Vote no on straight marriage!
Now that California has made it a crime for anyone but heterosexual couples to get married, I think it’s time to forever bury the idea of state-sanctioned gay marriage. And, for that matter, state-sanctioned straight marriage as well. In fact, I believe we should get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Because, the fact is, as long as the government is involved in marriage, it will be involved in no-win disputes over the “sanctity” of that institution. And the idea of legislating “sanctity” is simply not the role our government should be playing. It’s a violation of our long-held principles of separation of church and state, and plays into the hands of narrow-minded, divisive forces that use the definition of marriage as a wedge, culture-war issue. Instead of “marrying” people, the government should instead issue open-to-all civil union certificates, which will have the same legal standing as today’s marriage licenses. Straight or gay, you’d get the same piece of paper and most importantly, the same rights. Still want to “sanctify” your relationship? Go to a church, temple, mosque, shrine or whatever institution you feel comfortable working with.
This isn’t a far-fetched or radical idea. In August, moderate minister Oliver Thomas proposed this very concept in a USA Today column:
Given the state’s legitimate, though limited, interest here, shouldn’t all couples — be they gay or straight — be given the same civil contract with all the attendant legal rights and obligations? After all, legally committed couples provide the same financial and familial stability, be they gay or straight. In short, everyone who wishes to marry could be given a civil union agreement from the state. Whether a couple goes on to have a wedding ceremony would be up to them and their church. But the thing that would be enforced (or dissolved) by the state would be the civil agreement.
As a married straight man, I would gladly trade my marriage license for a civil union certificate if it would further the causes of equality, justice and separation of church and state. My marriage, after all, was performed by a rabbi, and in terms of “sanctity,” that matters far more than a government-issued piece of paper. And in terms of my feelings for my wife, I don’t need any government involvement to be “married.”
So, let’s end this debate once and for all. Civil unions can provide a common legal framework for all couples, and religious groups can marry—or not—whoever they want, based on their own beliefs.
November 7th, 2008 22:39
I first read your blog some time in September when you wrote about Sondhi Limthongkul. On that day I subscribed to your feed – hoping not to miss anything else you might have to say about him in the future, as I’m one among many who appreciate everything he’s sacrificing to create ‘awareness’ for (hopefully) everybody in my country.
Thanks for another great article. As a Thai (wife and mother), it’s obvious that my say to the subject won’t cause any impact in your country. But I just want to let you know that I feel exactly the same way on the subject of ‘sanctity’ in a marriage.