Legalize same-sex marriage

Derek and I have very similar thoughts on this matter, but we come to different conclusions on the matter.

The government has become far too entwined with religion in many areas, up to and including marriage. Religous institutions should not be able to dictate upon whom the government may confer certain benefits; on the flip side, the government should not be able to force religious institutions to marry two individuals that they would not ordinarily marry. A relevant example involves the Catholic Church and divorcees. Unless a couple gets an official anullment, the Church will not marry them to anyone else. The State has no such regulations on re-marriage, and yet also does not force the Church to marry divorcees. Why can't an analagous arrangement exist for same sex couples? Or better yet, let marriage be the exclusive province of relgious groups and create a legal institution of civil unions (or whatever you want to call it) for the purposes of conferring benefits from the State?

Here's where I diverge from those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that legal marriage shouldn't exist at all: I'm too pragmatic. Either it will take forever for the legal institution of marriage to be eliminated, or it won't happen at all. In the mean time, are we going to continue to deny the GLBT community the benefits that heterosexuals can enjoy? Politics, especially American politics, is about abandoning ideological purity in favor of compromises that still produce workable solutions.

To those of you who have similar reasoning but come to a different conclusion: in addition to opposing same-sex marriage, do you also oppose DoMA-like legislation and Constitutional ammendments that ban the practice?

I know it is unfair for me to state first and foremost that I'm a gay man because some people may think that I am using that as a way to end the conversation because I'm some sort of expert given my sexual orientation. This is not the case, but I just think that knowing some of the history of my perspective is essential. I won't go into details here, I'll try and put that into my Personal Biography for anyone to read and associate with my posts.

Alright, here's the actual post. I don't think same-sex marriage should be legalized. The reasons have essentially been explained above in regards to the relationship between church and state. The union between a man and wife has been a social institution since its origins. By a social institution I mean one that is not political but communal. I don't want to make this a history lesson so I won't go too much further into the evolution unless a later post requires more explanation. I believe a man and his wife(wives) eventually had a ceremony to commemorate the beginning or their union together. In some cases this had religious origins in others it may have just been a social gathering without religious overtones. However in all cases it was not a political ceremony or institution. The closest thing to a political connection would be political laws understanding that relationship/social institution and protecting it. So essentially the only piece of political attachment that is argued is the benefits given to the union of a man and woman called marriage. These are the initial ideas as to the situation that exists now.

Solution:
Create a singularly political institution with any name besides marriage. Civil union is currently the word most associated with the alternative to marriage so it is a decent place to start. Laws would most likely have to be rewritten to exclude any idea of marriage as protected or recognized differently than a civil union. Marriage should then become a separate institution that is social/religious and should not have any ties to the political sphere.

4 Results:
I see four likely social responses to this legal reform.
1) Initially good; continues to be good.
2) Initially good; eventually becomes bad.
3) Initially bad; continues to bad.
4) Initially bad; eventually becomes good.
Now two of these options would be welcomed, while two would not. However if you're afraid of responses 2 or 3 that is something outside the power of the government. If civil unions are a political institution they are open to all citizens given our best understanding of the Constitution. The social backlash or response cannot always be controlled or affected by government. This may be a case where a social engineer be it a charismatic individual or vocal group with clout is essential to lead society to a better state of understanding rather than our political leaders. This final idea ties in with the whole theme of the site which is citizens influencing the outcome rather than relying on elected officials etc to do everything for us.

I know this is long and convoluted, but please ask any questions about it if you don't understand it. Also if you agree or disagree and present it well I'll gladly respond to clear up any confusion or further argue my idea. If someone can think of a better system or solution I'd love to hear it but this is as far as I've come on the whole issue.

It's easy enough to say that marriage shouldn't be political or that it should have nothing to do with government, but that is effectively impossible. In this country, government has regulated marriage for 400 years (that's right...even as they were starving in Jamestown), there's no way that you can take it out of the equation. It's entrenched in our social consciousness that marriage is partly a civil institution.

And honestly, it ought to be a civil institution. Married people are good for society. Statistically speaking, they're more stable, they commit fewer crimes and they're good for the economy. I see no downside to government continuing to regulate and encourage marriage.

So if married people are good for society, then we ought to encourage as many people as possible to be married, no? One way we can do that is by making sure that everyone has, legally anyway, a chance to do so, gay people included.

As far as it being difficult to change society's perception of marriage to include same-sex couples...just because it's difficult doesn't mean that it's bad, or that we shouldn't do it. Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled against a Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage. We heard the same arguments then about what society accepts and doesn't accept. Let's give society a little more credit for its ability to change.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -Amendment 1: the Constitution

Just because the government has regulated marriage for 400 years does not make the tradition a good thing. While it is impossible to deny that religion permeates our society, our forefathers also saw the danger of mixing church and state. Indeed we should "give society a little credit for its ability to change" and consider taking marriage out of the hands of government.

"Married people are good for society. Statistically speaking, they're more stable, they commit fewer crimes and they're good for the economy." and I agree, but it is fallacious to conclude that therefore the government should regulate it. If marriage were purely religious these statistics would still hold and more people could then be married! The downside to government regulation is that it allows for discrimination against various groups (inter-racial marriage was at one point illegal, gay marriage, etc) and suddenly religious groups are trying to write their religious beliefs into law.

While certainly religious beliefs cannot be divorced from the basic ethical values of our nation, attempts to oust different groups based on certain religious ideals goes against the basic rights of every person (no matter his/her gender,race,or sexual orientation) to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Marriage should have nothing to do with government. It is a religious institution.