In Germany, you must get "married" at the "Rathaus" (city hall) first before you can get married in the church.
There might be something to learn from this and a saving grace for everyone involved in the Gay Marriage issue in the United States.
First off, we want to make a clear distinction between church and state. The state is to uphold the law; the Church is for the soul. That being said, "marriage" is a concept that is more in the realm of religion. Sure, you are declaring your love for each other. Sure, you want everyone to know how you feel about each other. Love, love, hugs, hugs, doves, and cake, all based in pagan rituals of old.
The government however, when it comes down to it, isn't concerned with how people may "feel" about each other. What government is more concerned with is death and taxes, and all the income that may come in-between. What really affects the federal and state governments is the issue of inheritance, money, property, and any other legalities involved. The state doesn't have time to deal with these emotions of "love you to the day we die," but it does have the right to regulate what happens when partnerships fall apart. If anything, the more people that get married, the greater the potential for the government to make money in licensing fees and the less time can be spent in court over issues of "love."
Looking at it from this perspective, it makes it all quite simple. The idea of marriage should be stricken from the federal and state governments. Marriage carries on too many religious overtones. The idea of "civil unions" is a valid one however. A civil union can be defined quite easily as that there no question of God when deciding what is legal and what is not legal.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Makes perfect sense and I agree with you. Istill you think you can call what the government does "marriage" - just as those married in civil ceremonies are still "married" - but I agree totally with your notion of separation of church and state, and the government has to be fair and nondiscriminating, while churches can do whtever the hell they want about it, no pun intended.
2 - BB
Ms. Tek sometimes that logical mind of yours just blows me away. Have you ever thought of getting into politics? I'd vote for ya. Kudos to you sweety. :-)
3 - Mac Diva
If the debate was really about marriage Vic's argument would be a hands down winner. Complete the paperwork down at city hall and you are legally a couple. Churches can decide for themselves whether they want to provide religious recognition.
But, to the extremists who oppose it, gay marriage is a symbol for everything they would like to reverse or otherwise change about contemporary American society. That is why Karl Rove has embraced opposition to gay unions as the domestic issue for the campaign season and perhaps the rest of the decade. This is the equivalent of the Southern Strategy for the 2000s. When they say 'no gay marriage,' they mean a whole lot more.
4 - Eric Olsen
I am sure that is true, and it's unfortunate because there are a lot of people - like me - who are social liberals but are economic and defense moderates or conservatives. They will be lost to this approach.
5 - BB
The portrayal of the so-called "extremists" that you refer to is in fact an extremist opinion. Opposers to gay marriage are primarily concerned with erosion of the moral 'sancity' of marriage, and a compromise as expressed by Ms. Tek is certainly viable.
6 - Ms. Tek
I have thought about running for office. I don't like the idea of getting inot "politics" however. I dunno... something about the word "politics" seems so dirty- and not in a "nice" way.
At the same time, I think I would have a hard time getting elected. People, I think would be put off by my tattoos and my forward manner. I don't "play" politics very well.
Still, when I hit my mid-thirties, I may make a stab at it. I'd need to move to the state where Jessie Ventura got elected. If he can do it, then I can... If I can get a "war chest" together. The chest I have now would only get me a guest spot on benny hill.
7 - BB
And a very nice chest it is! Ouch!!!! Sorry but my wife is calling (hitting) me. Coming dear...
8 - Mac Diva
She's probably dialing 9-1-1.
9 - BB
How did you know???
10 - Gary
Oh dear. I am five years too late. I totally agree with you and came to the same conclusion many years ago. But as logical and sane the idea is, it will not be allowed to pass by heterosexuals and homosexuals. The idea of the government getting involved in personal relationships is an important component to marriage because it sanctions its validity. Heterosexuals will not give that up. That same validity is what homosexuals want as it validates the relationships that hey have. So that aspect of the status quo, as much as it violates some principals, values, and history, serves both sides of the debate.