|
People like me have been getting married for years, decades even.
For a very long time now in the U.S., a number of churches, temples, and other religious institutions have been performing marriages. Among them, the Unitarians come to mind, for instance, but they're not the only churches.
The happy couples stand up before a crowd of their friends and families, making public vows to love and honor one another to the end of their days. This is known as RELIGIOUS marriage.
It's the one where besides refusing to marry gays and lesbians, the Catholics, for example, refuse to marry non-Catholics. And some Orthodox Jewish synagogues won't marry non-Jews. Personally, I don't have a problem with this. Religious marriage ought to reflect the views of the people who follow it -- even if it seems bigoted and narrow-minded to others. That's freedom of religion.
What hasn't been legal is CIVIL marriage for gays and lesbians. That's the kind where you get a piece of paper from the government -- a license. Each state has slightly different rules governing who can and can't get that license (minimum ages, can/can't marry 1st cousin, waiting periods, etc.).
Once you have that license, it needs to be completed. In California, "In order for a marriage to be completed, a ceremony must be performed by one of the following: Any judge or retired judge of the state of California; Commissioner of Civil Marriages or retired Commissioner of Civil Marriages; Commissioner or retired Assistant Commissioner of a Court of Record or Justice Court in California; any judge or magistrate of the U.S. or any priest, minister or rabbi of any religious denomination of the age of 18 or over. A marriage may also be solemnized by a judge or magistrate of the U.S. who has resigned from office. A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a member of congress who represents a district within California, while that person holds office."
So, as you can see, it might be a religious figure, but doesn't have to be. It can be completely outside any particular religious context, and still be 100% legal and recognized.
Once that paper is filed with the government, all kinds of rights, benefits, and privileges ensue (as well as some responsibilities). I read one account from the U.S. gov't that listed over a thousand.
What committed gay and lesbian couples want isn't the right to go marching into some Southern Baptist church, demanding that the reverend marry them. What we want is all those civil rights.
Thus, ever time someone like Mr. Bush brings up the "sanctity" of marriage, he's trying to drag all this over to religious grounds -- and only those religions that have a problem with gay/lesbian couples being married. There's lots of religions where it's no issue at all.
For me, one of the rights that concerns me most is if I die, my wife will probably lose the house we live in. I have, of course, named her as beneficiary for everything I own. However, since she is an "unrelated person" in the eyes of the government, she will have to pay inheritance taxes on everything she gets -- including half of the immediately re-appraised value of our home. For a heterosexual married couple, the surviving spouse gets everything, automatically, no taxes at all.
These are the kinds of "fairness and equality" issues for which we're fighting. It has nothing to do with "sanctity" or forcing our beliefs onto others. It's just simple civil rights and equality under the law.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
