Church vs. State
Offline I think this is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of our government, for any number of reasons. Most recently, same-sex marriages in Iowa:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
But I have sort of a Legal/ Politics question, for anyone who knows. I'm thinking about how the Intelligent Design morons were put upon to prove that their alternative to Evolution was not based in religion, which they failed to do, and that led to it being disallowed in public schools.
Is there any reason why that same tactic couldn't be used here? In other words, couldn't these Family Focus people be put upon to prove that their definition of marriage as being only "between a man and a woman" is not based in religion? I have this sneaking suspicion that they'd be unable to do so, and it would be shown to be so more obviously unconstitutional.
Ryan
- Login to post comments
Heh, nice idea. I think they'd really struggle to prove a non religious reason for banning gay marriage. Though personally I think the best compromise would be to take "marriage" out of law altogether and instead have secular civil partnerships to instil legal tax and inheritance rights for couples which would be held at a town hall or courthouse or where ever is appropriate. Then if people wish to "marry" in a religious ceremony they can but such ceremonies would have no legal standing.
It would be a highly entertaining debate, that's for sure. The concept of marriage itself is basically a religious institution, though, so they'd have ample appeals to emotion.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
This is exactly what I've been saying for years. Any two adults should be able to enter into a legally binding contract including hospital visitation rights, insurance, inheritance, whatever they choose, for whatever reason, with no religious implications attached to it. If it happens to be a heterosexual couple entering a perfectly traditional marriage, then so be.
It's such a stupidly simple solution to the problem, it baffles me that it hasn't been proposed by more people.
R
Well, in that the tactic worked once, it certainly might work again. Even so, I have a reservation based on the fact that it was already successful once. Theists are like roaches in a sense and we beat them down with this once. I am sure that there are theists out there in “study groups” or whatever trying to find a way to work around the idea, so the effectiveness may be time limited.
Now I would not tell anyone not to use a tool that is already known to work. However, it is probably a good idea to have more than one tool ready to go just in case this one comes up short.
One area where we may want to pay some attention is the fact that people all over the world get married and in every religion, marriage tends to be fairly conventional. Most religions have a marriage custom that is generally set up to encourage heterosexual relationships. So it is certainly possible for that to be used as demonstration of “the natural order of things”. Should that come up, it would probably be useful to consider how gender roles vary around the world and over time.
For example, the concept of being gay in western cultures is actually one that developed over many decades. In the 1850's, nobody really much cared that President Buchanan was almost certainly the lover of Senator William Rufus “Miss Nancy” King and that during Miss Nancy's terms as ambassador to France, he wrote of his solitary existence stating that he had “Gone wooing several gentlemen”.
Also, the Boston marriage (between two women) persisted well into the 20th century as a viable relationship for women who chose a career and/or an education over a traditional marriage. Victorian courtesy being what it was, there is little data on whether they were really lesbian relationships.
Apart from homosexual relationships, there are cases of cultures around the world persisting even today where female children are seen as less valuable than male children. In such cultures, it is not unusual for female children to just not receive much care and as a result, by puberty, there is a shortage of marriageable women. In such communities, it is often the case that two brothers will marry the same woman.
Then too, many cultures have a concept of a third sex. Details vary from one region to another. For example, in southern Asia and some parts of central America, what we might call “intersexed males” are often seen as a less expensive prostitute. However, in the Pacific islands, the same group of people are valued members of society and a household that has one is a cut above the rest. Heck but in Samoa, they even have beauty pageants for that particular social group.
=
I think it has been proposed. What I find amazing is that more people don't go for it, considering how simple the process then becomes, as you say. And like you, I have a really hard time finding a significant flaw in that kind of system. Even if you married your best friend, or if you decided to marry two or more people, you're just defining a family unit formally. I still can't see any serious problem there from a civil perspective.
Divorce would be weird, but divorce is already one of the most heinous processes that humans can go through (from what I've heard) so moving to "weird" probably wouldn't be that much of a leap.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well, I don't happen to know how contracts are legally dissolved, but I can't imagine it'd be that difficult...
R