NC Backlash / Not So Fast
Posted 05-14-2012 at 09:46 AM by NCproud
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
First of all, the word "marriage" should not be applied to anything to do with the State. Marriage is a sacrament and should be under the church. We needed to start there. I have been stating this for about 30 years now. All domestic partnerships b/n a man and a woman, should have been designated as legal civil unions b/c they require a LICENSE from the state b/f they are recognized as legal entities. Couples historically can get married without a religious ceremony.
This is where the problems have been created. Instead of referring to those licenses as indicative of a civil union, and a religious ceremony indicative of a marriage, our legal language is based on 18th Century verbage.
Churches can perform a marriage ceremony for whomever they choose, depending on their beliefs. The State should issue civil union licenses to any couple, same sex or opposite sex, who wish to declare themselves a legal entity.
I kept asking my gay friends to dump the word marriage, as it is a ritual for churches, not the State, and spend their energy on re-defining civil unions. The word "marriage" is what sets folks off, as marriage is a religious concept.
That is where we need to start, to guarantee the civil rights of all people -- at the State level. It needs to be clearly defined that ALL people first get a license, and that license creates a civil union. If they wish to have a religious ceremony, that ritual creates a marriage. We are talking about redefining legal terminology and that is reasonable and I think everyone could come to agreement on that.
But instead, both sides are insistent on redefining a religious concept: marriage. To me, this is wacked. Let churches handle who they will marry. Let the state handle licensing civil unions. We would all then be in a civil union and those who wish to have a religious ceremony would also be "married," in the eyes of the church.
I got married at the county court house by a judge. To me, that was a civil union. Then later, we had a religious ceremony at a church (well, actually, at Notre Dame, Paris, lol -- how is that for romantic?) and that was recognition by the church of the sanctity of our union. I don't get the big deal with clearly separating my civil union (a legal entity) from my marriage ceremony (a church issue). Not everyone is religious so they are not interested in having a religious ceremony that recognizes their union.
If we started on this level, I believe the average man on the street would get it. Religious beliefs are personal and should be separate from State legal issues.
This is where the problems have been created. Instead of referring to those licenses as indicative of a civil union, and a religious ceremony indicative of a marriage, our legal language is based on 18th Century verbage.
Churches can perform a marriage ceremony for whomever they choose, depending on their beliefs. The State should issue civil union licenses to any couple, same sex or opposite sex, who wish to declare themselves a legal entity.
I kept asking my gay friends to dump the word marriage, as it is a ritual for churches, not the State, and spend their energy on re-defining civil unions. The word "marriage" is what sets folks off, as marriage is a religious concept.
That is where we need to start, to guarantee the civil rights of all people -- at the State level. It needs to be clearly defined that ALL people first get a license, and that license creates a civil union. If they wish to have a religious ceremony, that ritual creates a marriage. We are talking about redefining legal terminology and that is reasonable and I think everyone could come to agreement on that.
But instead, both sides are insistent on redefining a religious concept: marriage. To me, this is wacked. Let churches handle who they will marry. Let the state handle licensing civil unions. We would all then be in a civil union and those who wish to have a religious ceremony would also be "married," in the eyes of the church.
I got married at the county court house by a judge. To me, that was a civil union. Then later, we had a religious ceremony at a church (well, actually, at Notre Dame, Paris, lol -- how is that for romantic?) and that was recognition by the church of the sanctity of our union. I don't get the big deal with clearly separating my civil union (a legal entity) from my marriage ceremony (a church issue). Not everyone is religious so they are not interested in having a religious ceremony that recognizes their union.
If we started on this level, I believe the average man on the street would get it. Religious beliefs are personal and should be separate from State legal issues.
RW20
Total Comments 0
