stormdog | Where, were it not most likely futile, attempts to legalize gay marriage should be directed. (Reply)

Not only is this my first time writing socio-political commentary in my LiveJournal, but in some places here, I am talking about things I know little about. I will freely admit that. I am not very familiar with exactly what economic or other advantages being married gives one. I still believe that, at the heart of it, I'm right about this. I welcome your input.

Yes, I am against the ability of the government to regulate gay marriage. Why? Because I am against the government allowing any marriage whatsoever. In a country where separation of church and state is ostensibly the law of the land, what business does the government have telling two people of the same sex whether they may or may not be married? For that matter, what business do they have telling two people of the opposite sex whether they may or may not be married? What does the governemt have to do with a religious institution such as marriage?

It is clear that the perception of marriage is based in some kind of organized religious dogma; otherwise there would be no basis to deny anyone from participation in it. Most people in this country (and it seems especially most politicians) look at marriage in a very classically catholic sense. Though that is obviously far from the only way to approach things, it seems, based on the popularity of that particular view, to be a good place to start examining our regulation of it from.

The Roman Catholic church recognizes seven holy sacraments that are reenactments of Jesus' ministries on earth. "The sacraments are outward signs instituted by Christ given to the Church. Through them participants experience the love and power of God (grace) that flows from Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection." (from the website of the Holy Name Cathedral of Chicago annoying capitals intact). They are baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, annointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony. Is it not interesting that matrimony is the only one of these that is thus regulated by the government? Why do we not have referendums on constitutional amendments to deny gays the right to be confirmed in their faith, or to deny them from recieving communion? Why is marriage controlled by the government when these others are not?

The answer is that it's all about economics. Married couples get tax breaks. Marital staus changes your insurance premiums. Being married gives you a better shot at buying a house. Marital status determines who your inheritence goes to. Marriage has insinuated itself into every level of socio-economics.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. In fact, I'm perfectly content leaving that as it is. What needs to be changed is what this union is called. Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to religious bodies to regulate. The government should have no power over regulation of it. Instead, they should regulate only civil unions (or whatever they should choose to call it; the name doesn't matter). Now these civil unions could remain exactly the same for all legal intents and purposes; they could even remain restricted to heterosexual couples if the government mandates it. The difference is that the power to regulate a religious rite, marriage, will be back with the church where it belongs. The church can allow or disallow marriage to whomever they feel like. If there was a church that would not let me be married because I want to marry someone of the same sex as myself, I wouldn't want to belong to that church anyway. The government would have the same power it's always had, just with a different, and more appropriate, name.

It would seem at first glance that, legally and economically, this would not change anything significantly. Gay men and women would still not be allowed to recieve those 'married' tax breaks or visit their partners in the hospital. But they would be able to fight their exclusion on a much more logical basis. Once the government is back to regulating these unions on a strictly legal and economic basis like it should be, the moral argument will be out of the equation. The tired old arguments about marriage not being valid for same sex partners because it exists to help raise children or because it would somehow cause the entire institution to founder would have to stand by themselves without their moral authority silent partner looming over their shoulder. Arguments against civil union based on religious dogma would be relegated to exactly where they belong; nowhere. If marriage is really necessary to support the structure of society as so many people claim, then certainly the government should have a hand in defining it rather then leaving it up to the church by default.

I support the church's ability to allow or deny marriage to whoever they wish one hundred percent. The religious rite of marriage simply needs to stay out of the legal ramifications of government approved civil union. You want to get married? See a priest of your chosen religion. I could go and get married right now to whomever or whatever I wish by an officiary of whatever religion will allow me and no one had better tell me it isn't a real marriage; that would be like telling a Jew that Saturday isn't really the sabbath or a Muslim that he doesn't really need to go to visit Mecca. The rites and traditions of religion are sacred and gauanteed in our constitution.

You want tax breaks and inheritance rights and everything else that comes with what we currently think of as marriage? Go and register as a domestic pair. Put marriage back where it belongs; out of the supposedly religion-blind hands of the government.

In other news, I paid my bills today. Ouch. I hope I get moved to full time soon... At least I got a bunch of games written up for ebay. Now I'm just waiting for