same-sex marriage rights
I'm probably going to anger many people here by *not* coming out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage rights. Let me explain my position.
Altogether, 4 main concepts have been merged into "marriage," and it is this overloading of the term that is causing the current political clash between those who already have what they want, and those who don't.
The 2 meanings of marriage as a partnership:
Governments have the right to define marriage in terms of property rights. Marriage is in the legal codes, and each US state can (and does) choose those legal implications based on its own preferences. These legal issues are not independent of the religious meaning of marriage, but they do conflict in various ways. A religion can declare a human married to a frog, but no marriage license will be issued, because the license is the government's definition of marriage, and the government does not allow frogs to marry. Similarly, a marriage by a Justice of the Peace (or ship captain) is secular, and recognized only by the government.
I believe that same-sex couples, asexual couples, clans (more than 2), and perhaps other groupings I haven't thought of must be allowed to acquire the same legal contract of persistent life partnership. If even a single legal implication of marriage (other than those concerning children) is unavailable to them, then the law is inequitable and must change. This is a matter of rights, not rites.
The main two points of conflict are parental rights, and if the meaning of marriage is to diverge more in the clerical and secular spaces, which of them gets to keep the word "marriage," and which has to find a new word?
Parental rights: This is another whole political war, and should not be used to complicate the current marriage dispute. Personally, I think that the current legal binding of parental rights and responsibilities is altogether wrong, and sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
So, it seems to me this entire issue (if you'll accept the exclusion of parental rights) comes down to who needs to rewrite all his books. I think it should be the governments, because (for example), I know a brother-sister pair who have exactly the same legal needs and desires as a childless couple, but wouldn't want to be called "married," because that means something very different in their church (not to mention among their neighbors, friends and relatives).
The laws also need to come up with a new contract, this one for parental rights. This one *could* be tied to the traditional concept of marriage (and it would be easiest to keep it that way in the near term), but the law here is already pretty strained with surrogate mothers, husbands who were not the biological fathers, remarriages, etc.
It's that simple. Governments just have to eliminate any use of the word marriage in any laws, and organizations still using that word are known to be tied to a religion (and must be asked which one, because thousands of pagans will start marrying frogs just for a good laugh). If "marriage" is to be defended for religion reasons, then all marriage-like contracts will have to become "domestic partnerships" in the eyes of the law.
Altogether, 4 main concepts have been merged into "marriage," and it is this overloading of the term that is causing the current political clash between those who already have what they want, and those who don't.
The 2 meanings of marriage as a partnership:
- The general meaning of marriage in most religions is a persistent bond of sexual love between a man and a woman who are not too closely related by blood.
- Most states use the tie of marriage to mean a persistent life partnership, and to define property and other rights. To some degree this is done because of children (or potential of children), but in the absence of children the marriage is treated no differently under the law, so we must accept this as a contract of partnership, not a contract of parenthood.
- In some religions being a parent gives certain rights and responsibilities. But mostly, it just means that the parent is first in line to provide what the child needs, and gets the first say in how the child is raised.
- Governments care very much about parental rights and responsibilities, since the government does not want to become a babysitter, and the government wants someone else to blame if a child is not provided for. They tie this to the child's biological mother and that woman's spouse at the time of birth, as far as I know. I don't think they care who is the biological father unless a scapegoat is needed, and they don't care who serves as a father to the child. It is the person married to the mother who gets the parental rights and responsibilities along with the mother. A nice, universal concept of marriage makes this easier for the government to deal with.
Governments have the right to define marriage in terms of property rights. Marriage is in the legal codes, and each US state can (and does) choose those legal implications based on its own preferences. These legal issues are not independent of the religious meaning of marriage, but they do conflict in various ways. A religion can declare a human married to a frog, but no marriage license will be issued, because the license is the government's definition of marriage, and the government does not allow frogs to marry. Similarly, a marriage by a Justice of the Peace (or ship captain) is secular, and recognized only by the government.
I believe that same-sex couples, asexual couples, clans (more than 2), and perhaps other groupings I haven't thought of must be allowed to acquire the same legal contract of persistent life partnership. If even a single legal implication of marriage (other than those concerning children) is unavailable to them, then the law is inequitable and must change. This is a matter of rights, not rites.
The main two points of conflict are parental rights, and if the meaning of marriage is to diverge more in the clerical and secular spaces, which of them gets to keep the word "marriage," and which has to find a new word?
Parental rights: This is another whole political war, and should not be used to complicate the current marriage dispute. Personally, I think that the current legal binding of parental rights and responsibilities is altogether wrong, and sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
So, it seems to me this entire issue (if you'll accept the exclusion of parental rights) comes down to who needs to rewrite all his books. I think it should be the governments, because (for example), I know a brother-sister pair who have exactly the same legal needs and desires as a childless couple, but wouldn't want to be called "married," because that means something very different in their church (not to mention among their neighbors, friends and relatives).
The laws also need to come up with a new contract, this one for parental rights. This one *could* be tied to the traditional concept of marriage (and it would be easiest to keep it that way in the near term), but the law here is already pretty strained with surrogate mothers, husbands who were not the biological fathers, remarriages, etc.
It's that simple. Governments just have to eliminate any use of the word marriage in any laws, and organizations still using that word are known to be tied to a religion (and must be asked which one, because thousands of pagans will start marrying frogs just for a good laugh). If "marriage" is to be defended for religion reasons, then all marriage-like contracts will have to become "domestic partnerships" in the eyes of the law.