A Gay Marriage Proposal

[Stunt]

*Update*
This is the article i submitted to my campus newspaper. I hope it gets published 🙂

A Gay Marriage Proposal

By Jonathan Whitelaw: 4th year Mechanical Engineer.

As an avid political observer I am particularly distraught with recent events regarding the two federal elections north and south of the 49th. These elections have been skewed by morally divisive issues rather than government?s fiscal and foreign relations obligations. With 56/42% of Canadians and 32/59% of Americans for/against homosexuals wedding, the issue is divisive and not going to be solved anytime soon. The underlying reasoning for and against gay marriage is based on principles, morals and values. I do not intend to argue anyone?s beliefs and lifestyles but regardless of the laws created, both sides will fight until the bitter end.

Currently, special interest groups have pushed for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in the US and laws allowing the practice in Canada, both with similar results: enraging a very large minority of the population. This issue will not solve itself; practical solutions need to be created to ensure all beliefs and rights are upheld.

In today's world, it is of utmost importance that church and state be separated. Not that the church is wrong and doesn't preach good ideals, but with the diverse beliefs inherent of a free society, it is vital the government serve all constituents.

I therefore propose this solution to the dispute which would help all parties move on and protect the freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Remove the term marriage from government entirely. The government?s role would be to recognize and enforce all long term relationships and use the label ?unions?. It would then be a decision by the couple to have a union ceremony or a wedding ceremony where the term ?wedding? would revert to its intended form: a religious unity of two people.

The result of this solution would be: the term ?marriage? would belong to the church, the issue would not thwart government agenda, homosexuals would experience inclusiveness by their government, and equality would again be preserved.

 

[judasmachine]

Not a bad idea, and of coarse there would be wrinkles to iron out. I would just fear that say here in semi rural Texas where all the JOPs are members of churches and staunchly so, that they at thier work would just refuse to unionize two homosexual people. Kind of like the pharmicists that refuse to sell contraceptions. Yes the JOPs are popularly elected, and probably wouldn't have to fear for their jobs if they refused. The homosexual couple would be out of luck. I know this may not happen too often, and they could just travel to like Austin or somewhere to find one that wouldn't refuse, but it is still a possibility.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt
We have had many of these threads before where we have discussed the idea of gays wedding. This is a very sensitive issue for both christians and homosexuals. No matter what laws are created either one side or the other will fight it to the bitter end.

This issue will not solve itself...good practical solutions need to be created to ensure that all side's vaules and principles are upheld, allowing freedom and rights.

My solution:
In today's world, it is of upmost importance that church and state are separated. Not that the church is wrong and doesn't teach good principles and ideals, but with the broad range of beliefs out there, it is vital the government (representative of all people) recognize all of its constituents.

Therefore, since marriage was created by the church and integrated into government...it is my opinion that it be removed. The government, if it is to recognize couples, should do so by labelling all long term relationships as unions.

This way even religions with other forms of marriage are not labelled as such and gays are included in society's structure.

It would then be up to the individuals to have a union ceremony or a wedding where a wedding would be a religeous union of two people (as it was created in the past).

The word marriage is then protected by the church, would not be a government issue, gays would have rights and respect through the government, equality would again be preserved.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most "gay marriage" threads just dwindle down until they reach that exact same conclusion - let the government recognize 'unions' and leave the religious or personal connotations up to the individuals involved.

 

[b0mbrman]

My Gay Marriage Proposal

Here's to hoping he says yes! :wine:

😀

[Edit] Ok, seriously.

I agree with cKGunslinger that this is the conclusion most gay marriage arguments reach through compromise--that marriage should be removed from government and returned to the individual religions.

But would harcore Christians be satsified with this?

Even in the current system, both sides could be happy if they could be convinced that a gay couple married by the Unitarian church (or whichever religion willingly sanctions gay marriage) is not a reflection on Evangelical Christianity and either Christianity or American society on the whole.

 

[MidasKnight]

Very good idea.

 

[cquark]

Therefore, since marriage was created by the church and integrated into government...it is my opinion that it be removed. The government, if it is to recognize couples, should do so by labelling all long term relationships as unions.

I doubt marriage was created by any existing church and perhaps not by any past religious entity, but I agree that we would be better off if government gave up the term marriage and let the religious right do what they will with it.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

I agree with cKGunslinger that this is the conclusion most gay marriage arguments reach through compromise--that marriage should be removed from government and returned to the individual religions.

But would harcore Christians be satsified with this?

Even in the current system, both sides could be happy if they could be convinced that a gay couple married by the Unitarian church (or whichever religion willingly sanctions gay marriage) is not a reflection on Evangelical Christianity and either Christianity or American society on the whole.

I just thought the a "union" would simply be a county officer or whatever signing a document, as well as the two people getting "unioned". That's it. They are now a union (equivalent to today's definition of a marriage)

Now if they "want" to have a wedding and all that, they can, as the legal requirements have been met and they can do whatever they want - church ceremony, Star Trek-themed wedding, hotel orgy, breakfast at IHOP - whatever they want to do (or not do) to 'seal the deal' in their own eyes.

Now as far as having it accepted, I dunno. I (not exactly 'hard-core') think it's fine. My wife does not agree with it. She's somewhat a hard-core Christian (although I do have the thumbsup for the 3-some 😉)

 

[Moonbeam]

Solving the homosexual problem would remove a vitally important wedge issue from the Republican stir-up-sh!t machine to get bigots to the polls.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

I agree with cKGunslinger that this is the conclusion most gay marriage arguments reach through compromise--that marriage should be removed from government and returned to the individual religions.

But would harcore Christians be satsified with this?

Even in the current system, both sides could be happy if they could be convinced that a gay couple married by the Unitarian church (or whichever religion willingly sanctions gay marriage) is not a reflection on Evangelical Christianity and either Christianity or American society on the whole.

I just thought the a "union" would simply be a county officer or whatever signing a document, as well as the two people getting "unioned". That's it. They are now a union (equivalent to today's definition of a marriage)

Now if they "want" to have a wedding and all that, they can, as the legal requirements have been met and they can do whatever they want - church ceremony, Star Trek-themed wedding, hotel orgy, breakfast at IHOP - whatever they want to do (or not do) to 'seal the deal' in their own eyes.

Now as far as having it accepted, I dunno. I (not exactly 'hard-core') think it's fine. My wife does not agree with it. She's somewhat a hard-core Christian (although I do have the thumbsup for the 3-some 😉)

And this "unioun" thing is the ONLY thing that is ok by law, if you want to get married so be it but it has no legal bearing, and homos could get married as long as their church woule allow it?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

It's been suggested before.

 

[Tab]

You're only problem is those who actually beileve that the United States is founded on Christianity... (Which is IS NOT)

I say we just have civil union (which what marriage under our goverment already is).

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

I just thought the a "union" would simply be a county officer or whatever signing a document, as well as the two people getting "unioned". That's it. They are now a union (equivalent to today's definition of a marriage)

Now if they "want" to have a wedding and all that, they can, as the legal requirements have been met and they can do whatever they want - church ceremony, Star Trek-themed wedding, hotel orgy, breakfast at IHOP - whatever they want to do (or not do) to 'seal the deal' in their own eyes.

Now as far as having it accepted, I dunno. I (not exactly 'hard-core') think it's fine. My wife does not agree with it. She's somewhat a hard-core Christian (although I do have the thumbsup for the 3-some 😉)

And this "unioun" thing is the ONLY thing that is ok by law, if you want to get married so be it but it has no legal bearing, and homos could get married as long as their church woule allow it?

Sounds good to me.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

My Gay Marriage Proposal

Here's to hoping he says yes! :wine:

😀

[Edit] Ok, seriously.

I agree with cKGunslinger that this is the conclusion most gay marriage arguments reach through compromise--that marriage should be removed from government and returned to the individual religions.

But would harcore Christians be satsified with this?

Even in the current system, both sides could be happy if they could be convinced that a gay couple married by the Unitarian church (or whichever religion willingly sanctions gay marriage) is not a reflection on Evangelical Christianity and either Christianity or American society on the whole.

Conservative Christians would not be satisfied with anything less than buring them at the cross or attempting to turn them straight, and for that they'd need miracles.

You're only problem is those who actually beileve that the United States is founded on Christianity... (Which is IS NOT)

don't you just love how some groups like to rewrite history. It's well documented in their own words for the most part, that the founding fathers, the creative individuals who laid the groundwork for democracy in our country, were religiously neutral, even so much as bordering athiest. Christianity was observed and present in early american society, and our country was partially founded on christian ideals, but they knew the clear distiniction and reasons for leaving religion out of politics and government. The reason being is that government could be used as a weapon, and certainly would have been used as a weapon of seperation and hatred

 

[Tab]

Personally, I hate religion in general or at least Christianity. Its history disgusts me, its commonly used a political excuse.

 

[luv2chill]

Great idea... not a new one though 🙂

However, the word marriage is so entrenched in our lexicon that I doubt the word union would be used much, even by the non-religious or homosexuals. Union makes an awkward verb---at best (we were unionized last week!), which doesn't help the situation.

When you boil it down, marriage = civil union in the eyes of the law of this country (which is as it should be), so people will end up using the word they're already familiar with.

l2c

 

[Stunt]

Updated the thread with the text of the OP-ED I submitted to my campus paper, tell me what you think 🙂

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Updated the thread with the text of the OP-ED I submitted to my campus paper, tell me what you think 🙂

:thumbsdown:

Just another hangup on the term "marriage".


A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. A marriage could be monogamous or it could be polygamous. It could be to a man. It could be to a woman. It could even be to a job. 😉

No one is going to force a church to perform a same-sex marriage.

The religious aspect of a marriage is a subset of the institution of marriage. A marriage license is required to get married. A wedding can be performed in a courthouse for two atheists. A court order is required to end a marriage.

Where do you see religion in that?

 

[Stunt]

The church and the majority of US citizens do have an issue with the term "marriage". No matter how much people like us want to allow gay marriage, it is not going to happen anytime soon. My proposal allows us to find a middle ground where all people can be somewhat happy, and we can move on and not have it as an issue in elections.

This was a problem in our most recent election as most canadians support gay marriage, yet the population feared the conservative party would resist. By implementing policy that makes both sides happy, there would be no reason to consider it when voting.

 

[conjur]

I guess I'm just a stick in the mud for the ol' Equal Protection Amendment. I don't think bigotry should be a component in a compromise agreement.

 

[Stunt]

how is there bigotry?

all citizen's relationships are recognized
all couples are entitled to the same rights and freedoms
all couples are seen in the same light under government

if gays want to be accepted by the church, they should should talk to the church
as far as government is concerned...no bigotry or unfairness is contained in my proposal.

 

[Stunt]

even if the state makes gay marriage legal, the church will still not recognize gays...my idea makes both sides happy

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt
how is there bigotry?

all citizen's relationships are recognized
all couples are entitled to the same rights and freedoms
all couples are seen in the same light under government

if gays want to be accepted by the church, they should should talk to the church
as far as government is concerned...no bigotry or unfairness is contained in my proposal.

You're missing the point. Gays aren't seeking acceptance by the church, they're seeking equal protection under the US Constitution. Right now, they aren't entitled to it because bigots, typically fundamental Christians, are forcing their own beliefs into our civil institutions.