Bishop Gene Robinson Makes the Right Point

The Rev. Gene Robinson (whose selection as the first openly-gay leader of the Epsicopalian Church has caused a tremendous uproar) has decided that when he marries his partner after civil unions become legal in New Hampshire, they plan to have two weddings: one to satisfy the legal requirements of the state and gain the civil benefits which accrue therefrom, and a church service where their union will be celebrated and solemnized.

I think that's smart. I think that's the right way to position ourselves on this front in the battle for civil equality. It's OK for there to be a separate form of union, as long as EVERYBODY who wants to get married has to do it. That's truly separate but equal. If you want to secure the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage, you have to file paperwork with the state and speak your commitment in front of an official of the state. If you want to then go on and have a church wedding, that's between you and God. Maybe if you want a church wedding, you can do them both at once. The minister has to ask an extra question perhaps so you can tell the difference between a dual civil-religious ceremony, and one that is completely religious. (And that way, if people wanted to feel their church marriage wasn't available to just anyone, they could keep the state out of it entirely.)

I think it would be easier on everyone involved if they just opened marriage to any two people who want to live up to its legal responsibilities, but this feels like equality, too.