A solution for the same-sex marriage debate
June 1st 2009 04:55
The debate just keeps on going about gay marriage, even though it is fairly obvious that at some point the wall will come down and gay marriage will not be looked on any differently than other forms of marriage.
What's the most often touted reason those against gay marriage give for their opposition? That it threatens the foundations of what they hold dear. That marriage is a deeply personal and religious matter that they feel is mortally wounded if gays are allowed to marry. So, why not make a compromise that lets them hold on to their ceremony, but makes them no different from the gays they so which to minimize?
As for that minimizing, what do we say to those who say gays already have equality, that they are able to have civil unions? First, that's not true everywhere. Some states do not allow or recognize civil unions between same sex couples. Others do not grant the full privileges of marriage.
But what f they did? What if every right that existed in marriage existed in civil unions - it wouldn't matter. That's the part that those who stand against same sex marriage don't get. Without all the same rights and name it just isn't the same. I'm sure there were those who told Rosa Parks to be quiet, the bus goes to the same spot, why whine about sitting in the back? Or people who were told not to complain about having to use a different water fountain. After all, water is water, right?
That's the point - same is only the same when it is completely the same.
What's the solution? I think all sides could be accommodated with one easy change. Make civil unions the only legally recognized form of union between two individuals. Don't allow marriage, just don't give it legal standing.
Think about it - a man and a woman can get married by a judge, preacher, priest, rabbi, mullah, or other recognized religious or civil authority. But most of them can't grant a divorce, that must come from the state. Why can't marriage be the same?
Religions would be free to conduct whatever ceremony they liked in conjunction with the civil affair. The faithful could have their ceremony in the eyes of whatever god they chose. And religions free from bigotry could perform the ceremony for gay couples desiring it.
The logic seems infallible. Why not give each side what it wants, while upholding real standards of equality? Religious weddings will be simply ceremonial for the benefit of the believer. The real marriage will be done as a civil service. There is precedent for this in other countries, it wouldn't be hard to implement at all.
What's the most often touted reason those against gay marriage give for their opposition? That it threatens the foundations of what they hold dear. That marriage is a deeply personal and religious matter that they feel is mortally wounded if gays are allowed to marry. So, why not make a compromise that lets them hold on to their ceremony, but makes them no different from the gays they so which to minimize?
As for that minimizing, what do we say to those who say gays already have equality, that they are able to have civil unions? First, that's not true everywhere. Some states do not allow or recognize civil unions between same sex couples. Others do not grant the full privileges of marriage.
But what f they did? What if every right that existed in marriage existed in civil unions - it wouldn't matter. That's the part that those who stand against same sex marriage don't get. Without all the same rights and name it just isn't the same. I'm sure there were those who told Rosa Parks to be quiet, the bus goes to the same spot, why whine about sitting in the back? Or people who were told not to complain about having to use a different water fountain. After all, water is water, right?
That's the point - same is only the same when it is completely the same.
What's the solution? I think all sides could be accommodated with one easy change. Make civil unions the only legally recognized form of union between two individuals. Don't allow marriage, just don't give it legal standing.
Think about it - a man and a woman can get married by a judge, preacher, priest, rabbi, mullah, or other recognized religious or civil authority. But most of them can't grant a divorce, that must come from the state. Why can't marriage be the same?
Religions would be free to conduct whatever ceremony they liked in conjunction with the civil affair. The faithful could have their ceremony in the eyes of whatever god they chose. And religions free from bigotry could perform the ceremony for gay couples desiring it.
The logic seems infallible. Why not give each side what it wants, while upholding real standards of equality? Religious weddings will be simply ceremonial for the benefit of the believer. The real marriage will be done as a civil service. There is precedent for this in other countries, it wouldn't be hard to implement at all.
| 44 |
| Vote |
Comment by Doug Pollard
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter
In fact, even now it's not the religious ceremony that brings a marriage into legal existence - that only happens when the bride and groom sign the register, with the priest acting in his/her secular capacity as a registrar of marriages.
But I suspect this would be all too simple for the pseudo-Christians who oppose same sex marriage.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
it seems so simple, either everyone can do it or noone can, your choice churchies
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity