I DON'T: THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND CIVIL UNION
GUEST COLUMNIST: BOB
I Don't
The Separation of Church and Civil Union
I am against gay marriage. (And so should every Democratic candidate in the upcoming election.) Not because I am anti-gay, (just the opposite), but because I am against the merger of church and state. At present our government insists on forcing the state into the church? Nothing is more wrong-headed than the following words: "So by the power vested in me by the State of…..". Marriage is sacred. Sacred, as in religious. So why is our government involved? Why is the state granting powers to ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, shamen or whatever? We need to get government out of marriage.
Marriage, that powerful word, is a religious word. Each and every religious institution should be able to define marriage as they see fit. Without the fear of government imposing a definition. So that if a church decides to believe that, say, only right-handed people can marry right-handed people, and left-handed people can only marry left-handed people; so be it. That church can then solemnize only the marriages that they see as fit.
Every religion has the right to set whatever rules for marriage it wishes. The Catholic Church does not marry divorced people whose prior Catholic marriage has not been annulled. That is their right, and no government neither can nor should force them to do otherwise. Similarly, to select a potential example, if the Baptist Church refuses to solemnize a marriage between two members of the same sex, that is their right; and no government should force them to do otherwise.
Let our government insist on civil union in order to be a legal duo in the eyes of the state. And our government can then set whatever regulations we, the people, agree upon for civil unions, not marriage. And stay the hell out of the church's business.
Which is not only the right thing to, but would help save the Democratic Party. Democratic candidates can then say, in all honesty, that they are against gay marriage, using that precise language. Which would remove a powerful weapon from the Republican Party arsenal. "Gay marriage" makes Red State residents fear East Coast liberals imposing distasteful values upon their church. Being against gay marriage, in those words, takes away the "wrong values" argument from Republicans. And being perceived as having the proper values is a key to Democratic victory in November.
posted by Sandy Trupp @ 11:38 AM
7 Comments:
The guest columnist this week is Bob Unterman. Excuse me for leaving the last name off of the original post.
Your thoughts are welcome.
Sandy Trupp
The incisive and insightful Mr. Unterman is quite correct in getting the state to butt out of "church's" business.
I also hope that the Democratic Party follows his advice. However, I feel that, in it current format, it will fly over most peoples' heads - in addition to the MSM's and some of the party apparatchik's (SP?).
Also, the state does an interest in the outcomes of marriages. First, people must obtain a wedding license. Why is that? There are census reasons - planning for schools and hospitals, that sort of thing.
But, there are also public health reasons - blood types, kinships, other potential "look outs!" if not no-no's. The reason is that some unions (proxied through potential offspring) can put an undue burden on the state. The state has a right to protect itself, sometimes at the expense of some individual's liberties, in the name of the greater good.
Then there are also the extended public benfits that could accrue to the betrothed as a result of a union. Some employers have individually elected to support "same-sex" unions as a matter of business benefit on a case-by-case basis. Extending public benefits to a class such as these however, requires thoughtful debate with regard to an already strained and soon-to-be-destitute Social Security system, which should not be done by executive fiat or judicial folly.
More discussion is needed in order to properly undestand and handle the potential burdens of this civil-cum-sacred institution, and I admire Mr. U's shedding of light!
The government should just keep its nose out of peoples lives and
affairs. If people were that serious about marriage we wouldn't have so many divorces.
The Democrats aren't creative enough to take such a stand. They can't even get it together to go on the steps of the capital and issue a contract with America sort of thing.
Why are gays hated so much? They are living the kind of marriages that straight people are jealous of.
And WWJD?
When we don't have rules and regulations we are living in an
anarchy. If you have gay marriage then what's next?
The government does have some good things that they do and regulation is one of them.
I think the guest columnist has a good argument. I'm not a Dem, but I think his argument is sound and fair to religious groups. I am not in favor of gay marriage, nor am I against it. My church is not in favor of it. I would not wish my church to be forced to have to perform marriage ceremonies for gays if it is adverse to church doctrine. However, I would support the right for gays to be married civily. Or, I would support a legal mechanism, if one does not now exist (and do we know that one does not?) that protects "life partners" as legitimate designated recipients of shared material wealth, eligbility for health benefits, and -- most importantly -- the right, as designated by the other partner, to make decisions regarding a partner's hospitalization and other sensitive, legal areas.
Of course the government should stay out of our business. And most of all our bedroom. But if two people want to get married and go the next step what's wrong with that? It's a family value for gosh sakes. The gay community knows how to have fun like no opther one, and is committed as well to family. Look at Rosie's cruise. Look at all those good wholesome families. What is wrong with that?
Jason, you missed my message. I wholey support the gay community; which is exactly why I wrote the piece. There is absolutely EVERYTHING RIGHT with gay families. They are good, wholesome families. Such families are a boon to our society. My problem is with the state forcing a religious institution to support values it does not value. Yes, we should have gay civil unions giving gay partners the EXACT SAME rights as every, and any, married couple. But "marriage" is best left to the discretion of each relgious institution. The government should have no part is setting rules for religious ceremonies.
Post a Comment
<< Home