Gay marriage. Fewer things have such a polarizing effect in today's American society. Most proponents and opponents are so vested in their beliefs that real discussion of the issue is markedly absent in the public arena. To support one group is to alienate the other. Same sex couples see anything that falls short of equal rights under the law as inadequate. Opponents to gay marriage claim that their religious beliefs can not allow them to sanction marriage that they believe is sinful. Recently compromise has meant that neither side is satisfied. Civil union laws, while touted as a step in the right direction are still not equality, while opponents see it as an endorsement of behavior they don't agree with. For this reason politicians have lined up as either favoring or opposing gay marriage, and most editorials have followed suit, pushing one agenda or the other.
As a disclaimer, I would like to say that I am for equal rights and against public promiscuity regardless of the participants' sexual affiliations. The agenda that I promote is one of compromise, true compromise, and one that might actually meet the social and moral convictions of both sides. To do this we must look at the word "marriage."
Generally it means a joining of two or more things. Specific to this debate, it actually refers to two different procedures that allow cohabiting adults to validate their relationship. The first procedure is purely civil and legal. The application for a marriage licence is contractual law, allowing each party to be bound to the other under the laws of the land. The second is a religious rite that according to the specific beliefs held by the participants is a spiritual binding under the laws of whatever those beliefs may be.
The problem here is a grammatical one. Both processes are called marriage, and by merely speaking of "marriage" the lines between civil rights and religious convictions are blurred. To change that, proponents have used the words 'civil union' to make the distinction, but as with all distinctions, this one has been used to promote a system of inequality under the law.
I propose to separate entirely the process of legal union and religious union. The language of the marriage licence should be changed so that everyone enters into a 'civil union' prior to considering the religious ceremony that may or may not follow. Likewise all mention of the word 'marriage' in our laws, not referring to the religious ceremony, should be replaced by the words 'civil union' and 'married couples' with the words 'civily bound' or a religiously neutral equivelent term.
As a disclaimer, I would like to say that I am for equal rights and against public promiscuity regardless of the participants' sexual affiliations. The agenda that I promote is one of compromise, true compromise, and one that might actually meet the social and moral convictions of both sides. To do this we must look at the word "marriage."
Generally it means a joining of two or more things. Specific to this debate, it actually refers to two different procedures that allow cohabiting adults to validate their relationship. The first procedure is purely civil and legal. The application for a marriage licence is contractual law, allowing each party to be bound to the other under the laws of the land. The second is a religious rite that according to the specific beliefs held by the participants is a spiritual binding under the laws of whatever those beliefs may be.
The problem here is a grammatical one. Both processes are called marriage, and by merely speaking of "marriage" the lines between civil rights and religious convictions are blurred. To change that, proponents have used the words 'civil union' to make the distinction, but as with all distinctions, this one has been used to promote a system of inequality under the law.
I propose to separate entirely the process of legal union and religious union. The language of the marriage licence should be changed so that everyone enters into a 'civil union' prior to considering the religious ceremony that may or may not follow. Likewise all mention of the word 'marriage' in our laws, not referring to the religious ceremony, should be replaced by the words 'civil union' and 'married couples' with the words 'civily bound' or a religiously neutral equivelent term.
The profession or lack of profession of any religious belief should not affect the civil rights of an individual as the separation of church and state ensures. Nor should the state impose upon religious institutions contrary to any view it may hold. I am sure that there will be some accommodating to same-sex couples and those that do not and each believer will find company in their own houses. In the mean time, both our convictions and the notion of equality that this nation was founded on can be preserved and held once more as a beacon to the world.
