Marriage vs Cleavage

With all the hoopla yesterday, you know I needed to post on this today.

I think that people who get married are some of the bravest people in the world. (or the dumbest, depending on the circumstance)

I think the biggest dilution of marriage has been the ease of divorce laws (which I think needs to be relatively easy so I’m ok with that).

I think that gay people should most definitely be allowed to be married. Why? Because there is no good reason to keep them from marriage and plenty of good reasons why they should be able to.

The bible never mentions the definition of marriage, though married people (man/woman) are mentioned throughout. But heterosexuality is pretty much the norm. It mentions homosexuality as a problem, but so is a lot of other things. If gay people are NOT allowed to marry, then they are less stable, less committed, poorer, and all those other reasons why we want heterosexuals to marry.

Same sex couples may not be able to procreate naturally but many have children. It’s best if their home is committed/stable.
Many old ladies can’t procreate either, but they want to marry and can. Many couples choose not to have kids, but want to marry for all the other reasons. The institution is NOT solely about having children, the state has other interests in it.

There-in lies the problem. State vs church. The state has an interest in stable committed relationships. Which means they should be able to make definitions that may not match the church. Yes, that may include polygamy. To keep things easy, if I were in charge, it would be 2 people, not closely related allowed. I’d keep it at 2 so there are no unfair tax advantages for groups of people marrying.
The church, however, has other interests which include a bible and trying to interpret what God wants. Marriage isn’t in the 10 commandments but is mentioned in other places. Me, I see it in the Golden Rule and say go for it. But I’m not “the church” or “a church”.

Just like ‘no shirt no shoes no service’, a church should be able to choose who they will marry and not be forced, yet again, to go against words they are reading as God’s words.

Perhaps it’s time the church changed it’s wording.
For the state:
Marriage = Civil Union
For the church:
Marriage= ……Cleavage?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I don’t mean to make light of the church’s position, but God loves gay people and I’m pretty sure God loves commitment and loyalty and stability and families. He understands that we’re all a bunch of sinners so while each of us can work very hard not to lust (an actual “sin” that is pointed out in the bible), if lusting were in the interests of the state, it’s probably best to codify it rather than leave it out there dangling so business/government etc have to have 2 sets of rules, one for those who lust, and one for those who don’t.

Similarly its probably best to codify unions of same sex couples rather than leave it out there dangling with tax laws and justice department laws and employee benefits departments and hospital visitation nazis etc not knowing how to treat clearly committed couples based on current handbooks.

That being the case, I still the think it should be up to the states. BUT I would add a Federal Government oversight determining that each of the states in the union need to respect the laws of the other states in the union. If someone marries in MA and then moves to Wyoming, Wyoming needs to treat the couple as married, whether gay or straight.

Other links:
via Gay Patriot
It’s going to happen anyway, so meh.

via JG on ThreeSources
Be careful about how this would affect church freedom.
via JK in the comment section.
I’m all for it, but can’t take the sanctimony. Amen to that.

via CNN [ht Maggie’s farm]
Fix straight marriage while we’re at it.

3 thoughts on “Marriage vs Cleavage

  1. I mostly agree with you, but would recommend, for maybe the first time ever, a European solution, to wit:

    ALL couples — hetero or homo, but only 2 — HAVE to go through a civil ceremony at the town hall in order to qualify as “married” in the eyes of the state and have access to whatever tax benefits or other state-conveyed benefits go along with marriage. The interests of the state lie in stable unions for children, but not unfair tax advantages for harems.

    IF you want your union sanctified by the church, you do that too and the church gets to decide if they want to marry you or not — therefore the Catholic church does not have to marry divorced people in the church and no church has to sanctify homosexual couples.

    Traditional marriage people still won’t like this because it means (if current marriages are grandfathered) that EVERYONE must go to the town hall and heterosexual couples can’t just do a church wedding and have it count for the state.

    Had lunch with a lawyer today and we agreed that with respect to this issue, morality and how to fix this legally are two different pathways — trying to do the right thing morally (by yours, mine, and most public opinion) — shoves a lot down other people’s throats without full exploration of the legal issues.

    All of my Facebook friends making snarkly comments about old Supreme Court Justices don’t really understand or care to understand the legal consequences of allowing for duly voted on state initiative to be overturned by the courts — does that mean that all publcly generated initiatives are subject to the state saying “oh we don’t like that one, we won’t defend it, court overturn it?” The people of the state of CA could collect another round of signatures and get this issue placed back on the ballot and they could probably overturn Prop. 8 on their own without setting up some weird precedent for down the road.

    Anyway, my 7 cents worth.

  2. I’ve pretty much always had the libertarian viewpoint on this one: Why the heck does government have a definition for marriage at all? Let people declare they’re in “family units”, whether that’s some church’s or Vegas Elvis’ definition of marriage, or someone living with and caring for a disabled sibling/relative.

  3. “I mostly agree with you, but would recommend, for maybe the first time ever, a European solution, to wit:”

    So where do you disagree?

Leave a Reply