I'm really confused by the all the mess that this legislation (SB1716) is stirring up. I have always been and will continue to be against "Gay Marriage" based on the belief that Government simply should not be involved in marriage. I have however always been on the side of equal rights for all, this includes gay people. I think "Marriage" should remain as it has always been, a spiritual union. This is a decision that should be made solely between the couple and the religious institution. I have never heard anyone argue that Gay People should not be giving equal rights when it comes to property and decision making.
(I'm sure there are some loons out there but I have not heard them and I'm sure they are not taken very seriously)
That said, this legislation SB1716 seems to me the best of both worlds. It allows for Gays to have the same rights and privileges while also protecting the Church. It makes certain verbal definitions such as "Spouse" to become more regular and understood. This should legally tear down any existing walls that Health Care and Financial institutions have in place that may cause a barrier for same sex couples. This will allow them the ability to function in our society with the same rights and privileges as any other married couple while allowing "Marriage" to remain a Church Sanctioned Union.
Now obviously some churches will choose to "Marry" same sex couples while others will not, but this is a matter Uncle Sam need not be involved in. If you do not believe in this type of union you simply will not attend one of these Churches and those who do may choose to join a different denomination.
More Choice, More Freedom.
Cheers,
Mike
Posts
Actually, your premise is incorrect, that government should not be involved in marriage. It is one of those misfortunate historical happenstances that has lead to a lot of judicial confusion. Only the State can bind one to a contract, that is not within the purview of any church in the US (The Holy Roman Catholic Church, which serves/d as a government in other countries does have the right). In terms of marriage, because of the religious aspect of marriage, which was co-opted by religion, not by the State, the State as ceded *some* authority to the churches to officiate these types of contracts. By practical example, when one gets divorced in this country, you go to court, not to church (unless you are Catholic) which clearly demonstrates which realm has authority in this instance.
ReplyDeleteThat said, kudos to you for being a Real American and understanding that my Civil Rights do not come from you but are inherent in my being and that the State should not impinge upon those rights to enforce the hatred and biggotry of the small minded. Thank you!
One question i have, that i have yet to get a straight answer on... If a church, wether it be christian, catholic, Wicca, etc, chose to "marry" a gay couple, would it be fully legally recognised?
ReplyDeleteOr would said couple still have to go to the closest state that does full marriages?
The answer to your question also exemplifies the lack of authority churches have in terms of marriage. Remember, church officials may only officiate the service. The answer to your question is that , no, the marriages are not "legal." A few progressive Christian churches (The Universal Unitarian Church and the Metropolitan Community Churches, that I am aware) have, for many years, married same-sex couples but they are not married according the the State. The SB1716, which passed the Illinois House yesterday, would allow churches the same officiate authority they have now in terms of hetro-sex to same-sex couples. Like you noted, this is a good bill, as it specifically exempts churches from having them perform weddings, which I think just preempts any asshole from suing a church that won't marry him -- but in the Church, we had for many years not performed mixed marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics -- same principle seems to apply) but the specific exemption protects churches from frivolous lawsuits. And just one point, Catholics are Christian... :-)
ReplyDeleteThe bill also recognises same-sex relationships from other states. However, there are like 13 states that have amended their constitutions to discriminate against same-sex couples. This is a CLEAR and PRESENT violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, and, in those states, likely to be litigated on those grounds. Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court seems bent on deciding based on their own personal ethics rather than the Constitution.