Friday, February 02, 2007

Marriage

Don't know bout how it is where you come from, but up here, we periodically have to suffer through periods where the state legislature gets it in it's little head that they have to straighten out the whole debate about marriage. This predominately focuses on the question of whether same-sex marriage is a blasphemous act, or one that should be worthy of the same high regard that two-sex marriage is held (and let's just disregard the divorce rate statistics for now, oh, and the spousal abuse stuff too).

These periods of legislative navel gazing correspond usually to times when more pressing business on their agendas becomes too depressing for the poor representatives of the people, or times when the Republicans gain a majority. Let it not be said that they don't know how to worry a bone to death either. If they put as much work into the health care problem, or the environment, or funding a decent education system, the citizens of this good state would be in clover.

Now, it seems to me, that all this brouhaha is just so much bunk. There are two sides to this argument and they are not right/wrong, left/right, Democrat/Republican or anything like that. There is the civil side (legal contracts, inheritance, medical coverage and visitation, power of attorney, etc.) and the religious side (is God happy with your choice of mate). These are clear and separate issues and should be handled as such.

On the civil side, if two adults decide they want to set up shop together, they should be able to enter into a contract and everyone should be treated the same. Plain and simple. Done deal.

If two (or more) adults want God in all its names to recognize their union, they should go to their local church of choice and talk to the head shaman about having a ceremony. Said ceremony would have no impact on the civil contract.

Adults could do one or the other or both, but the contracts in each case would be unique. God doesn't decide custody or inheritance and the state does not interpret religious mores. The only time there would be interference between the two adjudicating bodies would be if a person's spiritual beliefs advocated for behavior that would contravene the laws of the land in which case the state would have the legal say so.

So, there you have it. Simple.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home