7 thoughts on “Marriage And The State”

  1. Contracts have force because courts asist the parties in enforcing them. People have come to associate marriage with the contract. In effect, divorcing marriage and the State would have no different effect than if the word “marriage” were simply abolished from the English language. The thing would still be the same, and still a government-defined and regulated institution.

    Nor, I think, would it end the campaign for same-sex marriage qua marriage. But it might have the effect of exposing that campaign as something other than how it has portrayed itself.

  2. I think he nailed it. For years people have been trying to defend a practice the government had no business involving itself in in the first place. Having said that it is easy to see how it got involved in a log gone era where it seemed a natural fit. But reality has intruded. This quasi-religious document needs to be deconstructed. The government can create a contract but not a religious one. We split these worlds long ago. If gay couples dislike only a civil union contract, and feel compelled to bind themselves spiritually then let them be. However that is a matter between them and their Church, Coven, Tribe, whatever. What is important is that two adults will be financially responsible for the children they raise. That was the purpose of the contract to begin with.

  3. The problem is that is won’t be left to the churches. Any church that decides not to recognize or perform same sex marriages will find themselves targeted by the same activists as bigoted and homophobic with legislation introduced to compel them to change.

      1. Right now, but who can say what a court might decide twenty years from now and these people are used to playing the long game. Still, at present I was thinking more in terms of public or media uproar. I can easily imagine a situation in which a priest or minister refuses to marry a same sex couple and being cast as a bigot in the media, kind of like Chick-fil-A.

  4. Sunday I heard Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, give a sermon. It was very positive and welcoming to all — whatever their sexual inclinations — at least in my opinion. The same sex couples I know just want to get on with their own lives — not run others.

    If people with other religious views, don’t want to associate with gays, lesbians, Episcopalians (I’m the last), fine. Just don’t try to force your views on us, be it sex, drugs, politics, etc.

  5. The same sex couples I know just want to get on with their own lives — not run others.

    If that were true in all cases, there wouldn’t be an issue. Nothing prevents gay people from finding a minister and getting married. What is prevented is for the state to recognize it as a marriage.

    Which would make Frank’s suggestion work. However,

    this issue is all about not divorcing it from the state. It’s the whole point.

    Like it or not, redefining marriage is an insult to a large population that believe the word has always had a specific meaning (polygamy aside.) It is seen as an assault.

    A divorce is just not possible. This is not a resolvable issue. This is a hammer.

Comments are closed.