IF marriage is a sacred and holy union of two people, then how can the government (which according to the Constitution, seperates CHURCH from STATE) think that they have any right to redifine MARRIAGE and pass bills on who can and cannot marry whom?
The "Gay Marriage Issue" is not as simple as it first appears.
If we simply state the "Marriage" is a religious rite, then keeping the government out of it makes perfect sense - let the churches set their own rules. However, when the state also establishes "Marriage" as a civil contract with attendant benefits and obligations, the issue clouds.
If we were to relegate "Marriage" to the Churches, and establish a separate "civil-union" for family units much of the argument would go away - a solution, by the way, which is not on the table!
One proposed position is to define civil "Marriage" as a contract between one man and one woman, and to establish a separate "civil union" for non-traditional families. This position (with which I, for one, could live) finds enemies all camps. Gay activists say that "separate but equal is not equal" and demand state sanctioned "Gay Marriage"; the religious right says that any civil union that confers benefits similar to civil marriage is an attack on The Family and spells the end of civilization. (To these folks, "Marriage" is a zero sum -game; whatever is awarded to same-sex couples is a subtraction from Traditional Families.)
The current debate centers on The Family Marriage Amendment - and the devil is in the details. The press is fond of stating that the Amendment simply provides that Marriage be restricted to one-man/one women. The oft-reported polls usually ask a question like "Do you think marriage should be restricted to one man/one women?".
However, the issue on the able is The Federal Marriage Amendment introduced last year by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.).
It states: "“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
OK so far, for most folks.
But it then goes on to say:
"Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
And now the parsing begins!
(Following extracted from
The Southern Voice):
Gay rights attorneys have said the term “legal incidents” of marriage would outlaw civil unions and domestic partnership laws as well as same-sex marriage, saying the amendment would overturn domestic partner laws in dozens of cities and states. It would also nullify Vermont’s landmark civil unions law, according to gay rights attorneys.
Musgrave and attorneys backing the amendment, including several law school professors, dispute this assertion. They argue that the amendment would allow civil unions and domestic partner laws to stand as long as they are enacted by state legislatures or other legislative bodies rather than by courts or judges.
[end of extract]
So it seems the Federal Marriage Amendment is, if nothing else, a full-employment bill for lawyers.
It seems clear that regardless of the proponents’ zeal, there will be no Constitutional change for some years. It also seems clear that in that time span civil-unions and domestic partnerships will continue where now present, and most likely expand to other states.
No one dares look ahead to the utter chaos attendant on an ex-post facto rejection of such arrangements - too many bells will have been rung!
So like so many issues, when somebody says "Gay Marriage" we probably need to ask, "What do you mean?"
der Brucer (who, along with many others, is concerned that a full-court press for Gay Marriage today could jeopardize many of the gains the gay community has already made - a review of 1930's Germany will establish that "the clock can indeed be turned back".