FA+
Shop
Gay marriage, and civil union. A clarification.
13 years ago
General
I mention in my last journal some ideas about gay marriage.
Ironically, the very reason I posted what I did was to illustrate that we are easily distracted by social issues.. Point made I suppose.
To clarify. I do see marriage itself as an interesting concept. As the very idea of a "traditional marriage" is deeply flawed, as a conservative party must strive by it's very definition to maintain traditional values. this is very odd, because if anything, Marriage has been ins a state of Flux for over 100 years or more, depending on your definition. This also includes civil unions. the conservative party needs to wake up, and see that we are not trading cows, or marrying 33 wives as much as we used to.
That is exactly why I do not support government intervention. We lack a clear definition of what traditional marriage is. that is NOT to say that we should not grant civil unions, and equal protection of the law. If anything, that is exactly what the government should do.
I feel that Marriage is 1st amendment right. And it is up to the individual belief system to define it for itself. Marriage should not be defined by the government. This also includes pro-gay religions.. or any religion or lack of religion. Do not let the government tell you that you are not married simply because you are a same sex couple.
I see the issue of civil unions as separate. and those do not need a religious backing for definition. Yet, same sex civil unions should be 100% legal. And 100% protected under the law. Done.. that's it. Marriage left to whatever church, and Civil union, and all the rights associated with it, available to all couples, protected under the law.
My question is, why is the government involved? I think equal civil rights is always a step in the right direction. The church has no say in civil unions. The only the thing the church should have control over is what happens within their walls.
I think the issue is unnecessarily complicated by the rights of marriage. As you can tell by this post, even by my best efforts I am having trouble prying appart the idea of civil union, and marriage. And though we try to argue the finer points of ether definition, they are tangled together on several different levels. Of not only understanding, but also the implications.
If we leave marriage to a 1st amendment right, and make civil unions available to all couples, we walk away with the government protecting a growing class of people, and at the same time we allow any church their rights to worship any way they feel. A church for gay marriage under any restriction would have their 1st amendment rights trampled on. 1st amendment rights are for all beliefs, not just the democratic majority.
The granting of civil rights in every case thus far in our history has been again, and again regarded as a good thing. It is an American tradition to extend the civil liberties to all people, regardless of who they are. If we are to continue to be a country of liberty, we must not allow the vocal majority to infringe upon the liberties of any minority.
I think that will clear up the confusion. I typed up my points a little too quickly, and wanted to clarify my position.
Ironically, the very reason I posted what I did was to illustrate that we are easily distracted by social issues.. Point made I suppose.
To clarify. I do see marriage itself as an interesting concept. As the very idea of a "traditional marriage" is deeply flawed, as a conservative party must strive by it's very definition to maintain traditional values. this is very odd, because if anything, Marriage has been ins a state of Flux for over 100 years or more, depending on your definition. This also includes civil unions. the conservative party needs to wake up, and see that we are not trading cows, or marrying 33 wives as much as we used to.
That is exactly why I do not support government intervention. We lack a clear definition of what traditional marriage is. that is NOT to say that we should not grant civil unions, and equal protection of the law. If anything, that is exactly what the government should do.
I feel that Marriage is 1st amendment right. And it is up to the individual belief system to define it for itself. Marriage should not be defined by the government. This also includes pro-gay religions.. or any religion or lack of religion. Do not let the government tell you that you are not married simply because you are a same sex couple.
I see the issue of civil unions as separate. and those do not need a religious backing for definition. Yet, same sex civil unions should be 100% legal. And 100% protected under the law. Done.. that's it. Marriage left to whatever church, and Civil union, and all the rights associated with it, available to all couples, protected under the law.
My question is, why is the government involved? I think equal civil rights is always a step in the right direction. The church has no say in civil unions. The only the thing the church should have control over is what happens within their walls.
I think the issue is unnecessarily complicated by the rights of marriage. As you can tell by this post, even by my best efforts I am having trouble prying appart the idea of civil union, and marriage. And though we try to argue the finer points of ether definition, they are tangled together on several different levels. Of not only understanding, but also the implications.
If we leave marriage to a 1st amendment right, and make civil unions available to all couples, we walk away with the government protecting a growing class of people, and at the same time we allow any church their rights to worship any way they feel. A church for gay marriage under any restriction would have their 1st amendment rights trampled on. 1st amendment rights are for all beliefs, not just the democratic majority.
The granting of civil rights in every case thus far in our history has been again, and again regarded as a good thing. It is an American tradition to extend the civil liberties to all people, regardless of who they are. If we are to continue to be a country of liberty, we must not allow the vocal majority to infringe upon the liberties of any minority.
I think that will clear up the confusion. I typed up my points a little too quickly, and wanted to clarify my position.
In response to your comment, religious people are not the only ones who don't support untraditional marriage. People who are religious are just the ones who seem more vocal about it.
I think the issue is unnecessarily complicated by the rights of marriage. As you can tell by this post, even by my best efforts I am having trouble prying appart the idea of civil union, and marriage. And though we try to argue the finer points of ether definition, they are tangled together on several different levels. Of not only understanding, but also the implications.
If we leave marriage to a 1st amendment right, and make civil unions available to all couples, we walk away with the government protecting a growing class of people, and at the same time we allow any church their rights to worship any way they feel. A church for gay marriage under any restriction would have their 1st amendment rights trampled on. 1st amendment rights are for all beliefs, not just the democratic majority.
The granting of civil rights in every case thus far in our history has been again, and again regarded as a good thing. It is an American tradition to extend the civil liberties to all people, regardless of who they are. If we are to continue to be a country of liberty, we must not allow the vocal majority to infringe upon the liberties of any minority.