Why isn't this obvious?
On the eve of a vote on the constitutional marriage amendment, I'm stuck wondering why the solution that presents itself so obviously to me isn't just obvious to everyone on both sides.
Amending the constitution to protect marriage is simply an unconscionable interference of the government into issues of religion. There is no constitutional amendment protecting any other sacrament; if Congress voted to mandate extreme unction for all dying Americans or drafted legal language defining Transubstantiation, we'd all go berserk, from the staunchest atheist to the most ardent zealot.
This simply should not be a government issue. Most arguments about gay marriage are missing the point. I believe very firmly in the sanctity of traditional marriage for those who engage in it. I also believe that it is a matter between couples, their God (if they have one), and the religious community (if any) that blesses and recognizes their union. It is not a matter for government interference, and no marriage or union of any denomination or variety should receive special treatment at the hands of the government, for any tax or legal purposes at all. This is a matter of church-state separation.
What we need is not a law that protects one kind of union, but a law that protects them all equally while not becoming embroiled in religious differences. I respect the right of any fundamentalist to believe that a gay couple is not really married, and even to believe that they're going to hell. Whatever. But that gay couple MUST have the same civic protections as any straight couple, even if that means reducing or removing any legally privileged status for all such unions, whether individuals and churches agree to call them marriages or not. The benefits of marriage should come from the individuals, from the community and from God, not from the state. The U.S. government is not responsible for policing the laws of Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu orthodoxy. Why would anyone in 2004 think that it is?
The only solution to this divisive problem is to stop inviting the government to our weddings.
Or even our rehearsal dinners.
Amending the constitution to protect marriage is simply an unconscionable interference of the government into issues of religion. There is no constitutional amendment protecting any other sacrament; if Congress voted to mandate extreme unction for all dying Americans or drafted legal language defining Transubstantiation, we'd all go berserk, from the staunchest atheist to the most ardent zealot.
This simply should not be a government issue. Most arguments about gay marriage are missing the point. I believe very firmly in the sanctity of traditional marriage for those who engage in it. I also believe that it is a matter between couples, their God (if they have one), and the religious community (if any) that blesses and recognizes their union. It is not a matter for government interference, and no marriage or union of any denomination or variety should receive special treatment at the hands of the government, for any tax or legal purposes at all. This is a matter of church-state separation.
What we need is not a law that protects one kind of union, but a law that protects them all equally while not becoming embroiled in religious differences. I respect the right of any fundamentalist to believe that a gay couple is not really married, and even to believe that they're going to hell. Whatever. But that gay couple MUST have the same civic protections as any straight couple, even if that means reducing or removing any legally privileged status for all such unions, whether individuals and churches agree to call them marriages or not. The benefits of marriage should come from the individuals, from the community and from God, not from the state. The U.S. government is not responsible for policing the laws of Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu orthodoxy. Why would anyone in 2004 think that it is?
The only solution to this divisive problem is to stop inviting the government to our weddings.
Or even our rehearsal dinners.
posted by James at 10:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home