The Answer to the Gay Marriage Debate– In Under 150 Words « RagingTantrum.com (via Reddit)

I have heard this argument before (I can’t remember where exactly) but it’s very well made here, in less than 150 words.

Here’s the most logical solution to the gay marriage debate– in less than 150 words:

The word “marriage” is removed from government vocabulary.  The government only certifies civil unions, giving two people, regardless of gender, the legal and tax benefits that “married” couples enjoy today.  This takes care of hospital visitation, will execution, and tax breaks.

Marriage becomes a purely religous term, and various denominations and religions can “marry” who they please.  For instance, Southern Baptists may choose to only allow traditional heterosexual marriage while Episcopalians allow homosexual marriage.

When a couple decides to get married, they go to a church for the ceremony and then file their civil union with the government.

People can spend their lives with whomever they choose, and religious traditions aren’t trampled.  It’s a win-win.

The government shouldn’t have had anything to do with “marriage” in the first place.

Problem solved.

We have this in a roundabout way in the UK. Marriage ceremonies are available in churches and registry offices. Gays can have civil partnerships in registry offices, which are broadly the same legally as a heterosexual marriage. http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/ describes the benefits, rights and differences.

I’m given to understand that unless you’re some kind of bigot, ‘marriage’ and ‘married’ are commonly used and accepted for describing gay couples in civil partnership.

The reason it probably won’t be used to solve the gay marriage issue in the US  is because the faithful (at least the ones who are petty, sorry, zealous enough to be aruging about this sort of thing) always strive to integrate into government; probably because they see their world view and ethics as the correct ones, and of course why shouldn’t they direct their nation’s laws and even constitution, they are divinely mandated, after all.

We in the UK have enjoyed a much more marginalised and divided religious moralist pest, and our government didn’t encounter such mighty opposition that they couldn’t pass laws to give this right to it’s homosexual citizens. That’s not to say people didn’t complain, they did. They were ignored.

2 Responses

1. yochannah

   May 7, 2009 at 1:26 pm

   I’m still stumped how that can work in the US when their first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
   Surely laws based solely on religious sensibilities are therefor unconstitutional?

   On a separate note: What do you think of the idea of non sexual civil partnerships – between siblings who live together, for example, or just friends? I think it’s a great idea to be able to enjoy legal rights if you live as a unit, and I don’t quite understand why it seems to be limited to married couples.

2. Hawklan

   May 8, 2009 at 10:11 am

   I believe marriage has traditionally been promoted for heterosexual couples because it’s a religious as well as societal institution that for the most part legitimises and encourages the family unit, social bonds, etc. It is (or was) for a lot of people the done thing and because it’s a religious (or civil) ceremony, societal tradition and legal contract, some people are having difficulty separating their religious juju from the issue.

   For all the brilliance of the US constitution, it still had to integrate a society made up of religious and non religious people, doing the things they’d been doing before and after it was drafted. A lot of the purity of the idea has to compromise with the reality of shitheads who can’t or won’t accept secular values over their dogma, and as it’s a democracy that’s not perfect, their voices have had more sway up to this point. Still at least both sides get to argue and protest and vote about it, which is far more than can be said for some other countries.

   I think any partnership or living arrangement should be codafiable provided it’s between consenting adults and not harmful yadayadayada. Marriage is after all at the core just a contract between people that allows for certain shared rights and responsibilities. The ceremony and religious stuff seems to me to be personal choice and should be entirely optional.

Leave a Reply

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>