During the past November election cycle, Californians voted and passed Prop 8 that changed the California Constitution by eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry and defined marriage as “between a man and a woman”. Currently Minnesota legislators have introduced several bills on the topic of same-sex marriage. Three bills – HF 1824, HF 1870, and HF1871 – have been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature that proposes Minnesota Constitutional amendment of defining a marriage as a union of a man and a woman (http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/gay.asp).
With all the issues facing Americans, why do we spend so much time on the topic of same-sex marriage? Understandably some aspects of our lives, i.e. healthcare, require a “marriage” license in order for ones partner to participate or make decisions on the topic at hand. OutFront Minnesota, and others around the United States, are pushing for a conversation on same-sex marriage with the goal to legalize it as some point in the future.
Why? Why must same-sex be deemed legal? Marriage is not something that Government ought to define, control, enforce, legislate, or license. The sanctity of marriage is established and maintained by ones belief system. Believers that view same-sex marriage as a threat to the nuclear family or against the will of “God” need to be treated the same as those that believe same-sex marriage is completely natural. Holding such a belief does not make one a bigot or homophobic. Rather it is simply their belief system; right or wrong.
It time for Americans to stand up and shorten Governments reach into our lives. Regardless of how one feels on the topic of same-sex marriage, the simple fact is that Government was not formed by the founding fathers to establish the right of marriage. The concept of marriage is rooted in a belief system. Groups like OutFront will further their cause better if they advance the elimination of Government intrusion rather than fighting the moral majority on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Since the word license often translates into right, by changing the jargon from license to certificate we solve one problem facing the concept of marriage. Instead of the state issuing a couple a marriage licenses the state issues certificate that recognizing the union of two people. By recognizing the union the Government is simply stating that.
The new “Civil Union” certificate will afford all Americans the same rights that are held hostage by the marriage license. Going the route of certification and away from licensing, Americans can escape the repeal or proposal of legislation like Prop 8 while shortening the arm of Big Government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Are you willing to give up all the government benefits that come with a marriage license? Marriage has a long history as a matter of the civil courts, longer than its history as a religious act.
ReplyDeleteMarriages don't always last. If marriage is predominantly religious, why do we go to a judge to end one?
Let's stop the intrusion of religious groups into the lives of non-members.
John D..
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is marriage licenses did not start being used until the Middle Ages and religion as we know it start much earlier then that.
Beside that point, the issuing of a license by a governmental body is something that restricts my freedom of choice on who I want to spend the rest of my life with which is why government should re-write the marriage license to become a certificate.
In all of the conversations I have heard on the issue of same-sex marriage, the word marriage is the hold up. To achieve the desired result, I merely suggest that same-sex groups, i.e. OutFront, engage the topic from the aspect of Big Government.
Granted I do no see the appeal in the same sex activity, I do recognize that those that wish to partake in same sex activities have that right to do so. What makes our society great is that a group of people can voice their opposition and support for the topic without fear of retribution from the Government. So why not extend to the certification and away from licensing of marriages?
While I don't disagree with you about trying more than one tactic to keep government out of the social agenda, it all comes down to the politicians who could make this a reality. And the same politicians that would like a smaller government are also members of (or at least beholden to) more conservative religious groups.
ReplyDeleteAnd, having some moral background aside, we like to think there's a separation of church and state.
These religious groups don't want to change their ideas of marriage. Instead, they would rather define it and keep same sex partners out as a part of their various agendas. There's a lot of pressure on the parishioners from religious leaders and some are very strict. Add that to all of the money that organizations like the Mormon church spent on advertising in California, and you get results like Prop 8.
Even the more socially progressive congress men and women are members of or beholden to some of these groups, which makes it a battle of belief rather than law.
A lot of the gay community are also regular church goers and only want the same thing that's promised to straight folks. They don't want a "separate but equal" union, but a full on marriage with all the social and religious implications and entitlements. Yet many of their own churches shun their lifestyles.
I think that this is the next big civil rights issue the U.S. will need to face in the next decade.
I think claiming 1st amendment rights here is critical to the cause more so than claiming big government. It's quite apparent that if anyone wants to make a life commitment to any partner that both people's morals, opinions, lifestyles, and religious views already allow for the act to happen.
I'm oversimplifying the situation here, but there is definitely a constitutional argument that could be had to turn Prop 8 (and the question of same sex marriage) on its ear. It's just a matter of getting judges and lawmakers on the same page.
Pat
ReplyDeleteI don’t think you are oversimplifying the issue. In fact our politicians and religious leaders make it more complex. As you pointed out, the Mormon Church, not located in California, launched a media blitz to propel Prop 8 to victory. Now if it is the will of the people to impose restrictions on “marriage” they have the freedom to do so. This is why Government needs not to extend the arm in issuing a marriage license; rather focus on creating a civil union certificate.
Granted we are talking about semantics but sometimes if we adhere the message is soften and still carries the day. Tolerance will come at some point and a step to promote that is to remove marriage licensing from the books and replace it with a civil union certificate.
A precedent has already been established with the election of Barack Obama with his eligibility of being President of the United States. I don‘t want to muddle this thread so if anyone wants to expand on this please post anew but in Hawaii there is not a birth certificate on record for Barack Obama. On the books in Hawaii is a certification of live birth. Now if the one can ascend to the Presidency with a certification of live birth, and not a birth certificate, then Government ought to have no trouble removing the marriage license and going with a civil union certificate.