Let's start the discussion by recognizing that religions were performing marriages long before the United States existed. Historically, the purpose of the ceremony was to sanctify the love and commitment between a man and a woman, before their God, their families, and their friends. It is the bedrock of the religious family.
In recent years, some few religious denominations have accepted gay marriage, but the vast majority still do not.
How, then, does the government get involved in the situation? The government requires a license to officially recognize a religious marriage. The license provides the right to governmental goodies and protections such as rights of inheritance, tax benefits, joint health coverage, divorce rights, etc.
The government is not required to recognize all religious marriages. While some religions accept polygamy, it is illegal in the United States, and is not protected under domestic law. Additionally, the state can perform a "marriage", even though no religious ceremony was performed.
The problem seems to be semantics. When the state started issuing "marriage" licenses, it used the common religious term for joining man and woman together before God...even though the purpose of the state should be to provide legal protections to individuals whom it deems legal to join together.
The Church and the State have two separate and distinct purposes, one religious and one legal, and should not conflict with each other. If the "marriage license" was "civil union license", it could be used for either a religious or a civil ceremony. A marriage would become the most common type of civil union, but would not be the definition of the union of two individuals.
A government should not attempt to perform a religious marriage. It should only license (and perform) a civil ceremony. The civil ceremony should issue a "Certificate of Civil Union" when the ceremony is completed. A Church could continue to issue their "Marriage Certificate" at the completion of their ceremony.
Civil unions would allow religions to perform marriage as they choose. The state could include gays, or any other arrangements they deem proper, as eligible for a civil union. Many atheists and other non-religious individuals would prefer a civil union to a church wedding.
Gays would have a number of choices. They could be joined as a civil union (that would be what the state should call everyone who is joined together, gay or straight).
Only a religion can "marry" individuals. If gays are in a church that does not accept gay marriage, their choice would be to (1) leave the church and find another church that accepts gay marriage, (2) stay in the church and try to work for acceptance of gay marriage, while living in, and being protected in, a civil union.
There has been much sound and fury over this issue, but, at heart, it seems to be an issue of individual freedom and religious freedom. This solution protects individual choices, and allows religions the freedom to debate gay marriage internally, without denying individual benefits for gays.
The federal government should immediately offer legal protections, benefits, and recognition to civil unions...the same benefits offered to marriages.
The states should substitute the "civil union license" for the "marriage license", and move to modify their laws to provide civil unions with all the same benefits they now offer to marriages.
No church should be required to perform a gay marriage. No gay individual should be denied civil benefits provided to heterosexual individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment