| Gay's and Marriage |
 |
 |
 |
|
Gay's and Marriage: Is the solution as simple as a legal definition?
Marriage by most conventional definitions I have found specify a union between opposite sex persons. Many of those who oppose gay marriage are basing their opposition on this definition combined with their conservative religious beliefs regarding traditional marriage.
Marriage can exist within two "institutions" at the same time. Within the Church with all the rules, ceremony and dogma associated with the particular church, and within the government body legislated to record and legitimize the union for purposes unrelated to religion, such as property rights, taxes etc.
With most laws tying them to each other there is little wonder there is conflict. One must obtain the "permission" of government for the right to marry. Having done so they may then ask the church of their choice to perform the actual ceremony or they may have a specified government official such as a judge, perform a civil ceremony. The "marriage" from the government/legal stand point constitutes a legal contract with certain rights and obligations imposed on the couple as a result. The obligations and rights are exclusive of any church and apply equally to two atheists who marry in a civil ceremony.
While those in the church would decry anyone being an atheist, none complain of them being married in a civil ceremony and obtaining the rights and obligations of marriage. In the eyes of our laws, they have the equal protection of the law to enter into a marriage in order to "contract" with each other to obtain certain legal privileges reserved for the married couples regardless of their religion.
Churches often claim the reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples revolves around their interpretation that marriage is intended for the purpose of procreation and to raise families and that being same-sex, preclude procreation. What churches do not seem to find offensive, however, are couples who marry in the church with no intention of having children. In some cases they may be medically unable to do so, yet their "non-procreation" marriages meet no resistance from the church.
Can we resolve this issue by altering the definitions and separating the "union" into two parts? Civil Unions do not need to be called "marriage" in order to confer the same legal rights and obligations enjoyed by eliminating any sexual references to the couple. These would be performed only by the government authority provided by in local law such as magistrates or judges. This type of union would have no religious connection what so ever. It would simply legitimize the same rights in law granted to opposite sex couples. It would support the couple's right to enter into a legal contract.
The term "Marriage" should belong to the realm of the churches with all their own rules and an ceremony attached according to the will of the church. In other words, the definition of "marriage" would apply only to those who's civil union were blessed by what ever ceremony the churches deem proper for their congregations.
A church could refuse to perform a "marriage" ceremony based on same-sex couples as a matter church doctrine based on religious freedom, but a government agent must provide a civil union based on sex of the couple based on equal protection of the law.
Comments are welcome. Selected comments will be considered for posting on request. Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites         |