A proposal to solve the whole thing.

[dianaiad]

Here is an article I'm thinking of sending to....someone.

I'm sure it's useless; everybody is so intent on holding his or her own opinion regarding this and in pounding the other side into the pavement that it will be ignored or argued with. However.....

What do y'all think?

Who'd read it?

[center]A Proposal to solve the marriage problem in the USA.
[/center]

[center]Get government out of the marriage business, period. [/center]

mar•riage/ˈmarij/
Noun: 1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2. A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

Almost every definition of the word ‘marriage’ includes two very important ideas: ‘formal union,� and ‘recognized by law.� The purpose behind getting married seems to be…to form a family. The idea of a formal recognition of a familial (sexual) relationship has been around since before written history began.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this, though I have heard precious few people comment on this, is the wording “recognized by law.� Please notice; marriages are not MADE by law, but only recognized by law. Marriage, as an idea and an institution, predates the USA, is practiced and defined very differently by many different cultures outside of the USA (and within it, state by state, as well). Marriages have included polygamy, polyandry, monogamy, groups with both men and women in the relationships and homosexual relationships.

Even in today’s American culture, when a couple decides to ‘go get married,’ they are thinking about the wedding ceremony that is performed by their clergyman (or the Elvis impersonator or the friend on the beach) and about the vows they take there…vows that are not, and cannot be, enforced by civil law. They are not thinking about the license they paid for three days previous, or the signing of the certificate—which doesn’t apply government rights to that marriage until it is properly filed by the officiator.

No, the government doesn’t define, or make, the marriage. The government recognizes a marriage that the participants have made.

Today there is a huge controversy about whether or not gays may marry one another. In California, where gays had every single one of the civil rights that the government could grant a recognized marriage, it was not enough; gays wanted to be recognized and approved of culturally as MARRIED.

This is understandable; why not, if they have made a formal commitment to one another, and they have all the civil rights, why can’t they call themselves ‘married?� It doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, on the surface.

However, it is unreasonable. Since “marriage’ as an idea does predate any law or right attached to it, and since the whole idea is about families and what cultures and belief systems think marriage ‘really’ is, then having the government dictate to everybody who they can consider ‘married’ is going to cause problems. It is, in fact, establishing a religion…or at least a religious stance. That is fundamentally against the First Amendment. There are many cultures and belief systems that do not think that gays can marry one another. Not ‘they should not,’ but rather ‘they cannot.� To make these people, by force of law, change their doctrines and beliefs in order to comply with something so completely against their own ideas is indeed ‘establishing a religion.� However, that is, as far as I can see, exactly what gays want here. It’s not that they want the equal rights; in California they HAD those. They want the forced cultural and religious approval to which they have no right.

However, they DO have the right to those legal rights; whether or not gays may marry is a religious, moral and ethical problem, not a legal one. The government has the right to assign civil rights to whomever it wishes, and not only should, but MUST, ignore religious and cultural opinions in doing so. If it takes one religious group’s opinion into account, it is then establishing a religion, again. Certainly if a homosexual couple belongs to a culture/belief system/church that accepts their marriage, then they have a right to BE married…and certainly nobody can tell them that they are not, within those beliefs.

It’s a quandary and a problem…and a problem that government is not well equipped to solve. I know this, because my own belief system has seen, to its huge cost, what happens when the government decides to enforce its definition of ‘marriage’ upon a group that believes differently. We have been ejected from our nation, made legal prey by the governor of a state, had close to HALF the armed services of the USA sent against us in order to remove and arrest the governor of the territory we were finally able to settle.

That was a while ago, true. However, less than ten years ago one of our offshoot sects had their towns invaded by men with full body armor, automatic weapons, tanks and guns—and the authority of the state—and the women and children taken away in Baptist buses, interned in a facility where the sanitary facilities were ‘Andy Gumps� in the back parking lots, and the children removed from their mothers because the state wanted to enforce ITS definition of marriage upon a group that disagreed.

I can’t tell you how often I have been told that, if gay marriage were made legal that nobody would force religions to accept them. Please pardon me if I am skeptical; given the above examples, I have a right to be.

But…do I have the right to keep those who do not share my faith from being happy and getting married because I don’t want the government interfering with MY freedom of religion?

It’s a problem.

Here’s the solution.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let’s get back to the idea that the government only RECOGNIZES marriages, and does not make them. In fact, let’s not even do that. Let ALL aspects of marriage that the government can enforce be given a name that reflects the government’s ability and power; make ‘em all ‘civil unions.’ Remove all legal power from clergymen who perform marriages, so that ‘marriage,’ that institution that predates law and is recognized so differently by so many different nations and states, means only the part that is managed by the church, the culture and the couple.

Make this a two tiered event…if a couple wants both the marriage and the legal rights that the government says can go with it, they have to sign the civil contracts with the government..and that’s what they would be called; civil contracts, or civil unions. THEN, if they want to, they go get married according to their own beliefs or in whatever fashion appeals to them. They can do both, or one, or the other. The ‘wedding’ will have no legal power…just religious or personal, and the civil union has no religious meaning; strictly legal contractual stuff.

That way anybody can marry…and I do mean really get married...as they wish, AND they all get the rights; gay, straight, whoever. At the same time, though, religions cannot be sued, fined, or legislated against if they say to someone who hasn’t been married according to their beliefs “sorry, you ain’t married.�

A gay photographer who specializes only in gay weddings…and advertises this…cannot be sued for discrimination by a straight couple who wants him to shoot their wedding, and vice versa. (as far as I am aware, though there ARE such gay photographers who specialize in gay only weddings, none have been sued. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the ‘vice versa’)

It’s not even as if this is so unusual and outrageous an idea. “Two tiered� weddings have been around, in many other nations, for quite a while.

So that’s it. That’s my idea. Get government entirely out of marriage. Everybody wins; gays get the rights, gays may marry, and those who disagree with gay marriage can’t be forced to change their religious behavior and beliefs, even as they will have to, in non-religious public arenas, obey the law regarding civil rights. Everybody wins.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 16 by dianaiad]
Is it like asking "how about getting GOD out of religion?" You say that like marriage was invented by religion. The non religious can and do get married, that makes marriage a secular/civil matter.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 15 by McCulloch]

If a church barely scrapes by, they aren't doing something right as their God should be taking care of them in all ways.
Any church with this issue should, IMO, take a good long look at their spiritual selves or, better yet, the god they claim to serve

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 16 by dianaiad]

That's like asking 'how about getting GOD out of religion?"

No it's not simply because religion doesn't hold the right to marriage, which is indicated by the fact I pointed out earlier - you can get MARRIED withOUT and religious/god interaction.
But to your point, God should have nothing to do with "religion", but that's another topic

My church doesn't charge.

And they shouldn't.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 15 by McCulloch]

If a church barely scrapes by, they aren't doing something right as their God should be taking care of them in all ways.
Any church with this issue should, IMO, take a good long look at their spiritual selves or, better yet, the god they claim to serve

Have you not read the new testament good sir? Jesus loves abject poverty it is celebrated. If they are barely scraping by that is the glory of the kingdom or something along those lines.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 24 by DanieltheDragon]

Ah very true. I must have forgot that part

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

How about getting RELIGION out of marriage (unless those getting married wish it to be a part of their institution)?

That's like asking 'how about getting GOD out of religion?"

Marriage has been around a great deal longer than governments have. Oh, governments have assigned different rights and obligations to folks who are married, but that's the government recognizing something not invented by the government....as it should be.

Unless for some reason you believe that marriage began in, oh, 1789 or something?

Oh the contrary. Marriage can be a civil marriage... without religion what so ever. My sister got married by a Justice of the peace, are you going to tell you personally her marriage is no marriage what so ever?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

How about getting RELIGION out of marriage (unless those getting married wish it to be a part of their institution)?

That's like asking 'how about getting GOD out of religion?"

Marriage has been around a great deal longer than governments have. Oh, governments have assigned different rights and obligations to folks who are married, but that's the government recognizing something not invented by the government....as it should be.

Unless for some reason you believe that marriage began in, oh, 1789 or something?

Oh the contrary. Marriage can be a civil marriage... without religion what so ever. My sister got married by a Justice of the peace, are you going to tell you personally her marriage is no marriage what so ever?

No. Her marriage may not have much 'religion' in it, but it has a LOT of 'culture' and 'tradition' in it.

I don't know if you were there at the wedding, but if you were, see if you can remember the vows those two exchanged.

If you weren't, consider the promises pretty much everybody who 'gets married' exchanges. You know the ones: "Do you promise to love, honor, cherish and protect, forsaking all others and holding only unto her (him)?"

Goat, is there a single promise made in that very standard CIVIL wedding promise that the government can enforce?

Tradition enforces it. Honor does, culture does....but the government?

No....and when it comes down to it, no government has ever been able to do that; these things are not quantifiable.

The government, however, CAN enforce things like survivors benefits, Social Security, insurance, community property and even child custody.

But it can't enforce any of the vows that couples take at the wedding.

Weddings...'marriage' is all about those unenforceable vows. The government can't enforce them, and it should have absolutely no say in who gets (or who recognizes) them or promises them.

None.

[Bust Nak]

Weddings...'marriage' is all about those unenforceable vows. The government can't enforce them, and it should have absolutely no say in who gets (or who recognizes) them or promises them.

I would argue that's exactly backwards. You don't need to get married make promises to each other to love, honor each other, nor need to get married to vow to cherish or protecting each other.

What you DO need to get married for, are things like survivors benefits, social security, insurance, community property and child custody. And like you said, are the things that government can enforce. The government doesn't care much about your culture or tradition, and doesn't try to enforce your vows. Marriage is all about those enforceable rights, privileges and obligation. The government can't enforce cultural vows, but it should have a say in who gets (or who recognizes) marriages.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 27 by dianaiad]

No. Her marriage may not have much 'religion' in it, but it has a LOT of 'culture' and 'tradition' in it.

Surely it does. It's important to note that there are a lot of 'culture' and 'tradition' that doesn't include God (fortunately).

[Goat]

No. Her marriage may not have much 'religion' in it, but it has a LOT of 'culture' and 'tradition' in it.

I don't know if you were there at the wedding, but if you were, see if you can remember the vows those two exchanged.

If you weren't, consider the promises pretty much everybody who 'gets married' exchanges. You know the ones: "Do you promise to love, honor, cherish and protect, forsaking all others and holding only unto her (him)?"

Goat, is there a single promise made in that very standard CIVIL wedding promise that the government can enforce?

Tradition enforces it. Honor does, culture does....but the government?

No....and when it comes down to it, no government has ever been able to do that; these things are not quantifiable.

The government, however, CAN enforce things like survivors benefits, Social Security, insurance, community property and even child custody.

But it can't enforce any of the vows that couples take at the wedding.

Weddings...'marriage' is all about those unenforceable vows. The government can't enforce them, and it should have absolutely no say in who gets (or who recognizes) them or promises them.

None.

So, She really doesn't care if her marriage has no religion in it. It is a marriage never the less. You are making the invalid assumption that marriage is a strictly religious, based on your quotes.. Well. you are wrong. That is where your whole proposal breaks down, all based on the misuse of words.