Solution to Gay Marriage debate: Get the government out of it!

[a_majoor]

Most sensible thing I'v ever read about this whole affair:

http://freewillblog.com/

Seperation of Marriage and State

If he hasn't said it before, Glenn Reynolds just said what I've been saying for two years:

    The solution to all of this, of course, is to separate marriage and state. There's no reason why the government should be involved in this sort of thing (the origin of Tennessee's statute requiring marriage licenses, it turns out, was a desire to ensure that county clerks got fees, not exactly an overwhelming justification) and there's no reason why people's private living arrangements should be part of public debate. That's my take, anyway.

If you look back into late medieval records in many European countries trying to figure out who your ancestors were, you'll often find that it's quite difficult to discern, because marriage at the time frequently consisted entirely of two people declaring themselves married for the benefit of friends and family, and that was the ballgame. It wasn't until 1563 that the Council of Trent decreed that marriages didn't count unless a priest was there, so if there was a record, it was likely going to be a Church record, not a government one. (This was apparently mainly an attempt to delegitimize Protestant marriages, but if you weren't Catholic, of course, the Council of Trent didn't count, so this was perhaps less effective than anticipated.)

The whole notion of the state having some ancient obligation to "protect marriage" is ludicrous because the notion of the state being the major player in marriage is itself novel to Western civilization: Marriage "licensing", as the Professor so rightfully points out, was constructed entirely as a fundraising method, and mostly not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States. So, activists of any type who see the state as the "guardian" of marriage (whether they believe that the state should be incorporating gay marriage or opposing it) are misguided, since it was never the state's to guard. There's no legitimate rational, legal, or moral basis for the government to license and register people's private romantic and sexual relationships. Historically, marriage has been an agreement between two parties (and, for those who want religious recognition for their union, their church) on their own terms. It's not really anybody else's business.

The only reason I'm particularly opposed to gay marriage is because the gay marriage movement has made it about state recognition of gay marriage, and that only further serves to perpetuate and extend an attitude and level of government intervention in private life that is needless, baseless and wrong. (What's even more incredible is that if you try to point this out to gay marriage advocates, that you believe a lot of conservatives would get behind them on a movement to deregulate marriage, a lot of gay marriage advocates will tear your head off. If it isn't controversial, if it isn't done by the government, and if it might actually work, I guess it's not a good liberal cause.)

 

[Dog]

So, because it wasn't the governments business to be involved in marriage back in Europe 500 years ago, we can all just forget about it and move on?

In that case, I demand to stop paying income taxes then.... after all the war is over.

I also demand the right to beat my wife with a stick no wider than the width of my thumb.

I also want to be able to sail over to Africa and enslave the population of the tribes I find there and sell them to the highest bidder.

I think I'll go round up some orphaned street children and make them mine some coal for me as well.... it's winter after all, and what if the power goes out.... I need to be prepared! Black lung be damned!

Why stop there?

Lets bring back the sport of Lion and Christian wrestling as well!!! If you're not Pagan, like me, INTO THE PITS WITH YOU!!!!

 

[NavComm]

I'm not intimately familiar with the entire gay marriage issue, but I think I'm going to risk wading into this puddle for a minute.

I think the reason gay couples want their marriages to be 'sanctioned' by the government is so that they can enjoy benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. i.e. spousal benefits. Why should a declared couple be denied such benefits based soley on their sex?

In my civvie job, in order to be able to add your spouse to the dental plan (which has recognized same sex couples for several years now) there are two ways of proving you are a 'couple'...you either submit a copy of your marriage license or, if not married, you have to swear a declaration (in front of a commissioner for taking oaths ) that you have co-habitated for more than one year and that you present yourself to the community as a couple. The swearing of a declaration applies to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples (common law marriage). If marriage is not legal between same-sex couples, then only the straight couple have the choice to live common law or be married, the same-sex couple do not have the same choice.

The other issue is one of community, religion and family. When a same-sex couple decide to marry, there is a celebration (the wedding) that includes the blessing of their church, family and friends. Everyone witnessing the union is part of the union in that they agree to support the couple in their effort to live together monogamously and in the case of the church service, with the blessing of God. Why should gay couples not have the right to declare their commitment openly and with the support of their family, friends and church?

The general argument one encounters on that question is "children". To me, that argument is moot because I know many same-sex couples who do not have, and never will have, children. On the other hand, although I don't personally know any, there are gay couples who have children. I've yet to see any evidence that they make worse parents than straight couples.

It seems to me the majority of the people opposing same sex marriage -  in most of what I've read or heard, not just here on this board, but generally - is that they oppose the use of the word 'marriage'. IMO that's just semantics, and a very thinly-veiled prejudice against homosexuals.

There was a time when women couldn't vote just because they were women. Inter-racial marriage was illegal. We've righted those wrongs, so what's the big deal with same-sex couples? It won't ruin my day if my gay neighbours get married. As long as they treat each other with love and respect, I'm happy for them. That's all I would wish for any couple.

my .02 cents

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Remember you don't need to be married by a priest et al or in a church.  A justice of the peace on the corner of King and James can legally marry someone.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

(Same sex marrage)
It is about feeling respected,  it is about feeling equal, it is about justice.  It is about saying no you're not disgusting,  you are a part of this society.  It is not about promoting a certain lifestyle; it is about acceptance.  And to those who say Civil unions allow all the same benefits therefor they are equal,  may I just point out other situations where "separate but equal" while certainly are separate they are not equal. How would you feel if your parents weren't allowed to marry because society didn't see them as good as others... As far as I am concerned this issue is settled.  You can't un-ring a bell,  you can't un-marry people (not even Stephen Harper is prepaired to even try that).  I respect that some people have issues with this topic, but to even bring it up it hurtfull. Lets call a spade a spade. You can't say I value other races and then argue against interracial marrages,  you can't say homosexuals can form families and argue against marrage.

 

[NavComm]

Right you are CFL, I didn't mention the justice of the peace/courthouse marriage, but even the couples who choose to go that route usually bring along some friends for witnesses and support.

A JP will perform a wedding ceremony in all kinds of places, i.e. your parents back yard, at the beach, etc.

I still have no problem, personally, with same-sex couples being married - in a church or by a JP -  or living common-law. IMO the law should not discriminate based soley on their sexual orientation.

Having said that, I think the church should decide who they will marry. I know of churches who won't marry straight couples if they don't meet requirements of the church, so I'm much more inclined to agree with the church if they oppose marrying the couple, as long as they apply the same standards to both gay and straight couples.

edited to clarify this is a response to CFL

 

[dutchie]

(Same sex marrage)
It is about ......

To me it's about finally getting the State out of the bedrooms of Canadians. Make 'marriages' the domain of religious institutions, and have the State recognize that 'union' as a union. So, I go and get married in a religious house, and present the Marriage Certificate to the government, who in turn recognize my wife and I as a legal couple for taxation and benefits purposes. That way, the State is not involved in making moral decisions on your lifestyle, and the Church (generically speaking) is free to discriminate as it sees fit. If I am gay, and marry a man, and I find a church to marry me, then fine. I am married in the eyes of that Church, and 'united' in the eyes of the government. If I am not religious, my wife and I sign a legal declaration that we are a couple or are 'united'. Divorce works as it does now.

 

[xFusilier]

Inevitably the state has to regognize the marriage, and enforce the responsibilities under taken as a result of the marriage contract and thus, will still be in the marriage business.  I would argue this would work best if they did as they do in France, get the church out of the marriage business.  All unions are civil and if it's important to you to have you're favourite imaginary friend give his okay to your nuptiuals go find a church that will preform the appropriate ceremony, however, in the eyes of the law, all civil unions are exactly that, civil unions, be they between a man and a women, a women and a woman, or a man and a man.  Instant equality before the law, and the churches can do what ever they please.

 

[Dog]

To me it's about finally getting the State out of the bedrooms of Canadians. Make 'marriages' the domain of religious institutions, and have the State recognize that 'union' as a union. So, I go and get married in a religious house, and present the Marriage Certificate to the government, who in turn recognize my wife and I as a legal couple for taxation and benefits purposes. That way, the State is not involved in making moral decisions on your lifestyle, and the Church (generically speaking) is free to discriminate as it sees fit. If I am gay, and marry a man, and I find a church to marry me, then fine. I am married in the eyes of that Church, and 'united' in the eyes of the government. If I am not religious, my wife and I sign a legal declaration that we are a couple or are 'united'. Divorce works as it does now.

But what if I'm not religious, and I want that piece of paper? Who do I go to?

 

[muskrat89]

xFus - It's fine that you don't believe in God, but in my mind, your statement violates the Conduct Guidelines, specifically the portions that address "respect between users". Many people are very devout in their beliefs. Please keep that in mind, when posting. If you want to poke fun at people, make fun of their spelling. Oops - I guess that's not very practical 

All unions are civil and if it's important to you to have you're favourite imaginary friend give his okay to your nuptiuals go find a church that will preform the

Thanks in advance

Army.ca Staff

 

[Pea]

Inevitably the state has to regognize the marriage, and enforce the responsibilities under taken as a result of the marriage contract and thus, will still be in the marriage business.  I would argue this would work best if they did as they do in France, get the church out of the marriage business.  All unions are civil and if it's important to you to have you're favourite imaginary friend give his okay to your nuptiuals go find a church that will preform the appropriate ceremony, however, in the eyes of the law, all civil unions are exactly that, civil unions, be they between a man and a women, a women and a woman, or a man and a man.  Instant equality before the law, and the churches can do what ever they please.

I am not one to get into the debate of gay marriages, as it seems to get too heated for my liking usually. But, I will say, I very much agree with the above statement. This way all marriages will be recognized equally. While it still gives people who are religious, the opportunity to have a ceremony in their church.

Edited to add that I agree with the idea of the above, but that I am a suppoter of religious beliefs.

 

[clasper]

But what if I'm not religious, and I want that piece of paper? Who do I go to?

If you're not religious, why would you want a piece of paper from an organized religion blessing your marriage?

The PACS agreement in France doesn't say anything about the sexual relationship between the partners who enter into it- it could be any two people who live together and want to form a partnership (a straight couple, a gay couple, a pair of nuns, or even a brother and sister who are looking for a tax break).  Those that are interested in seeking blessing from their church are free to do so as well.  Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.

 

[dutchie]

But what if I'm not religious, and I want that piece of paper? Who do I go to?

The piece of paper you get is from the Government, stating you are United ('Unioned' is not a word).

Marriage is reserved for those that are married in a religous ceremony.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"Having said that, I think the church should decide who they will marry."
Agreed.  Since marriage is available outside relgious circles church's should have the right to decide who they marry (as they already do).  A church can deny a couple for any reason they wish.

 

[Roger]

I think that the reason the government is involved is because when you have one person die, then who is the beneficiary under the law, if we do not allow gay unions or marriages then the living person who is part of the union or whatever has no rights what so ever by law, and could lose all of their posetions and home that they have lived in all of their adult life with their partner.

So the government had to be involved because the laws as they stood went against our constitution, I have no problem if a church does not recognize gay marriage and refuses to have gay marriages, but if their religion does then its their business.

As Trudeau said in the 1960’s the government has no business in Canada’s bedrooms.

 

[dutchie]

I think that the reason the government is involved is because when you have one person die, then who is the beneficiary under the law?

The person with the Union Certificate. The Marriage Certificate will be similar to a Baptismal Certificate or other religous documents in value in these matters. That is, it will have no value at all.

 

[midgetcop]

I think as it stands right now churches are allowed to pick and choose whether they will marry gay couples. I have no problem with that.

Not even all hetero couples want to get married by the church. My sister got married at Mississauga city hall.

The sky hasn't fallen since gay couples have been getting married. I fail to see why anyone feels the need to re-open this can of worms. :shrug:

 

[NavComm]

We seem to be arguing against "getting the government out of it!" Because if I understand the majority of these posts, we are all in agreement that some form of documentation is required in order for people to be equal under the laws of co-habitation, shared property, etc.

I believe that is what we have now with the civil union. The only question left is whether or not a church will sanction the marriage for those gay couples who want that. IMO, and CFL and others have stated the same, that should be at the discretion of the church. Far be it from me to start telling religious organizations who they can and cannot administer to. Although if I was a member of a congregation that would not administer to the social and spiritual needs of all members of the congregation, I would probably be questioning whether or not I wanted to support such a congregation.

 

[midgetcop]

We seem to be arguing against "getting the government out of it!" Because if I understand the majority of these posts, we are all in agreement that some form of documentation is required in order for people to be equal under the laws of co-habitation, shared property, etc.

I believe that is what we have now with the civil union. The only question left is whether or not a church will sanction the marriage for those gay couples who want that. IMO, and CFL and others have stated the same, that should be at the discretion of the church. Far be it from me to start telling religious organizations who they can and cannot administer to. Although if I was a member of a congregation that would not administer to the social and spiritual needs of all members of the congregation, I would probably be questioning whether or not I wanted to support such a congregation.

I'm in full agreement with these posts as well, don't get me wrong. I was more referring to a certain government party that may want to return to this issue if elected into office.

But gays don't need a church to sanction their union in order for it to be a full-fledged legal "marriage". When they go to city hall or whatever and get that marriage license, it's full-on Marriage with a capital "M".

Also, I'd imagine that gays wouldn't want the blessing of a church that doesn't accept them or their union. I know *I* wouldn't. But I know that there are United churches in my neighbourhood that are currently performing the ceremonies for gay couples.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Inevitably the state has to regognize the marriage, and enforce the responsibilities under taken as a result of the marriage contract and thus, will still be in the marriage business.

All the state has to do is recognize and enforce a contract, just like any other contract.  The state doesn't have to decide who may enter into the contract, or what shall be the conditions of the contract.  That would truly ensure equality before the law for all, free of any question of gender or sexuality.