Does Gay Marriage Have to Be Called Gay Marriage?
A rose by any other name...
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Is same-sex marriage worth ripping America apart?
It's likely a question people found themselves asking during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's-1960's. But this is the only parallel one can draw between the two issues and remain intellectually honest. The Black fight for equality centered on perceptions and treatment based on an unchangeable genetic trait (skin color), while gays suffer discrimination based on an arguably chosen behavior (sexual liasons with one's own gender).
In Massachussetts, that state's highest court has ruled that gay marriage is legal. In dozens of other states, the same practice is illegal. Arizona, for instance, has a law banning these marriages that has passed constitutional muster there. Now, Arizona clergy are tearing into one another: pro-gay calling pro-church Catholic priests hateful and spititually violent. Bishop Thomas Olmsted has gone as far as suspending the last priest to keep his name on a pro-gay document called "the Phoenix Declaration", which declares that homosexuality is a state of being, not a sin. And in Indianapolis, Baptists have split, with the Southern Baptists leaving the World Baptist Alliance...tearing apart an organization comprising tens of millions of the faithful.
But what are gay's looking to wed their partners fighting for? In many cases, people opposed to same-sex marriage are supporting the idea of civil unions. These unions confer all the legal benefits of marriage on gay couples, but they don't officially call them married.
If one accepts that civil unions are the legal equals of marriages and are different in name only, then those fighting most vociferously for gay marriage are fighting for the word "marriage." Why? Do they wish to water-down the religious meaning of marriage? While some of the most radical gays might wish revenge against institutions they have traditionally viewed as oppressive, the majority of this peculiar minority are simply seeking equality in all respects...including being able to call their partners wives and husbands.
What is the solution? It's a difficult question, but the least disruptive and most feasible would be to eliminate the civil component of marriage altogether. I propose that no Justice Of The Peace be allowed to marry anyone...that they could only perform civil union ceremonies. Marriage, as such, would be reserved for religious ceremonies, only. That way, individual faiths could determine whether or not they wished to recognize same-sex unions. As it would be religious organizations deciding if gays could marry under the auspices of their organizations, any dissent would be limited and would not spill out into the general public.
In this manner, all sides win. Gays get legal equality with their married-straight counterparts and religious adherents get to limit the ise of the word "marriage." While this solution is certainly not perfect, it does contain the seeds of a solution to this thorny problem.
It's likely a question people found themselves asking during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's-1960's. But this is the only parallel one can draw between the two issues and remain intellectually honest. The Black fight for equality centered on perceptions and treatment based on an unchangeable genetic trait (skin color), while gays suffer discrimination based on an arguably chosen behavior (sexual liasons with one's own gender).
In Massachussetts, that state's highest court has ruled that gay marriage is legal. In dozens of other states, the same practice is illegal. Arizona, for instance, has a law banning these marriages that has passed constitutional muster there. Now, Arizona clergy are tearing into one another: pro-gay calling pro-church Catholic priests hateful and spititually violent. Bishop Thomas Olmsted has gone as far as suspending the last priest to keep his name on a pro-gay document called "the Phoenix Declaration", which declares that homosexuality is a state of being, not a sin. And in Indianapolis, Baptists have split, with the Southern Baptists leaving the World Baptist Alliance...tearing apart an organization comprising tens of millions of the faithful.
But what are gay's looking to wed their partners fighting for? In many cases, people opposed to same-sex marriage are supporting the idea of civil unions. These unions confer all the legal benefits of marriage on gay couples, but they don't officially call them married.
If one accepts that civil unions are the legal equals of marriages and are different in name only, then those fighting most vociferously for gay marriage are fighting for the word "marriage." Why? Do they wish to water-down the religious meaning of marriage? While some of the most radical gays might wish revenge against institutions they have traditionally viewed as oppressive, the majority of this peculiar minority are simply seeking equality in all respects...including being able to call their partners wives and husbands.
What is the solution? It's a difficult question, but the least disruptive and most feasible would be to eliminate the civil component of marriage altogether. I propose that no Justice Of The Peace be allowed to marry anyone...that they could only perform civil union ceremonies. Marriage, as such, would be reserved for religious ceremonies, only. That way, individual faiths could determine whether or not they wished to recognize same-sex unions. As it would be religious organizations deciding if gays could marry under the auspices of their organizations, any dissent would be limited and would not spill out into the general public.
In this manner, all sides win. Gays get legal equality with their married-straight counterparts and religious adherents get to limit the ise of the word "marriage." While this solution is certainly not perfect, it does contain the seeds of a solution to this thorny problem.
? What does this mean?
The problem with polygamy in a society where women and men have equal rights is that the women would gang up on the man. And you think that divorce is complicated now? If a man with two wives divorces one, who gets to keep the kids?
PolMach Forums