Being a somewhat non-confrontational type, I traditionally don’t put these kinds of controversial opinions on my blog, but this solution seems so freaking simple to me I’m really not getting why it’s so difficult for apparently everyone else. The never-ending debate is exhausting and I figure I must be missing something.
The government has no business, nor qualifications for deciding anything about the relationship status of its citizen’s personal lives. The government is run by a bunch of amoral jerks fighting like rabid dogs over power and a popularity contest – are these really the people who should be making relationship calls for anyone?
From the government’s perspective, all that should matter is that two, three, ten, twenty, I don’t care – a whole town full of people who are consenting and at least 18 years of age come to them and say: “We wish to bind our lives together legally.”
Why they wish to do this is not the governments concern, nor is anything that goes on in the bedrooms or social lives of the people who asked. Their gender; be it man, woman, or “other,” also need not apply. All they should care about is:
A) Is this fully consensual?
B) Are the people involved of legal age?
Those criteria are met? Great! Then the government goes: “Okay, here’s the documentation so that you can do that. Process it, turn it in, and you’re all set.” I admit it’s not romantic, but at least it’s simple.
Then those people are legally bound and may enjoy the benefits under the law that such a recognized union represents. They will remain bound until one of them dies, or they decide to process paperwork dissolving their union.
Are they two lifelong friends? Are they a man and a woman? Are they two men or two women? Do they have a romantic relationship or just a business partnership? WHO CARES?! Doesn’t matter! Why they wanted the union is nobody’s business but their own.
Then, if two people would like a marriage, either as a religious ceremony or as a non-religious one, they are free to find a church or non-religious officiant in line with their own beliefs, and have one. The government should take no more interest in it than they do in baptism or confirmation (which is to say: none). Individual churches are free to officiate marriages (or refuse to) in line with their own beliefs. The government will not be required, or able to force a church to perform a ceremony that isn’t in line with their beliefs, nor block two people from having one in a church that agrees to it.
In short: I do not believe that it’s the government’s place to approve nor disapprove the personal relationships of it’s citizen’s. Should they legally recognize a consensual partnership of some kind? Yup. And that’s it. Hey, guys? Yeah, you up there on capital hill? Keep us safe, keep the roads intact – and otherwise, butt out. Thanks!
Yes, I realize that gay people are still going to have a hard time getting a marriage ceremony in a mosque or deeply conservative church. Hey, I’d love to have had a bat mitzvah, they sound like a hoot – but not being Jewish and all I doubt I’d be able to find a synagogue to give me one. Such is life. There are still liberal or non-denominational churches available for such things, or non-religious official types who can be hired to perform whatever lovely wedding ceremonies a couple would like, I’ve been to quite a few.
The point is that by making marriage none of the government’s danged business I genuinely believe that this problem would be solved.
Everyone is free, nobody’s rights are getting stomped on, and everyone is happy. Right? Every single person (religious and non-religious alike) I’ve proposed this idea to has thought it was a decent solution.
So WHY is it so hard to make happen? As far as I know, nobody is even fighting for it because they’re way too busy finding inventive ways to tear one another apart. Am I missing something? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
I love you, Carolyn :)ReplyDelete
Very well said!ReplyDelete
I would press the Facebook "Like" button on this as if I was a chimp and banana chips were flying into my mouth for every click. Hear, hear!ReplyDelete
Best mental image of the day, that one... thanks!Delete
I whole heartily agree my brilliant friendReplyDelete
Thank you! The confusing thing is how many people do agree, and yet we can't seem to get it done. Oy!Delete
Yes, yes, and yes please. Carolyn for President!ReplyDelete
Thank you Jen! But, ack! No! I wouldn't wish that job on anyone... LOLDelete
For the most part I agree with you and Eric (as stated on FB.)ReplyDelete
Yes, marriage as-is = a social contract and institution in toto thus is about money, morals, and mutual protection. States should always beware the moral vector.
Incentives are not a right but privilege given by a system of governance (Church OR State) to get something back and encourage a set behaviors. If the government is expected to give out tax money / breaks to certain persons then they have a right to decide to whom. The studies are still going on as to the benefits and costs of marriages/divorces and the effect of gay marriage on these and this is another reason to rethink it. If a kind of union benefits the State then the State should have a vote to have a social union with reciprocal benefits whether that's homosexual "marriage," polygamy, polyamory whatever. Protecting Children, the weak, infirm, elderly etc and the best thing for their upbringing /care should be a major consideration in any kind of union where children are reared or whatever. Conversely they shouldn't be forced to give out money to a sink of money that makes no sense after it is studied well: hence a need for reform over all in spending for many programs including overpriced hardware and other "pork" in the budget and socioeconomic entitlements as examples.
If a church has Marriage we should be able as adults to ask and think about why though God rarely gives out reasons for commands. Membership is similar to and includes a possibility of a specific type of contract in marriage. It gives a home and a feeling of community it is by definition a bit exclusionary because not every behavior is acceptable in it to the same end - the continued existence of the community / entity as interpreted by members for better or worse. I wouldn't join a church where I don't feel at home. You made an interesting example of bar & bat mitzvahs: at least there are two versions for two gender identity specific ceremonies so neither male nor female gets left out like if there were only Bar Mitzvahs for instance- though mostly there is only one Marriage polarity accepted excluding all others. But what if one were not so "sure" about ones Gender Identity. When or how should one take part in bat mitzvah and/or bar mitzvah for both religious understanding and gender identity reasons? If one didn't take the classes to learn everything one would need to, and may not agree with things that would lead to one being excluded. As a separate issue if one doesn't have an acceptable definite polar biased Gender identity ( bat or bar mitzvahs ) is it within the temple's right to not administer a rite? I would guess they have a right not to give a bat mitzvah to an XY born person but it's a sticky thing only if one admits it and it is visually obvious.
For things that are democratic, within a church or state constitution, (as they both have constitutions) one can encourage with a vote if one belongs (is a member) and one may chose to be a part of the majority ruled institution and still disagree with some things or one can leave. They only choose to exclude on extreme circumstances but it can happen, but then homosexuality may be considered extreme by some.
One can count blessings that Obviously most people and institutions here don't believe other people, religions or countries should be eradicated for their differing beliefs unlike most peoples/churches/States throughout history so at least that is a good thing. They saw that as trying to be monolithic and part of their survival. United we stand type of thing. We do need to be more united now as much as ever. There has to be a way for us to get along if we want to be enlightened and continue to be the United States. The USA's State government system was set up for this kind of issue. I just hope we find a less painful path than other human rights issues but pain seems to be part of growing and living. :(
Pain does seem to be an unfortunate side effect of life, Chris. I don't actually expect perfection here (I'm sure you don't either as we share a belief system) but I can't stop hoping that it can be better.Delete
Gender identity is a tricky issue... I personally believe that people with gender dysmorphia should be treated via medical science so that their body matches what the feel they are inside their head. It's true that God made them that way, but God also allows people to be born with birth defects (like the one I had). Without medical scientific intervention, I never would have walked. Even though that's the way God made me, I'm grateful that He gave people the gift of medicine so that I could be healed as well.
Am I off topic? I think I am. See? You made me think - thank you for that!
My feeling is that the loudest voices are those that want to use government marriage either to normalize homosexual behavior or to denormalize it; not that many people ever hear the civil unions for all idea.ReplyDelete
Maybe that's my problem... I'm too polite. I'm definitely a bad activist, I never go to rallies or hold up any signs.Delete
YES. Just... YES.ReplyDelete