Much has been made of the Gay Marriage topic recently, whether it was Proposition 8, Iowa, bills in various states, or just in general. A few times, I have been asked to vote, or support one side or the other, but have opted to bow out as it hasn’t been my fight or issue. Since then I have given the topic some thought, and weighed the hypocrisy of it all.
On one side of the political spectrum, we have people that typically support Gay Marriage, yet want to amend the Constitution to disallow gun ownership. On the other, we have a group that wants to ban Gay Marriage, yet feels the Fairness Doctrine limits free speech. Both sides sound like they want to pick and choose where to be hypocritical.
Here’s how I see it (from an elf’s-eye view): Marriage is a religious term. As such, “marriage” should be something left up to churches to figure out. As we have a separation of church and state in the United States, we need to keep this ceremony separate from the government workings. Now, on the other hand, you can get “Married” at town hall, or other venues. This is not a religious ceremony, but a legal deal in the presence of an official. This should not be called “marriage”. Call it a “union”, “civil union”, or whatever seems appropriate instead. But this ceremony is legal. To me, the two need to be separated. As a couple can be united at city hall, without ever setting foot in a church or uttering the word “God”, yet is are still considered the same as two people that unite in a church, THIS is where we need the change.
My proposition: Make it so all people that wish to be united (as long as mentally able, and of age), can do so through government means (Justice of the Peace, etc.) as this is basically a legal and tax transaction. Allow churches to decide what their definition of marriage is. This way the government is not dictating a religious term to the churches, yet also not limiting the rights of a certain few who do different things behind closed doors than some others. If those who believe in the “sanctity of marriage” then want to look down on those who didn’t or couldn’t get married in their church, then so be it, but they haven’t been able to limit rights. If those who seek to be legally linked to a member of the same sex want to, I believe it is their right as we can no more limit this, than we can between people of different races. If there are churches that want to perform this ceremony, then let them, and call it “marriage”.
This should hopefully placate both sides enough that maybe this issue will go away. Again, as “marriage” is a religious term, and we can not have the government dictate what churches are doing, we need to leave them alone in this. However, we also can not decide who can or cannot be married/united to someone else if that person too, is of legal age, or else we can go back down the road of deciding this due to race, religion, weight, or any number of other factors.
Filed under: Politics Tagged: | Centrist, Church, Civil, Conservative, Democrat, Gay, Government, Indepependent, liberal, Marriage, moderate, Politics, Proposition 8, republican, Rights, Same Sex, Separation, State, Third, Union, united states
Hi there! Thanks for this post. It’s always a good thing when people are sharing knowledge and information and more about themselves. Makes the internet great.
Hey could I reference some of the information here in this blog if I reference you with a link back to your site?
I’m not gonna do that. I’ll take your word. But I’m pretty far left and I’ve never heard anyone seriously propose taking away all guns. Limiting some people’s access to them, maybe. Closing the gun show loop hole so the Mexican mafia can’t just load ‘em up by the truck full, sure. Make it so the homicidal or clinically insane can’t just buy one at will, ok.
But if you live in a rural area, a gun is a way of life. Maybe you hunt. Maybe a bear wants in your house. You probably should have a gun. And what’s more, you probably know how to use it correctly.
If you live in a city, that gun’s not gonna protect you. You’re more likely to shoot yourself. And, of course, if you’re law abiding and go through the proper channels, you can have one and maybe even carry it. Concealed and on your person. I don’t have a problem with that.
“I’ve never heard anybody make the argument that guns should be taken away from U.S. citizens”
Do an internet search on “ban guns”, and you’ll hear many many people make this argument.
First, in reference to this post’s opening salvo, I’ve never heard anybody make the argument that guns should be taken away from U.S. citizens. From the criminally violent, maybe, but from citizens, well… that’d just be stupid. Might as well take away reefer… oh wait…
Second, GOPMOM, you couldn’t be more wrong. (or paranoid) Nobody wants to normalize anything. In fact, one gay friend of mine opposes “gay marriage” because he hates the idea of normalizing his hard won alternative existence.
The fact is, this issue need not deal with homosexuality, marriage or anything Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani or any other hypocrite self-righteous pseudo-Christian deems fashionably unacceptable at any given time.
It’s about an adult’s right to choose who can live with him/her, who has access to his deathbed, who can inherit his property and who handles his remains. The tax code issue is a real mess (personally, I’ve never liked the idea that an afternoon with a snake-oil-salesman, er… preacher… yields new tax status, but that’s another debate), but the larger issue is self-determination, and I can imagine 1000 scenarios not involving gays or marriage where these restrictions come into play.
It’s a small point, but I did look up the etymology and the word does not in fact stem from religion – that’s why I pointed it out. I’d agree that may be meaningless as the word has taken on a religious meaning in our culture.
Once again, I agree with everything else. Looking at my post, it does seem petty to argue semantics. Sadly this petty semantic battle is at the heart of this debate for many people, although in my opinion it has become the hot topic because it’s simply easier to argue semantics than to actually deal with the underlying issue.
GOPMOM, nice to see you. This may indeed be a change-the-culture battle, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. Wasn’t the women’s rights movement also a change-the-culture battle? What about the African American civil rights movement?
Extending your argument, that gays are just loudmouths because they only comprise 3% of the population, to African Americans (who made up about 10% of the population at the time) were they also loudmouths that should have kept their mouths shut? If not, what makes it different?
I know how you’ll spin this around – and although you may say things like gays simply want to raise hell and rub it in our faces, there’s no way you can support that statement. I certainly don’t feel alienated or threatened by them or their movement. My question is, if they are allowed to marry – how does that affect you? Will you suddenly feel that your marriage is meaningless? If so, I’m sorry that your marriage hinges on the sanctity of a word, rather than the sanctity of the love you and your husband share.
Amen. I agree with you. Though I believe it is not just to decide for another person whom they should love. Every person should have the right to “marry” as long as the two people are of sound mind and are of age. I don’t care if “marry” means civil union or marriage as long as every citizen has the same rights….
I guess I look at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and consider marriage as part of it. I think it’s a dangerous thing to allow some access to tax breaks and not others based on sexual preference, just as I don’t think color of skin should be a factor when considering people for jobs or other financial considerations.
There is no federal statute that “grants the right” of inter-racial marriage that I know of either, but there used to be laws on the books (Black codes) which prevented whites and blacks from marriage. I don’t see a difference between this and straight/gay. Again, it’s a hypocrisy thing for me. You can’t be for some things and against other with such great similarity.
AND are you telling me you don’t think your husband’s handsome? I’m telling. It’s my elfly duty to have this awkward conversation.
I guess I was not clear when I tried to allude to the fact that I don’t think marriage is a right. It is not a civil right so it cannot be given or denied. As to the Federal Tax Code, if that was what this was all about I’d be behind it 100%. (Maybe they should jump on the flat-tax or consumption tax bandwagon.) It’s not. It is about a cultural movement aimed at making a cultural norm something that is not while also making others uncomfortable, just for sport. To me, it’s all juvenile. And it need not be addressed at the Federal level.
If this was truly about civil rights, they wouldn’t be teaching it in Kindergarten. Everyone in the US has certain rights (for now) and who you sleep with does not change those rights, whether that person is the same sex, the opposite sex, blue eyed, green skinned, etc. You’re extending a silly argument to say that if we don’t allow same sex unions pretty soon we’ll ban inter-racial marriage. There is no Federal statue that I know of that “grants the right” of inter-racial marriage but I’ll look later. We simply have laws that do not allow discrimination. Why don’t they go for the big picture and just sue the IRS? This would be a logical legal battle. But that is not what this lobby is after ultimately. This is a change-the-culture movement not a civil rights movement and it should be recognized as such.
I’m a bit concerned you think my husband is handsome, though (or is it just the accent) – not that there’s anything wrong with it.
The problem with the current civil unions is they DO NOT afford the same benefits as that of marriage under the tax codes on a federal level (the higher of the tax checks we shoulder).
It’s a slippery slope to use the government as a tool to affect religion as voters are defining a religious term and how to use it. What next? Tell Christians they can’t celebrate Christmas?
Additionally, it is a slippery slope to disallow one segment of the population certain rights, but allow the other to have them based on who they choose as a mate. This can open the door to banning racial marriage, obesity, and any other forms. Again, I do not like our government in the business of banning marriage/union/whatever. The government’s purpose is to protect safety and property, not legislate morality.
Finally, I think if you research, you’ll find America’s gay population well above 3%. But, even if we use your numbers, should we then take Native Americans, or Hawaiians — whose customs may not seem normal — and ban them from marriage?
But, I agree with you here, as I’ve stated: Marriage is a religious term, and I’m fine with calling same-sex unification as something else. Leave this up to the churches as it’s their religion to do as they see fit. They don’t need to allow same-sex couples to wed within their walls, so they can feel good knowing that their term of ‘marriage’ is still sacred and pure.
I do not believe in anyone receiving rights that others are not privy to. I do not believe in denying rights, unless someone has done something (such as commit a felony) to warrant removing them. It’s a hypocrisy thing for me. As you, GOPMOM, I’m a heterosexual and married in both the technical and religious sense. However, as a sensible, logical, and pragmatic person I have to look at the problems caused by carving out laws that limit the ability of some people to do things that others can, just but their choice of mate, religion, or other.
(Please read this as an attempt at humor) How would you feel if they decided that the norm was not foreign-born, handsome, intelligent, IT professionals, and that you couldn’t be married to someone fitting this bill?
What you don’t recognize is that the extremely small yet extremely loud gay population (>3%) will never let it rest unless we all call it marriage. They want it because we have it and they “can’t” have it. They will not stop their assault until we give in.
If logic was the only issue here, we’d already be done with this. It’s not logical to keep fighting for a word when you already have the institution. There are many conservative and/or Republican homosexuals who are completely satisfied with civil unions and the recognition and tax benefits they provide – which is what these unions are all about, right – the right to equal access and benefits? Of this, even I have no problem. It’s the use of the term marriage I am opposed to for religious/traditional/historical reasons.
But you are mistake if you think the lobby will be appeased if we legalize civil unions everywhere, pay for the reception and give away Caribbean honeymoons. They want the term marriage to apply simply because it raises the ire of so many. It’s not about a so-called civil right – it’s about being different but the same at the same time – being seen as normal.
I’m sorry if this seems offensive but >3% is not normal – it’s a statistical anomaly in the natural world. You cannot legislate “normal”. If homosexuality was the “norm”, the human race would have died out long ago.
Ian,
I think if you look to the word’s origin, it was used as a religious term, and then adopted to fit other things after. This feeling of bastardization (rightly or wrongly) has angered many of the religious who use the term for its original, non-watered-down version. My solution is to change how people unite, but not remove marriage… just separate the church and the state.
I agree with your basic premise and your statement about hypocrisies, but if one were to take a quick look at the etymology of the word “marriage” s/he will see that the word’s origin doesn’t stem from religion. In fact, it is and has been used to describe anything from the union between two people to the crossing of two plants. So while the word may have come to connote a religious union, it hasn’t always been the case and need not be the case in the future.
I agree with this. Using marriage when making the laws giving spouses certain rights was convenient at the time. However, it is time for religion and government to part ways. Marriage has been and still be an institution defined by religion.
[...] Original post by LOUDelf [...]