Blog Against Theocracy, Day 2
Marriage. NOT Gay Marriage necessarily, but Marriage as a Legal Contract
I've been giving this whole Gay marriage topic alot of thought for a long time. Back when I was happily married to a man who I loved with all my heart, I supported the rights of gays to marry. He died in 1998 and now that I am living with my other soul mate, who is a woman, like me. These days I'm giving it even more thought and in different ways.
Whether everyone really realizes it or not there are alot of different takes on this subject even within the LGBT community. There is a large faction that would happily settle for a "Civil Union" which allows us all the rights and responsibilities of a straight marriage. Alot of these folks feel that we don't need to imitate the straight lifestyle, and that marriage for gays somehow betrays the gay lifestyle. (I could go into a whole thing on so-called lifestyles, but I would go soooo far off topic!!)
Then there's the folks who want the same rights as everybody else, no matter what! As for me, I can respect both positions. I see merit in both arguments, just as I see flaws. My take on the topic of Gay Marriage is this:
That's right; nobody. Marriage is a religious ceremony/institution/ritual/law. As soon as it became a part of state and federal legislation, the wall between the separation of church and state was crossed. Period. Marriage as a legal, binding, contract should never have been. I say, forget promoting gay marriage. Let's cut straight to the heart of the matter and abolish legal marriage. Really!! Let's instead push for legislation that truly separates church and state in this area, at least. Let's admit that the better solution would be to admit that "marriage" is a religious term applied to a government filing of two people entering into a personal, domestic, contract.
A civil union, as opposed to a business partnership.
Because that is what it is.
If you want to go into a business partnership with so and so, you draw up a contract, have it notarized and then file the appropriate papers with the courts.
Same with a pre-nup. Isn't a pre-nup just an additional filing attached to the so - called "marriage contract", made to further protect one party of the "partnership"?
Let's just let marriage be what it was intended to be; a religious ceremony in which the rules vary from religion to religion.
If we are to truly separate church and state, then nobody should be married under law. Let all those straight folks go down to the courthouse and file their "domestic partnership" or "civil union" papers just like everybody else.
Whether everyone really realizes it or not there are alot of different takes on this subject even within the LGBT community. There is a large faction that would happily settle for a "Civil Union" which allows us all the rights and responsibilities of a straight marriage. Alot of these folks feel that we don't need to imitate the straight lifestyle, and that marriage for gays somehow betrays the gay lifestyle. (I could go into a whole thing on so-called lifestyles, but I would go soooo far off topic!!)
Then there's the folks who want the same rights as everybody else, no matter what! As for me, I can respect both positions. I see merit in both arguments, just as I see flaws. My take on the topic of Gay Marriage is this:
Nobody should be legally "married"
.That's right; nobody. Marriage is a religious ceremony/institution/ritual/law. As soon as it became a part of state and federal legislation, the wall between the separation of church and state was crossed. Period. Marriage as a legal, binding, contract should never have been. I say, forget promoting gay marriage. Let's cut straight to the heart of the matter and abolish legal marriage. Really!! Let's instead push for legislation that truly separates church and state in this area, at least. Let's admit that the better solution would be to admit that "marriage" is a religious term applied to a government filing of two people entering into a personal, domestic, contract.
A civil union, as opposed to a business partnership.
Because that is what it is.
If you want to go into a business partnership with so and so, you draw up a contract, have it notarized and then file the appropriate papers with the courts.
Same with a pre-nup. Isn't a pre-nup just an additional filing attached to the so - called "marriage contract", made to further protect one party of the "partnership"?
Let's just let marriage be what it was intended to be; a religious ceremony in which the rules vary from religion to religion.
If we are to truly separate church and state, then nobody should be married under law. Let all those straight folks go down to the courthouse and file their "domestic partnership" or "civil union" papers just like everybody else.
Be sure to stop by Blog Against Theocracy to check out all the great bloggers that are participating in this event and speaking out about the separation of Church and State, and don't forget after the event is over to get continuing info and updates on the struggle at Freedom First
Powered by ScribeFire.
Labels: Blog Against Theocracy, civil union, domestic partnership, marriage, politics, religion, separation of church and state
6 Comments:
Their whole outlook is absurd! ; (
Nicely done and Thanks for stopping by!
Well said. However, many people, often atheists like me and my husband, choose to have a wedding ceremony without any ties to a church. When we got married, we went out of our way to make sure their was no reference to god in any way. In fact, that is mainly why my husband designed and wrote the whole ceremony. But I would most certainly not be opposed to doing away with the whole marriage business. Regardless of what other legal problems that would cause in today's society.
Oh, and by the way, thanks for stopping by my brand new blog!
Thorne, very interesting post. I was just discussing marriage yesterday - and really, the numbers that end in divorce are astonishing. I divorced in 1991 - and haven't ever remarried. I don't want the fuss, the bother, the RELIGIOUS CONTRACT. (You see, when I got divorced, not only did I have to get a civil divorce, I had to get a Jewish divorce called a "Get".
Two married couples I know, one straight, one gay constantly bicker in public. I mean it is NON STOP. Ugly. Why would anybody campaign for the right to fight in public? I'm just saying?
Thank you all so much for stopping by and reading my meager contribution! Being a new-ish blogger (at least for public consumption) I thought it important to leave comments to encourage and acknowledge others, and am very happy to receive a bit in kind!!
Makita; your personal solution was very cool. When I married my late husband we were disappointed to find that we had only 2 choices of ceremony (we went to Vegas), secular or non. No "spiritual" compromise. As spiritual but avowed NON Religious folk, we explained uor problem to the "chaplain" who altered the religious ceremony a bit for us. He was very sweet.
divajood:
I've been reading and seeing alot of reference to the "Get", lately. It's a rough code, and horribly patriarchal, but illustrates my point perfectly. If folks want to "marry" within their religion, then they are bound by the rules they acquiesce to separately from the civil/legal matter of marriage/divorce. Makes sense to me! (and yes...I too detest the bickering of so many couples, regardless of type of partnership. LOL
Hi Thorne, thanks for visiting my blog. I think you have exactly the right take. Insofar as marriage is a religious ritual, the state has no business defining what is or isn't a valid marriage. Insofar as it is a civil contract, the state has no business discriminating against some of its citizens. We need separation of state and marriage!
- No More Mr. Nice Guy!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home