|
 
 
|
 About me Contact me |
|
|
About me Contact me |
|
Articles recently commented on:
Follow Mar Matthias on Twitter Follow Rev. Mother Theresa on Twitter
Website thumbnails generously provided by ShrinkTheWeb |
Gays and marriage by Mar Matthias Darin This is a venomous topic... Especially in light of Prop 8 being passed in California and similar laws in other areas. I have made my position on this quite clear: I don't believe Gays should have the right to marry. Now before you go jumping to the comment box to send a flaming response to this, read on. You will be surprised at what I have to say, and ultimately, may even agree irregardless of your sexual orientation. Lets starts by defining marriage. Marriage started out as and will continue to be a "religious sacrament", subsequently involving the church in political activities. "Separation of Church and State" pundits have a real problem here. If the state governs marriage licenses, they are literally bringing the church, and its moral standings and practices, into the middle of government actions. This is a bad idea. Having said that, it is also a bad idea having the government regulate the church on its belief system. Doing so becomes discrimination and infringes on an individual's religious rights. So, how do we keep the state out of the church and vise-versa? Simple, the government stops issuing marriage licenses all together. Some may scoff at this, but there are very huge benefits, above and beyond what I have already mentioned, to all parties involved, including the state. Furthermore, no new laws need be written and the method is available right now. Before we delve into the legalities of the state, lets look at a marriage license as administered by the government. Marriage licenses give couples certain "rights". However; from the legal standpoint, they leave out allot of important details. Divorce court is a clear example of all the short comings of a marriage license. The case and issues the surrounded Terry Schiavo illustrate even more pitfalls of a marriage license. Marriage licenses are very limited and don't address the many issues that arise in the above illustrations. We do, however, have a legal framework that does address all of the above limitations and more. The laws involved are solid and have already passed the trials of time. A "Civil Union" can be created between any two people with a Durable Power of Attorney (DPA) and a Living Will (LW). I will refer to the combination as a DPALW herein. Ironically, a DPALW actually provides more rights then a marriage license and is completely void of any religious belief system and it provides complete separation of church and state. Lets look at the issues the a DPALW solves that a marriage license does not. First, in the case of Terry Schiavo, the DPALW can define a percentage of brain activity (15% is the current medical defined level) whereby a person is considered "alive". Second, a DPALW can define who can control and under what situations the control takes place. For example, if criminal activity is suspected, a second executor or an executor panel can be defined. How and where life insurance can be used in the event of death can also be defined. Now we'll examine other situations where a marriage license actually fails in protecting the people involved. If there are any children involved, who has control over them can be stated. If separation becomes a factor, where and what percentage of assets does each person in the "Civil Union" receive can be stipulated. (P)Alimony can be defined. There are so many more topics that can be defined or described that a DPALW far exceeds the limitations of a marriage license. From the governmental standpoint, marriage licenses are a disaster waiting to happen that really leave both individuals in the union left in a void in a large number of situations. Marriage licenses are bring a barge of religious values and beliefs into the situation, causing the state to get into the middle of a never ending mess. A marriage license can be contested on a number of levels as evidenced by divorce court and the huge backlog of pending cases. A DPALW offers a solution to all of these issues without any of the baggage associate with marriage licenses. From the standing of a modern day society, a marriage license is often not the best way and provides little or no legal footing in a wide range of issues. As a final statement, I believe society would be far better off by eliminating government issued marriage licenses and adopting the DPALW method for civil unions for all types of "Civil Unions", including "traditional marriages". 
Top tags: marriage, license, dpalw, licenses, state, church, defined, government, issues, civil Comments from anok 66.212.222.91 Lets starts by defining marriage. Marriage started out as and will continue to be a "religious sacrament", subsequently involving the church in political activities. Wrong. Marriage was the transference of property from one man to another. The church didn't officially involve itself in marriages until the middle ages, and then only for royal weddings. So, how do we keep the state out of the church and vise-versa? Simple, the government stops issuing marriage licenses all together. Marriage is considered a fundamental human right per the Declaration of Human Rights, and a protected fundamental right according to the US constitution, 14th amendment. Not going to happen my friend. DPALW will not guarantee of the same rights and protections as marriage does, but it isn't a bad idea to have some things outlined by legal laws like that. IF you have the money and legal know how to do it. I appreciate your ability to make it equal across the board by abolishing marriage altogether, however that won't happen as it's a fundamental right. You will have to reinstate civil unions, which do not provide all of the same rights and protections, or simply accept gay marriage. Comments from Mar Matthias Darin anok: Historically, the term marriage was not used as a legal right of the transfer of ownership of properity. The Romans are historically recorded as the "first" society to use this content. The union in Roman terms was more of a contract then the concept of a marriage. Marriage is not a "human" right as defined by the legal system. A look at history actually shows that a marriage can in many ways be conflictive, in the religious context, to the societial operations. Gay marriages are a clear example of that. During the 60's, interracial marriages were, and in some areas still are, as much of a hot bed as Gay marriages. A DPALW does have far more rights and protections then a marriage without the religious contexts and if written appropriately (there are legal standards that must be followed), does guarantee equality within the union. Furthermore, unlike a marriage, a DPALW is much harder, if not impossible under most circumstances, to contest on a court of law. As long as "marriage" is an acceptable government function, you can not seperate the church from the state. By using a DPALW as a basis for the civil union, the entire problem is sovled and the state and church are truly seperated. This not just limited to just Gay marriages, but all marriages as I state above. Comments from Mountain Woman 75.104.128.38 I am in favor of same sex marriage. However we need to dialog on this issue and I relish reading well thought out arguments that bring something new to the mix so I read your post with interest. I do not believe you are far off the mark because I believe at some point some couple who has been denied a marriage license based on their sex will challenge the legal definition of "marriage" and marriage as we understand it today will change most likely through the use of the court systems in the United States. That might already be the case in Connecticut. I also think the idea of "covenental" marriage is valid for Christians who live in the states where that is legal to enhance their commitment under God to each other. Anyway, there are no answers that will make everyone happy but I enjoyed reading a differing opinion that was intelligent and offered a possible solution. Comments from Mar Matthias Darin Mountain Woman: Thank you. I believe we need to move away from the religiously bound word of marriage and accept "union" as a governing embodiment of the concept. As long as there is a religious component involved, there will never be full acceptance. Prop 8 is a good example of this. The black populus voted overwhelming for Barack Obama and for Prop 8 (77%). This is a clear indicator the society at the institutional level can not incorporate religious termonology into a legal framework and have it work appropriately. Comments from Eric 68.84.22.242 I knew I liked coming to the site for a reason. As a gay male it may be surprising that I am against gay marriage. However, as long as the government recognizes other marriages I am for the passage of any gay marriage legislation. In a perfect world, the government would have nothing to do with any marriages altogether, and we would have alternate systems in place for legal and binding recognition of unions. If more people would think equality in terms of a compromise instead of "I want what they have" the world would be a much better place. Comments from Mar Matthias Darin Eric: I think what is most disturbing about the entire situation is the Gay community wanting a flawed, disasterous, and broken system. I'm not even sure a "compromise" would work. I believe the situation can only be solved by re-working the legal framework from the ground up completely seperate on any religious context. An example would be the Muslim populas which will never accept a Gay "marriage", but would be more receptive to a "Union". Comments from Jen 66.41.72.62 It's an interesting idea. I don't know that it will fly but who knows. Religion should be taken out of this equation. If two men love one another and want to commit to one another for their duration it seems discriminatory that they can't legally do so. Comments from Mar Matthias Darin Jen: Its the only way I think all sides will try to agree.
PermaLink Home
Please share your thoughts on this article. |
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://matthiaschronicles.tanaya.net/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
