Gay marriages

The currently absurd and confusing disagreements about the validity and desirability of “gay” marriages is an excellent example of the reasons we try to keep religions OUT of our civil and legal life.

First of all, we need to be clear that marriages are a mixture of religious observance and civil contract.  We need to separate these two elements, which in this case are clearly incompatible.

The civil contract aspect of a marriage is relatively clear as to content and purpose.   It amounts to have a legally binding contract between two people which ensures that their common interests (such as in property and legal obligations) are spelled out and recognized in the law.  The civil contract is important and is recognized by the state as legal and binding.  The rights of each partner are spelled out and are enforceable under the law, as anyone who has been through a divorce can tell you.  The rights of the partnership itself are equally spelled out and recognized under the law.  This includes the right to raise children, to incur binding legal obligations (such as a mortgage), to own property as a couple, to have health care, and to determine the disposition of common property in the event of the death of one of them.  The couple agrees to share their income.  The rights of a surviving member of the civil union are protected as well.

This is purely and simply a business partnership, as far as the State is concerned, and is recorded and regulated as any other partnership is.  The advantages of this partnership are obvious.  The State has some limited rights to exclude some partnerships as being against the interests of the State, such as prohibiting marital relationships between members of a family, or that are otherwise considered exploitive.  There should be no more restrictions on this kind of partnership than on any other kind.  For the  State to impose religious restrictions on partnership contracts is a violation of constitutional rights.

The religious aspect of a marriage is quite separate.   Some religions have their own regulations and rules as to what is allowed of their membership.    The church (or churches) to which the marital parners belong has no rights, financial or otherwise, nor obligations to the partnership, beyond what their particular beliefs require.  Religions do not have a right to regulate partnership contracts in any way, since such contracts are legal and protected by the State.  They do have a right to disapprove and even to exclude partnerships that do not fit with their beliefs.

There are several solutions to this problem, which are obvious when religion and civil law are separated.  It should be possible for a couple to be “married” without the approval of a religion.  It should not be possible for a church/religion to limit the rights of citizens to have a contractual partnership, as long as the partnership is made within the requirements of civil law.  Private businesses can exclude anyone they want to exclude on whatever basis.   Public service agencies should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of any religious or other arbitrary rules.  So we would have (as we have now) two forms of marriage:  one civil and the other religious.  The religious option is ... well, optional.

If I own a grocery store I can choose not to sell to red-headed people.  If I am an administrator of an adoption agency, I should not be allowed to discriminate against any group.  This seems to me to be fairly simple and in fact is a primary basis for our Constitutional form of government.  We get into serious problems whenever we allow religious or other personal beliefs to be enforced as a matter of law.  Remember separation of church and state?  NOT an accident. Look for comparison at other countries in which the political powers are allowed to make political decisions on the basis of religious beliefs.  Hasn't worked out ever.  Never will.

One further thought:  The government has been denied the  power to dictate what we believe and how we show that belief.  The government may not and should not tell me that I as an individual have to treat everyone equally.  As a functionary of a government or public agency, however, I do.  To prohibit hateful speech would be a denial of our first-amendment rights.  Just because you think my speech is hateful does not give you OR the government rhe right to prohibit it.  The First Amendment was specifically purposed to allow  unpopular and even hateful beliefs on the ground that truth most  easily arises from the conflict of ideas openly expressed. In that regard, note the exact IP address of this blog.