On "Marriage"

Hi, folks,

As you know, I'm new to this blogging thing and have yet to figure out some of the protocols. There was a comment with a question and I want to respond, but am afraid that it might not be found in the comments section alone. Thus, I am making it a post of its own. If this is a faux pas, forgive me.

"1beb" said (in part, see comments for full text):

It forces me to wonder what LGBT's are really fighting for. Acceptance? Or the rights given to someone in a marriage. Seriously, who cares if they call it a civil union so long as you and your partner are afforded the same rights as breeders.

My response:

Hi, 1beb,

Thanks for your comments.

I have to say that I am not familiar enough with Canadian law to answer your question about Canada. I can, however, express my concerns about the distinction between "civil union" and "marriage" in the United States.

There are many, many laws and policies that mention married couples, husbands & wives, or spouses (at the federal level, I believe it is over 1000 and when I get a chance to research it, I can get a better number). It would be next to impossible -- and highly improbable -- that all of those could/would be amended to include civil union partners. As far as I know, there is no magic bullet that can provide equality in all but name, except to call it the same thing.

My other issue is one of separation of church and state. If "marriage" is a religious word, the government has no business using it. My preferred solution, actually, is not for the government to acknowledge same-sex marriages, but rather to call the legal status for all couples "civil unions" and then let the religious institutions decide what they want to call "marriages."

In other areas, there is this separation. When a child is born, the child needs a birth certificate from the government. The family may choose to have a religious ceremony and that may be extremely important to them. But the two are separate. Being baptized (for example) does not give one status with the civil government and no one expects it to. In the same way, upon death, a death certificate is needed for legal reasons and it is separate from any religious ceremony that takes place.

It is not the government's job to "bless" anyone. But if they give a status that includes rights, privileges, and responsibilities, it must be available to all.

I do not expect, nor would I want, a church (or other religious body) to be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for any couple it did not want to. Indeed, they can and do refuse couples now: Roman Catholics (officially) do not recognize divorce and remarriage. The Southern Baptist Convention says that in a proper marriage, a wife should submit to her husband. Many religious bodies would never recognize the marriage of two people who do not share the same faith (and, perhaps, not of the same "race," as was true in the past). That is their beliefs and they are entitled to them. They can, along with their members, decide what is a blessed and holy state for couples. But the government should not base its rules on particular religious beliefs. There are religious bodies that will recognize same-sex marriages now, although it is not widespread. The government is not supposed to take sides in religious questions.

To summarize: The word "marriage" is a problem. If the government insists on using it as a legal term, it must do so with equality. Otherwise, we need a new word for all couples to use in the legal sense and give "marriage" back to religion.