Instead on continuing on with the 20-page pit thread I’d like to throw out the basic idea Jack Batty espouses with this post.
Why is this not the ideal solution?
Take the term “marriage” out of all legal and goverment documents and replace it with “civil union”. You can get a civil union license at the courthouse, file your taxes jointly with your civil partner, get helath insurance for your civil partner, own property, inherit property, etc. Basically all of the “rights” and “benefits” one gets from a marriage license.
The term “marriage” can then be given back to the individual churches and religions to define as they like.
It’s the solution I have always supported. The only down side I see is in international law. Where rights are attached to “marriage” I think the majority of countries would chose to recognize civil union in its place. Those that wouldn’t are unlikely to be supportive of SSM anyway.
Tactically, advocating this would be a disaster for the SSM movement. Already, the most common charge leveled against SSM proponents is that we’re trying to destroy marriage. Trying to change the law so that, in the eyes of the government, nobody is married would play directly into the hands of the anti-marraige lobby. It would set the movement back fifty years.
It’s the best solution.
**
Miller** Free Market Republicans would be an unlikely ally in this situation. In that case it might bring about a major backlash but it might also find allies in unlikely places.
How is that? Gay partners unequivocally will have the same civil rights as married people. And if they want to get married as well, they’ll easily find a church or institution that will marry them . What’s the down side ?
This would be a distinction I think that might be lost on those who believe gay people are after the destruction of straight marriage anyway, I reckon.
Yes, civil union recognition is a good idea, one i’d fully support, but it wouldn’t work in practice (at least, not yet).
I see - and you’ll leave them alone as they go about their business in deciding such, right?
Recent events suggest otherwise - I refer you to the Ocean Grove case in New Jersey right now. Without even commenting on the particular merits of that case - it is plain that the Methodist Church wasn’t left alone when they made their determination - the courts and other government organizations have been brought into the mix.
I think you underestimate the desire of religious types to remove the authority of the ‘secular government’ from their lives. I have suggested this numerous times on message boards with many religious posters, and have gotten a few strong agreements but not a single strong disagreement.
I’d happily let Churches choose who to marry. If they don’t want to allow SSM in their churches, that is fine by me. If they don’t want to allow interracial marriages, also fine by me. I’d also remove their tax exempt status in all forms, though not for the refusal to recognize the marriages I want.
I will only interject with my own church as a member of my own congregation.
The Ocean Grove case has to do with a public accomodation and the definition thereof, as I am sure you know. The Methodists enjoy using what might be called public land, and tried to limit others use of that land.
For religion to be left alone, they need to do everything that they can to distance themselves from the government. The Boy Scouts of America are slowly purchasing permanent camp sites, rather than depend on long-term sweetheart leases that can be challenged. They WON their court case, and now have to live on without getting exclusive use of public lands.
My church would happily define marriage as being a religious ceremony between two people, gender being irrelevant to the conversation. I would certainly prefer that my minister no longer act as an agent of the state when he performs marriages, and that he only act in his capacity as a minister instead.
Actually no. I would allow churches to gain tax exemptions as non-profit corporations for actions they take which are charitable or educational (provide such actions fall under the requirements for tax exempt status as set out). But I would remove tax exemption on the basis of being a religious organization.
