A dear
friend, who is a gay Christian, proposed that we simply allow marriages to be
civil unions and let churches decide who they will or won't marry "In the
eyes of God." Of course that is
exactly the situation for heterosexual couples now, in many instances. Many
rabbis won't marry a Jew and a gentile unless the gentile converts. Some Catholic
churches/priests refuse to marry a couple if either is a divorcee.
Another acquaintance, a heterosexual Christian responded by saying essentially "yeah,
what's wrong with letting it be like that?" My response is below
The difficulty, _______, is that in
this country, we have kowtowed to religion in that we have granted to various
churches what amounts to almost a monopoly on marriage. True, one can marry in
a civil ceremony, but ask yourself this: If all marriages were done in civil
ceremonies, do you honestly think we'd be having this discussion? Along with tax exempt status, we allow
churches and religions the authority to make decisions/unions which then affect
numerous national non-religious issues - taxation, inheritance, hospital
visitation, Social Security, insurance and the list goes on.
For the extreme rightists, this issue
is about what they interpret in their sect/cult/flock, whatever, and their
desire that all of us conform to their whim.
This isn't about freedom of religion to those persons, they have it and
always will. it's about forcing their particular viewpoint on those who don't
share their ideas.
We use "Marriage" in this
country as a synonym for "legal union", but far rightists can't stand
the idea that it might not always meant their particular definition. We don't
allow clergy to give driver's licenses, act as notaries, sell tax stamps, close
mortgages, so why even them to do that thing which changes so many legal
aspects of two person's lives? If a "minister"
of the first Church of the Divine Rutabaga or fat Elvis impersonator can do it, what more
does any clergy bring to the table, legally? For their congregation, maybe, a
sense of consecration before the destination honeymoon. Why not allow the same
guy to sign off on their divorce 3 years later. Statistically, that's a very
much "real world" possibility.
Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, this
isn't a states' rights issue. We won't allow Florida to refuse a properly
licensed New Hampshire resident the
right to drive here. We don't make persons who married in another state remarry
in Florida. We don't reject marriages between heterosexual couples as being
legal here if they married elsewhere. If
a state tried to do any of these, they'd be slammed to the wall for violating
the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the
complainants. By custom, tradition, and
USSC decisions (Fletcher vs. Peck, Dartmouth vs. Woodward, and Cohen's vs. Va. to
name a few) contracts have been protected from state interference. The defense of marriage act would essentially
allow by state fiat a contract between two persons, legally entered into in New
York, to be voided in Florida by whim of the state legislature. This is a dangerously
slippery slope, on which to venture. What kind of legal voiding could be next?
Forced repayment of sales tax if you moved here from another state having
already paid it? I mean after all, if
you're going to drive here, shouldn't you pay for the roads?
It comes down to belief. Those religious
persons who jump on Civil Unions as the cure all don't realize that in the eyes
of the law, all marriages are civil unions. Some of them are overseen by clergy,
because we in the US give churches special status. We allow the whims of some to be crammed down the throats of all. If this were any issue but marriage, the Tea
Partiers would scream the loudest. As it is, they are the joined by homophobes
nationwide in this hate crime of the mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment