The problem with "Gay Marriage" is not "the gay" but "the marriage"
When I found out California and Florida were state's #29 and #30 in the banning of same-sex marriage, I was aghast. Yet what really pissed me off was the fact that the Church of Latter Days Saints alone spent 20 million dollars in pushing for a ban on same-sex "marriage" in California.
Why the outrage? Because it proves my point about the anti-gay marriage laws : they are laws meant to use civil law to enforce a Christian Nationalist and Dominionist article of faith. The passing of Proposition 8 shows The Church's hand in legislating, crossing the constitutional line that is meant to separate Church and State.
It's not the only reason why I believe anti-gay marriage laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, are anti-constitutional. I believe all marital rites performed by the state should be banned. The word "marriage" should be stricken out of the books and replaced with "civil union" and "marriage" and marital rites should be the domain of churches. For that matter, civil "marriages" should be replaced by civil unions that would not be able to discriminate based on sex, gender, ability or citizenship status as well have full "family rights" under domestic, family and inheritance law. You want a "marriage"? Then go to your church, temple, mosque or sinagogue to get one.
This takes me to the obvious question : Why in the world are gays fighting for marriage by the state if it is absolutely obvious that marriage is a religious construct?
The other night I was having a back and forth on Twitter with Lee Stranahan (@Stranahan) on this very issue. My point was very simple : The intrusion of churches such as the Church Of Latter Day Saints and the Southern Baptist Saddleback Church in the passing of Proposition 8 proves the measure is nothing but an exercise in not just legislating morality but legislating religion. What was his response?
Stranahan: @blogdiva Well, I want marriage, too. And like Bono said about Helter Skelter "Charles Manson stole this song; we're stealin' it back.
less than 20 seconds later · Reply · View Tweet
I can understand the need to "steal back" a hetero-normative social practice like "marriage" and "queer it" as an attempt to de-stigmatize queerness. Yet the problem is that we're not dealing with just campaign slogans and feel-good rallies. We're dealing with the writing of laws and altering of state constitutions based on Judeo-Christian religious articles of faith.
It's not just wrong, it's dangerous.
The courts nor legislatures should be in the business of legislating "the sanctity" of anything, including marriage. How about legislating "the sanctity of the gender" you were born into, not the one you were supposed to be? How about legislating "the sanctity of fertilized eggs" inside or outside the womb?
The argument of course is that "marriage" is a legal term appropriated by churches and that it thusly need to be stripped of it's discriminatory use. Well, my argument is exactly based on this : What if the word is so discriminatory, so entrenched in the practice of legalizing unions between men and women alone that its impossible to alter it's semantics?
I say, give the churches the word "marriage" but ban it from our courts as an inherently discriminatory practice that turns same-sex couples into second-class citizens. Make "marriage" unconstitutional and civil unions the way for all couples to be equal under the law.
Post to Twitterblog comments powered by Disqus ">
marriage
The earliest roots of marriage are actually in civil society. Religion got in on the act a little late and is making up for lost time.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_w...
- reply
- 0 points
It's all about marriage rights
If civil unions had the same status, tax-wise and otherwise, as marriage, I doubt gays would give a sh*t. The problem is that they don't. Civil partners don't automatically inherit their spouse's wealth upon death, they don't have the right to enter their spouses' hospital room as family, they're treated differently by the tax codes...
One possibility would be, as you state, to replace "marriage" with "civil union" as a government-recognized status for two betrothed, whether gay or straight. But the word "marriage" has traditions and history associated with it that would make that a hard sale.