^ Interesting point
At the risk of sounding ignorant, I wasn't aware that marriage was a religious thing? I mean, I know that many people CHOOSE to make it religious (wedding in church, etc.) but I didn't realise that marriage as a general definition was religious. Hmm...
Asking whether the idea of marriage is inextricably linked to religion/spirituality is opening up a whole new can of worms (first worm asking "How do I define "religion"?"). Any historical definition that one finds for marriage will be one which uses religious terminology, yes. But just as I may call you "religious" while you call yourself "spiritual," it's really hard to say in our crazy modern world. In an extreme case, marriage can nothing more than a person being granted citizenship in a coutry, or to prevent deportation.
So it's hard to really say. It's possibly not a sound argument to say "Marriage, as it exists today, precludes the ability to have a separate church and state." But in all practicality, I use it. Mostly, since 99.5% of popular debate about gay rights has the opposition side coming with religious arguments. Essentially, it's the type of word with a definition that is subjective and evolves over time. So I am just borrowing from their (gay rights opponents) dictionaries.
Getting me going on politics is like opening a carton of nightcrawlers
Okay, so the pro-gay marriage argument typically goes something like this:
Same-sex couples should be given the same rights as heterosexual couples. If marriage is a right for straight couples, then it should also be a right for homosexual couples. Should they be made to feel like their love is any different than that between straight couples? Surely not! The government needs to give homosexual couples the right to marry, or else our "freedoms" feel a bit less "free."
Equal rights. Equal rights to what? Names on a piece of paper? Ya, I mean that's fun and all, but I think a lot of advocates are quick to flag federal discounts, obtained through marriage, which would not necessarily be available to the desiring homosexual couple. Tax deductions/joint-filing. Lower insurance premia. Medicare help. Life insurance payouts. Et cetera. "It is unfair that my government denies such entitlements to my partner and I simply becuase we're of the same sex, whereas straight couples are assisted left and right."
However, there are two angles to this. What about if two people, irrespective of sexuality, CHOOSE to not marry, but instead be life-long companions. This choice could be religious (heh, or more likely anti-religious), or simply personal. Why should they also be punished financially by the government because they do not marry? Couldn't their love be just as real, and their rights to government money be tantamount?
So the latter couple decides to get married afterall, so as to save money. They are life-long partners becuase they love each other, but they are getting married solely for financial betterment. In this case, marriage is reduced to purely a "financial agreement," made between the couple and supervised by the state and federal governments.
Speaking as a person who would be completely fine with a life-long partner and feels no need to "solidify" love via marriage, I'm rightfully pissed off that my government may one day "pressure" my and my partner into marrying purely for financial benefit.
Shouldn't marriage be completely about love, though? Or at least for those who choose it, as a way to extend love?
By legalizing gay marriage, you give gay couples the same "rights" as straight couples, but the long-term couple has less rights than those two groups.
By privitizing all marriage, all three groups, under a free-market, have fair and equal rights.
To me, the latter ulitmately is the fairest and makes the most sense.
I want to think that marriage is an expression of love, and our government shouldn't have a say in how we should be able to love (okay, bar things like sleeping with children and such). Love is private and personal, a social feeling instead of a legal forum. Just like our government shouldn't dictate how we practice sex (an expression of love) or how/if we attend church (an expression of a different type of love), it should have NO say in how we express love via marriage.
A marriage certificate right now is a "license," as opposed to a "contract," even though people like to throw around the latter in discussion. This is clever, though, as if marriage were defined as a contract (a la a typical business contract), the Constitution would insist that gay marriage be legal.
According to the Constitution (AI S10), the government has a right to enforce contracts, but does not have a right to prevent individuals from entering into them. This is not the same for a license, where the federal and state governments are given more liberty to control eligability (not through the Constitution, but based on rolling legislation).
So I suggest that we make marriage licenses into legal "marriage contracts." In this way, individuals could set the terms of their contract (marriage) as they see fit. The government could enforce them (such as enforcing prenuptual criteria to be met) via the court systems, but not prevent any two people from entering them. Private churches, other religious establishments, or simple organizations could have stadard templates for such contracts.
In this sense, opponents of gay marriage would then just be left to use soft arguments against the contracts of gays ("Your contract isn't as good as my contract!"). On one extreme end, religious contracts would be very specific and fundamentalists could actually write MORE into them. And on the other extreme end, the long-term couple could feel more like they're just a long-term couple with a business contract, and not "married" as society dictates.
Everyone's legally equal. Sure, the debate over homosexuality as a sin/lifestyle will perpetuate forever. But this would fix the legal rights controversy for gays. And it would allow people like me to not be excluded from government benefits, given my desire to not enter into a thing (marrage) which my society, as a whole, more often than not considers religious-by-nature.
</libertarian rant>
(*Note that if I wasn't arguing this position, I'd be supporting gay marrage
)
