I'm going to say it: I am so sick of all this gay marriage nonsense! In fact, I am sick of marriage in general!
Now before you get offended and pull out your lynching rope, hear me out. I strongly believe all people regardless of race, gender, or sexuality should have the same rights. There is no doubt in my mind that there should be equality for all.
I am a Christian. I have also long been a supporter of gay marriage. But I am not a supporter anymore. In fact, I am not a supporter of any governmental union that is called marriage.
Marriage is a religious word. And, from what I remember, in this country there is supposed to be separation between church and state. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this mean that religion should not influence our laws?
If marriage is a religious term, why does government control it? “By the power vested in me” should mean God and should not be followed with “and the state of (insert the name of your state here).” The state should have nothing to do with religious affairs. God should not be part of government and government should not be part of God.
For everyone out there who has supported the idea of eliminating marriage in a governmental sense, I am now on your team. As a Christian, I do believe marriage should exist, but I believe it should exist on a religious level, not on a governmental one.
I have a challenge for our lawmakers. It is simple. Do away with marriage. If you want to recognize unions between people, do it in a way that encompasses all citizens of this great nation. Come up with a term that allows for equal unions between anyone who chooses to spend their lives together, be it man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. If this term is civil union, great. If you want to come up with something else, fine by me. Just give us all equal rights and do it without a religious undertone.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Paul
I stopped reading after "correct me if I'm wrong". Short answer yes.
2 - alohaitsaj
Care to elaborate?
3 - Paul
Sure. The 'seperation of church and state' was intended to protect the church FROM THE STATE. It is one of the most twisted, misinterpreted, and misapplied statements in our nation's history. I'm more sick of hearing it than you are of gay marraige It's a good idea to read the orignal source, not the commentaries. I could elaborate more, but there's not enough room in this box.
4 - alohaitsaj
But do you not think that it would make this whole gay marriage issue much simpler if governmental marriage was eliminated and replaced by something that demonstrates equality for all? And if I'm reading your explanation correctly, are you saying that it is the governments job to protect the church?
5 - Paul
sorry if this gets posted 3 times eventually, it doesn't seem to be working. No you are not reading my explanation correctly. The framers of the constitution took great care to ensure, as best they could, that the government/state stayed out of the affairs of the church, NOT the other way around. Many of our original government buildings were also houses of worship.
If I want to marry my 12 year old sister, since I love her and she loves me, can you explain to me why this is wrong? Please "do it without a religious undertone" Illustrative purpose only, I'm married and have three OLDER sisters.
6 - alohaitsaj
If the framers of the constitution worked to make sure the government/state stayed out of the affairs of the church and marriage is a religious affair, why does the government control marriage?
I'm not totally sure what relevance marrying your twelve year old sister has with government controlling marriage. My whole argument here is that government should stay out of marriage. If they want to control unions between people, that's fine. But the churches should determine who is allowed to get married especially if, as you said, "The framers of the constitution took great care to ensure, as best they could, that the government/state stayed out of the affairs of the church."
The bottom line is that, from what I can see, this is an equal rights issue and by having all unions be recognized/termed as the same thing legally, the issue goes away.
7 - jamminsue
The idea of civil unions being law of the land and adding a "religious sacament" ceremony as a separate option sounds pretty good to me. Getting past cultural taboos would be good, as long as the rules that pertain to genetic risks were maintained.
Not only could this be a way to stop the gender issue, but also social engineering via Federal Income Tax that favors those who are married, have a home mortgage, and kids. Getting the Tax Code out of social engineering would be a step towards a more sane tax system.
8 - alohaitsaj
jamminsue, great point on the whole tax issue. I failed to mention that. Thank you for bringing it up. :)
9 - alohaitsaj
I'm sorry, I mistyped what I meant to say in my response to Paul. I meant to say that I was not sure what marrying your twelve year old sister had to do with the argument I was making in regards to making marriage a religious affair and unions a government issue. Obviously marrying your twelve year old sister is a marriage issue. It is just a little off topic from the argument I was making in my article.
10 - Paul
I don't think I was off-topic at all. I think I picked up on some major contradictions in the logic that you are using. I read your article on high school math curriculum after reading this one, and make some of the same mistakes in logic. You have a couple of good points but you overlook several more efficient solutions in favor of a drastic one. Ironically, I have strong opinions on both your articles. I'm a Christian and I teach high school mathematics: geometry, statistics, and AP statistics. There' a personal finance classroom right next door to mine. The problems in our nation, our schools, our marriages, or in whatever area you can think of, have rarely been the result of a lack of solutions, but a rejection of God as Creator, and Law-Giver. Referring to the government, you said: "...just give us all equal rights." The founders understood that God gives us our rights, not man.
11 - alohaitsaj
Paul, it sounds like your solution to this problem is to have religion be part of our government. I see so many problems with this ranging from ignoring the diversity of cultures/other religions in the United States to forcing religion down people's throats (which I'm sure you know does not go over well). Having any single form of religion be part of our government would constitute discrimination towards countless people. If my interpretation of your solution is wrong, please correct me and let me know what you would like to see happen with the issue of marriage.
Are you sure you understand my argument? My argument is that government can control unions all they want. They can make all the laws about it that they want. But when it comes to marriage, that is the church's domain. Government should not control something that God created and reigns over. "By the power vested in me" means God. Why you wouldn't want marriages to be solely governed by God is a bit confusing to me. Not only would putting marriage back in the hands of churches/out of the hands of lawmakers give God complete jurisdiction over marriage but it would also enable lawmakers to create an equal type of union for all people. This seems like a logical solution to me. People fighting to have homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals would be happy because they would have equal rights and people who are religious would be happy because the institution of marriage would not be jeopardized by lawmakers or people voting to change it to encompass gay marriage.
In regards to rights, yes I agree that God gives us our rights. But as I said earlier, our country is so diverse and I think the government should work to ensure that there is no discrimination in this diverse country. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc. living in this country and regardless of what you believe in, is the government's responsibility to make sure your rights are the same as everybody elses. No, I am not saying that if you believe in murder your belief should be protected under the law, but if you want the right to do something that other people get to do, you should not be discriminated against. If no one can is allowed to marry/have a union with their 12 year old sister, there is no discrimination going on. In a culturally diverse nation, the government must step in and make sure everyone is treated equally and given the same rights as everybody else.
12 - Christian Miller
What would happen if government withdrew from the marriage business and the civil union business?
Would people stop falling in love?
Would people stop having beautiful weddings?
Would churches stop marrying people?
Would people stop living together in caring committed relationships?
Would people stop forming families?
Would people stop making babies?
Would parents stop caring for their children?
Would people stop doing the things that we associate with fulfilling marriages?
Does the government policy of providing Social Security benefits to 65 year old spouses who would not otherwise qualify, weigh on the decision of a couple in their 20’s to marry?
Are the bundle of default marriage laws, such as spousal inheritance, superior to specific legal documents such as wills?
What percentage of married couples have a critical need for the government financial perks given to couples with government marriage licenses?
What is the government’s definition of marriage? Not who can get married , but what marriage itself is? How can the government accuse the marriage of a Russian woman to a US citizen for the purpose of coming to the United States as being a “sham”? What about the brief Las Vegas marriage of Britney Spears?
What vows of love do government marriage licenses require?
Do marriage laws prevent multiple sex partners, disease, incest, or statutory rape?
Should there be separation of church and state?
Should single people get equal government benefits?
How many times have you had to show your government marriage certificate?
13 - alohaitsaj
Hi Christian. I am not saying that the government should withdraw from both marriage and civil unions. I am saying they should withdraw from marriage and only control civil unions (or whatever equal form of union they come up with that encompasses homosexuals and heterosexuals without discrimination). People who were in love would be able to have a legally recognized union regardless of sexual orientation. People would still fall in love, people could still have beautiful weddings that are controlled by the church and reigned over by God, churches would continue marrying people, people would still live in committed relationships, people would have families and babies, parents would still care for their children, and people would still continue doing the things that are done in a caring committed marriage. None of that would go away just because the government comes up with a non-discriminatory type of union. As far as the legalities of it, chances are all the laws for this type of union would be similar to the current marriage laws (encompassing taxes, social security, financial perks, etc), it's just these perks would be given to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The government would be able to define their interpretation of "union" in a non-discriminatory way. Marriage would be left for the churches and God to govern. I hope that answers most of your questions. You asked a lot. :)
14 - Christian Miller
Ms. Jacobs,
I am recommending that government withdraw from both marriage and civil unions. Life would go on.
I am suggesting that exclusive government perks for married (heterosexual and single sex) couples be phased out or made available to single people. Government financial aid should be based on need rather than marital status.
15 - alohaitsaj
Christian, sorry I misunderstood your comment. That is a really interesting concept. I like the idea of financial aid based on need instead of marital status. That is logical. However, I do think that people find some sort of satisfaction by having their unions recognized by government so I'm not entirely sure people would be happy with not having government recognize their unions.
16 - Christian Miller
Ms. Jacobs,
I suspect that your statement is correct: "I do think that people find some sort of satisfaction by having their unions recognized by government..." During the Prop 8 trial, Ted Olsen argued that the status of government marriage should not be denied to homosexual couples. Judge Walker incorporated this argument in his ruling. My problem is that our government should not be in the business of granting "status" or "satisfaction". We are not England giving people Knighthood. Also why should married people have greater government status than single people?
Also a government marriage license is a hollow document because no vows are required. It is really only a voucher for some benefits that are denied single folks.
We have lived next to our very nice neighbors for 30 years. We have never seen their government marriage certificate. We assume they are married because they act like they are married. They live together. Call themselves Mr. and Mrs., introduce themselves as husband and wife, have four children and seven grandchildren.
17 - alohaitsaj
Christian, you have some good points. It is ridiculous that married people have a greater status than single people. They definitely get better tax breaks. It's like saying that just because you haven't found love you aren't worthy of certain rights granted to those who have. But this is a whole new debate that we could start (oh the joys of politics, so much is wrong with our government).
Very true that a government marriage license is hollow. Anyone can sign a piece of paper. Unless you have an emotional/spiritual agreement with the person beyond a simple signature, a government issued marriage license is hollow. This brings up another interesting point. All you have to do to get married is sign a piece of paper. No ceremony necessary. Doesn't that completely contradict what a marriage should consist of? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if you are getting married, there should be a ceremony. As far as I'm concerned, signing a piece of paper does not constitute a ceremony.
18 - Clavos
All you have to do to get married is sign a piece of paper. No ceremony necessary. Doesn't that completely contradict what a marriage should consist of? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if you are getting married, there should be a ceremony. As far as I'm concerned, signing a piece of paper does not constitute a ceremony.
Maybe.
My wife and I were married by a notary public in Miami (legal in Florida). No ceremony, no one in attendance, not even friends (the notary had to get the woman next door and her son to act as the law-required witnesses). We signed the papers, the witnesses signed and we were married -- that was it.
When she died last year, we had been happily and successfully married for 38 years.
19 - alohaitsaj
Clavos, may I ask why you both chose to forgo a ceremony? Are you religious? I don't mean to pry, I'm just curious.
20 - Clavos
Mainly, we were interested in getting married without making a big deal of it.
And no, neither of us is/was religious. My wife did not go to church or belong to a religion and I'm an atheist.
21 - alohaitsaj
Clavos, would you agree that marriage has a religious connotation and that a civil union or something more governmental without religious undertones would have been more fitting? Why or why not?
22 - Christian Miller
Ms. Jacobs, I like to think of marriage as an intensely personal commitment that two people make to each other to spend their lives together. A wedding ceremony that is "fitting and proper" can also be cause for great celebration with family and friends. "The tribe lives, life continues". It can also be blessed by the church, but the government marriage seal is not a necessary part of this celebration. The couple will feel just as married. Witnesses, Family, friends and well wishers will rejoice and recognize the marriage. No government agent need officiate. No government involvement. Government involvement only detracts from the romantic nature of a wedding.
23 - Clavos
In terms of the end result (getting married), I don't see any difference. Presumably, those who are religious would prefer a church-sponsored ceremony, while those who are secular would not.
I do not agree that "a government marriage license is hollow." Marriages are "hollow" or not because of the level of commitment (or lack thereof) of the parties getting married. In my opinion, that has much more to do with the character of the individuals than it does with religion or secularism, or even whether or not the couple are man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman.
The success of any given marriage has far more to do with the love and commitment between the parties than it does with anything external.
24 - alohaitsaj
Christian, I understand what you are saying. But I feel the big issue right now is that heterosexuals have long had the right of being able to marry and now homosexual couples want the same right. I think completely doing away with any form of a legally recognized union would cause quite a bit of an uproar from both homosexual and heterosexual couples. As ridiculous as it may sound, people need that validation from the government. Simply getting people on board with creating legally equal unions is going to be hard enough. Maybe once we take that step, the next step would be to completely eliminate government involvement in unions.
25 - alohaitsaj
Clavos, are you for or against having an equal form of union for homosexual and heterosexual couples? Something that is not termed marriage because of the religious implications but instead something that is more governmentally based that does not discriminate against people with certain sexual orientations?