My opinion is mainly about rewriting the law books when it comes to how we view and define two people becoming committed to one another, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I am a firm believer that we as a nation need to separate church and state. I am aware that the original phrase "separation between church and state" was made as a reference to not having a national church that everyone had to belong to, but, that phrase still sticks strongly to how religion and government should mix and not mix. Basically, we need to separate the two ideologies and take religion completely out of the government hands.
As a result, we need to identify "marriage" as a term derived from religion, while "civil union" is a term reserved from the federal government. No one in the United States, regardless of orientation, should be getting "married" in the eyes of the government. Everyone, on the other hand, should be eligible to gain "civil unions" with the same rights guaranteed for all and this is the terminology that would be legit and fully recognized by the state.
I think most people agree that everyone regardless of sex, race or orientation should be treated equally and have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, ask them if they think gay people should get married and they'll say, hands down, that it doesn't agree with their said church, religion, moral upbringing, etc. As a result, if we took the hurtle of religion off the table by removing the word "marriage" from the legislation, then none of anyone's reservations about religion and marriage would be valid and relevant to the measure. As a result, voting on the issue would come down to human rights instead of religion and would undoubtedly pass.
And, if folks wanted to be seen as "married" in the eyes of their church or their god (as well as being recognized by the state), then that is a separate matter that should be taken up with those respective religious institutions at a later point in time. Marriage, as a term and an idea, is a peripheral discussion that does not need to take up the valuable time of our federal government. And while we're at it, take "one nation under God, In God We Trust, and swearing on the bible" out of the government too.
I think most people agree that everyone regardless of sex, race or orientation should be treated equally and have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, ask them if they think gay people should get married and they'll say, hands down, that it doesn't agree with their said church, religion, moral upbringing, etc. As a result, if we took the hurtle of religion off the table by removing the word "marriage" from the legislation, then none of anyone's reservations about religion and marriage would be valid and relevant to the measure. As a result, voting on the issue would come down to human rights instead of religion and would undoubtedly pass.
And, if folks wanted to be seen as "married" in the eyes of their church or their god (as well as being recognized by the state), then that is a separate matter that should be taken up with those respective religious institutions at a later point in time. Marriage, as a term and an idea, is a peripheral discussion that does not need to take up the valuable time of our federal government. And while we're at it, take "one nation under God, In God We Trust, and swearing on the bible" out of the government too.
That being said, I am in support of people being able to be with whomever they want to be with in the eyes of the government, but until we remove the word "marriage" from any legislation we put before voters, these measures, rights, and securities will never be seen as equal and will never pass across the great divide of our nation. I am in favor of the idea, just not the legislation. I agree it's all semantics, but we need our legislators to play the semantics game.
well said!
ReplyDelete