Here we go again
Published by Mark Von Nida on May 16th, 2008
The California Supreme Court Ruling concerning same sex marraige is sure to bring a new round of culture wars. Television news reports will feature happy gay couples exchanging vows and (yuck!) kissing while fundamentalists express outrage.
Outside of typical playground insecurities, I really don’t get it. I thought the conservative point of view is to live and let live. Less government interference is a good thing.
Marriage is more than just a religious tradition. In a legal sense, it is contract between two people which carries societal benefits such as shared property rights and custodial powers. In many traditional ceremonies there is a symbolic passing of the bride from father to husband. This metaphorically passes responsibility of care from one family to the new family unit. Today, forging that new family unit is not always that clear and many would point out it is a remnant of a patriarchal past.
Traditional ceremonies remain a choice among marriage celebrants but there is no legal requirement for any particular religious test for marriage to be considered valid. In effect, once a marriage license is issued and filed with the proper authority, all the privileges and responsibilities of the marraige contract are in force.
I really doubt my neighbors think my wife and I are not really married because we were married by judge instead of a priest. When I die, there is no doubt that my spouse will be able to bury me, live in our house and collect survivor benefits.
Government is involved in sanctioning marriage because society has an interest in fostering stable relationships with defined legal protection. These rights and responsibilities that married people take for granted are restricted from same sex couples.
Regardless of if one thinks that homosexuality is normal or not, two adults entering into contractual obligation to each other is not a concern for anybody but the persons involved.
Filed under Uncategorized
May 16th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Politically for the Republicans, this is like throwing red raw meat to a hungry lion. Nothing like getting an issue to fire up a lethargic base. I’m not to sure many independents and conservative Democrats don’t feel the wame way. 61% of the people in California, yes California, oppose gay marriage and voted for a traditional marriage bill. Thanks California Supreme Court.
Civil unions or something similar seem to provide the best alternative for nontraditional partners.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:27 am
I have to concur with Mark on this, I fail to see what the ruckus is about in the political arena on this topic. Ron has the right idea, civil unions/domestic partnership recognition seem to be an adequate alternative in affording the equal rights Mark referrenced. However, I believe that the decision to marry ANYONE, two men, two women, a man and a woman should be left to the discretion of the church as it is largely a relgious institution anyhow. I take issue with the government instructing the church on it’s operation.
This is not a new topic of debate and given the strong and solid feelings from both sides of the fence, and the aisle, it will live long into the future. I am just glad we as a society have come to the point where we can discuss our different views on hot topics like this and agree to disagree respectfully.