Thursday, July 29, 2004
A modest proposal for marriage
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
±
Eaton lives in Mouth of Wilson.
The prospect of the passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution aimed at defining, protecting and clarifying marriage as to be applicable only to "a man and a woman" has filled the newspapers and editorial columns.
Most of the pro-amendment rhetoric has come from the religious right and "pro-family" organizations, founded and funded by religious entities, which also oppose such wide-ranging aspects of our culture as the public school system, sex education, television, "Hollywood," Disney World and any other enterprise that acquires their displeasure. Now, seemingly all are captured by the challenge to make sure a marriage amendment passes Congress and at least two-thirds of the states.
State laws have long been at risk in the process of kowtowing to our varied religious backgrounds on the subject of who can legally validate a marriage contract. In California, for instance, a college history professor, an atheist, acquired an ordination certificate from the Internet and legally conducted a marriage ceremony for his son, with the blessing of the marriage license office, which recognized the certificate as a hoax, but was bound by the law to accept it. In reality, a couple being married is more or less the arbiter as to the qualification of the one conducting the "marriage ceremony."
Some states now allow same-sex marriages, thus raising such questions as to whether churches must by law perform such unions, or whether they might lose their tax-exempt status by refusing to allow such marriages, or whether they would be regarded as bigoted and narrow-minded by speaking out against the practice, or whether polygamy will be next on the list of allowable contracts.
Here, therefore, is a suggestion that might well solve most of the problems mentioned herein and elsewhere.
End the time-honored church/state relationship whereby churches and their representatives are involved in the legal, contractual couplings of men and women as married partners. Allow same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual partners: tax breaks, partnership agreements, inheritance rules, health-care benefits, Social Security benefits, adoptive procedures, etc.
Require all folks who deign to join themselves together legally (and gain emoluments thereby) to use the current processes of licensing (and the included necessity of dissolving such relationships by legal disunion as well). Call it civil union, or some other nonarguable term. The signing of the license would be the concluding element of the contract. Further fine-tuning of the process might be necessary; the legal-eagles among us can see to it.
Any and all who desire further public, social or religious recognition of their new status could use whatever function they desire to strengthen, impact and publicize their union. (The religiously minded may well use the term "marriage.") Would-be polygamists could be denied such "rights," not on religious grounds, but on the necessity of economic limitations of provided perquisites. (One set of freebies per couple.)
Thus, government could disestablish its control of the religious aspect of familial relationships, truly maintain the separation of religion and government, and perhaps enter an age without the necessity of Big Brother's (or Big Religion's) interference in our lives.
