A Marriage Proposal

OK, religious right, let's say you're right, and marriage is a sacred institution established by God. So you shouldn't have any problem with taking it out of government’s hands altogether then, right?

Here's my thinking:

Create a civil union law that is designed solely to provide civil benefits and responsibilities: taxation, survivor benefits, etc. Oh -- and shared financial responsibility. That one's important. When you marry a person, their debts are your debts. Make sure that is a part of civil unions, too, for it’s a strong motivation to keep an eye on each other, to make sure one’s spouse is mostly making wise decisions and taking positive actions. People who have made this commitment have someone to watch over them -- and vice versa. Isn't this one of the main reasons society rewards marriage? Because it promotes social stability? That’s especially helpful for families who choose to raise children – which gay people also happen to do. Not as regularly as heterosexuals, but it’s certainly not unusual. Society benefits from all relationships being more stable, even the ones that don't participate in creating the next generation.

As the Constitution provides, let the states work out the details. If South Carolina decides civil unions are for male-female couples only, let them have that. (At least until the Supreme Court steps in and declares that unconstitutional. Then, if they want to secede again, we’ll deal with that in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.)

Some states might make these unions available to any two people. Say two sisters have retired, share a house and want to receive the benefits of a civil union – I say let them, as long as they are willing to take on the responsibilities of same. Not only the debts, but the fact that you can partner with only one person at a time and ending a union is not easy or cheap. If civil unions are about civil benefits and responsibilities, I see no reason to deny them to any two people willing to follow the strictures.

This precedent is being set already. The Rev. Gene Robinson has decided he and his partner will have two ceremonies, one to satisfy the civil union requirements in New Hampshire, and a religious ceremony to celebrate their partnership in the eyes of God.

I imagine many churches would hold to the one man, one woman rule. Others might allow same-sex ceremonies but deny two sisters who thought their relationship ought to get not only legal, but spiritual blessings, as well. Others might say, “hey – if you’re willing to commit to such a deep level of mutual support, God can get behind that,” and let any two people marry. Again, each church sets its own rules.

If we get the government out of marriage entirely, and let them instead oversee civil unions which relate solely to civil rights and responsibilities, this would leave “marriage” as a totally religious act. How much more sanctity could they ask for?