After watching the youtube post of Keith Olbermans special comment on the issue the below response came to mind:
Some of the comments raise the point of marriage in its definition. Like the word and its use. I have personally said for a while now that it needs to be removed from the laws entirely for everyone – because of the sep of church and state.
Have one set of laws for everyone in the legal system, everyone applies for a civil union. Then they go home and plan their own ceremony calling it what ever they want and preformed in what ever style, venue, or manner they wish.
It would then be an expression of their own faith and belief’s and would remove the government from the equation of trying to decide peoples rights to use a term.
Keith makes an excellent point on the history of marriage, and again it shows that rewording the law has not hurt or hindered the institution in any way. Since the institution side is of religious and or personal belief territory the law can do little to it if anything. The law can only affect the legal status of benefits and rights FOR EVERYONE
In my mind the laws of MARRIAGE are currently intrinsicly flawed to begin with. The term is being used where it should not, and it is lending to a blending of church and state where it should not.
I only hope that Our new Administration will see fit to right this wrong in some manner – either in a rewrite of the federal legislation totally – not to allow gay marriage, or to allow straight marriage; but to redefine the states role – one of granter of civil union and protector of the rights of everyone so that we can all go out and call it marriage, or union, or commitment, or whatever feels like the correct term to us.
We have let ourselves get wrapped up in a dictionary entry instead of the spirit of our constitution and the law. And look what has happened. So many people are fighting the right fight but so many cant see the forest from the tree’s.
I just really think that we are fighting not the wrong battle but with the wrong opponent.
I mean how is it that the state is capable of legislating who can use one PERSONAL, RELIGIOUS ceremony and who they can pronounce their love with – but the people involved can not?
Filed under: Politics
You know how I feel on this issue, but honestly, I think we are still years — if not decades — away from true nationwide marriage equality. The vote in California was stunning to me not just because it was passed, but the ban was passed in possibly the most liberal state of our union. This is one of the very last things the religious right has a hold on and I know they won’t let it go without a real fight. Combine that with all the non-religious bigots out there who just think gays are disgusting, and you have a real fight on your hands.
Keith Olbermann makes a lot of terrific points, but the problem with him is that he is known as a “far left” liberal — almost the polar opposite of how Bill O’Reilly is viewed — that anything he says can be written off as just another liberal rant.
I do believe this country is becoming more liberal and open every day, but, and this is also in reference to the racism that was exposed in the presidential campaign, I don’t think we are as far along as we hoped we would be by now.
Well said, Deacon! Well said!
Eric, I understand your feelings about change on this issue being years away, You’re right, and we can either stand by and wait or we can put our efforts toward the change. If the Keith Olbermanns adn Bill O’Reillys of the world are too far to the left and right to be effective, then it’s people like us who have to pick up the banner.
Maybe it’s that I’m getting older and realize I don’t have all that much time left to affect positive change in the world, but I’m unable to sit silently. I may not be able to do much else, but I have words and people willing to read them and spread those words to others. If enough of us do that, we can make a difference in public opinion.
Given the current situation and the religious nuts, I think our best bet is, as you said, to call them all “civil unions” and then let people go to their churches and do what they will there.
The state will issue civil union licenses; if you also want a marriage license, then you need to go to your church and get one of those as well.
The funny thing would be if, after passing civil union laws, all those of us who were “married” already with marriage licenses were told we now have to get a civil union license, because “marriage” will no longer be recognized by the state (since it’s purely a religious thing). I would love it!!! THAT would fix those pig-headed bigots who wanted to preserve the “sanctity” of marriage.
I think I’m going to start referring to my marriage as a civil union. (Even though we did the church thing, therefore my husband and I entered into a civil union and also got married.)