Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I didn’t understand your point.

Cuban Diva BFF keeps telling me this is the way it’s done in South American countries — people must marry both by an official of their religion and by a government official. I’ve asked her to do more research, but she hasn’t gotten around to it, yet.

First, just so people know, while marriage laws are made state-by-state, federal law and regulations provide at least 1,138 rights and privileges to married couples according to a General Accounting Office report. The only changes we’re asking for are for it to be legal to choose a same-sex spouse and for our marriages to be legal and equal to heterosexual marriages under both state and federal law. All the other proposed changes to marriage, such as civil unions, have arisen in an effort to compromise with the religions that are fighting homosexual marriage equality — so it is the religious leaders who are responsible for marriage getting re-defined as civil unions, and for the proposals to get the government out of recognizing religious marriages and and creating only civil unions, although even then, same-sex couples have no guarantee of equal access to civil unions.

I understand your proposition that separation of church and state could be carried to the point where the government ought not to recognize any religious marriage, straight or gay. However, as a practical matter, the federal and state governments are not going to get out of the business of making laws regarding marriage. Also as a practical matter, it is impossible to create civil unions as separate-but-equal to marriage. For one thing, part of the intention of religious leaders in proposing civil unions as a compromise is to have them have a stigmatized and lesser status than religious marriage. For another, since it is the states that make laws defining marriage, and almost all the states have legislatures that meet only in the spring and legislators that work only part-time, it is not going to be possible to keep the marriage and civil union laws synchronized — especially since there always will be some social conservative who wants to make a name for himself by bottling up civil union legislation in committee.

Since the government cannot require any religion to perform a marriage that is contrary to the laws of the religion, there is just no way for same-sex marriage equality to be an imposition on anyone else’s morality. This is because America is still founded on the concept of individual liberty: if you believe a same-sex marriage is immoral, don’t get one, but mind your own business about the people who believe the morality of a marriage has nothing to do with choosing a same-sex spouse.

Also — we’ve had this talk before — marriage is about love and devotion and the love and devotion of the spouses to one another greatly accelerates their growth to higher states of consciousness. Same-sex marriage equality will bring greater spiritual growth to the couples involved and their families, and greater stability to society. Same-sex marriage equality will strengthen the institution of marriage — as long as what we get is real equality at both the state and federal levels.

By the way, I appreciate that you are always civil and express your points clearly and without rancor, and I’m glad to see you commenting.

Cynthia

This is the thesis I’m noodling around with: We fight about morality and politics because Government takes upon itself certain responsibilities that have a necessarily moral component. If we can take these responsibilities away from Government, we lose the need to reach an agreement.

Both gays and social conservatives share one abiding interest. We want to be left alone. We can be manipulated by our politicians who say we must give them money or the demon group will “get” them. If government lacks the power to impose my morality on you, or your morality on me, then we’ll each be able to spend our money on more important things.
.-= Steve Poling´s last blog ..Forty Ways I Told Republicans To Drop Dead =-.

No.

Also, it has been the churches appropriating the apparatus of the state to impose their rules using the force of the government.

Because the Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, churches will not be required to marry same-sex couples. They are deliberately spreading falsehoods when they say they will. This is reprehensible. Also, if we want to get married in a church, we have the Metropolitan Community Church — where we can be married now. The problem is that the marriage is not recognized under state and federal law. The last report on the federal rights and privileges associated with marriage by the General Accounting Office set the number at 1138. State-level laws approving same-sex marriage don’t get us any of these federal rights and privileges.

Cynthia

You may recall that marriage is a sacrament of the Roman Catholic church. I’ve got a problem with gubmint dictating things to churches, particularly their sacraments. If the government isn’t in the business of acknowledging any marriages, it won’t give us anything to get mad at each other about. That’ll sorta hurt fundraising for politicians who want to demagogue the issue, but I’m cool with that.

Can you go along with this?
.-= Steve Poling´s last blog ..Forty Ways I Told Republicans To Drop Dead =-.