per contract, but they already have the system in place if they get smarter and nicer. 

I agree, get the government out of the religious ceremony market.  The "domestic contract registration fee" should be collected, and probably doubled to cover the response to domestic violence calls from spouses who did go the church routes.  Especially where the churches still make it implicitly permissable for a man to beat the stuffing out of his spouse since she is to obey him and he can hit her if she doesn't.