Let people get married by their churches or however they want, then register a domestic partnership with the state, if they choose to. Domestic partnership would come along with a whole raft of rights and responsibilities, but would have nothing to do with marriage. The state would then dissolve the domestic partnership in divorce, but the marriage would be the business of whatever entity did it in the first place.
Well put. This has been my own view for years.
I'm sure I'm in a very small minority on FR, but for the record I agree with the logic of the rulings in all of these recent cases. Religious marriages recognized by private organizations are the business of those private organizations, but state-registered civil marriages -- whether called 'marriages' or 'domestic partnerships' or 'civil unions' or whatever -- should be available to same-sex couples for as long as they're available at all. The various courts that have addressed this issue in the famous cases of the past few years have gotten the Constitutional part right. (I only wish they were as zealous in protecting Second Amendment rights.)
The power of the government is not a legitimate weapon in a 'culture war' -- on either side. The government simply has no legitimate role in the marriage-definition game (other than restricting unions to parties legally competent to give consent).
This is not Sweden or Holland (yet).
If we can't limit marriage to men and women in the U.S., I don't want to stay here.
You are very wrong... IMHO.
Government DOES have a key role in determing what is right or wrong in our society. The "legalizing" or public recognition of "gay mariage" would mean that "We the People" have sanctioned this "union" by allowing it to take place.
David
You are quite correct...
It is an issue of the authority to make law. We do not live in Plato's Republic, so we do not have a class of Guardians whose job it is to make law without our consent.
The courts have no right to change the fundamental meanings of statutes or the Constitution.
When they do so, they are making law without my consent, for which, IMHO, they should hang.
Well, I'd go a bit further - I am not sure that marriage of any sort should confer any legal benefit. It's discriminatory against the shy.
----"I'm sure I'm in a very small minority on FR, but for the record I agree with the logic of the rulings in all of these recent cases. Religious marriages recognized by private organizations are the business of those private organizations, but state-registered civil marriages -- whether called 'marriages' or 'domestic partnerships' or 'civil unions' or whatever -- should be available to same-sex couples for as long as they're available at all. The various courts that have addressed this issue in the famous cases of the past few years have gotten the Constitutional part right. (I only wish they were as zealous in protecting Second Amendment rights.)
The power of the government is not a legitimate weapon in a 'culture war' -- on either side. The government simply has no legitimate role in the marriage-definition game (other than restricting unions to parties legally competent to give consent)."----
This idea that if the govt affords legal recognition to traditional marriages, then it must do the same for alternatives is nothing less than a complete surrender to the Left on this battle in the Culture war. Whether its valid or not, the Courts have become THE weapon for the Left in the Culture war since its the only one they have that works. Just as its the only way for extremists to get public nativity scenes and prayers before highschool football games banned, so too is it the only way to have abortion on demand and gay marriage/civil unions.
So you think its right for judges to take some part of the Constitution that was ratified w/o any thought or intent that it ever be used in such a manner as imposing gay marriage/civil unions, to turn around and do just that? When the Constitution and its subsequent Amendments were ratified, that represented an approval from the people for the purposes put forth by the authors. For the Courts to take it upon themselves to declare that now these provisions apply to thing for which they were never intended is a violation of the whole principle of having the consent of the governed.
This is clearly one of those things for which the Founders designed the 10th Amendment. And the people of each state have a right to decide which if any type of union they will grant legal recogntion (i.e. public endorsement). If someone in Texas or Ohio doesn't like it, then they should move.
Moreover, good luck in finding judges who on the one hand think its their duty to impose gay marriage/civil unions, but on the other hand have respect for the Second Amendment. You can find them; Kennedy and O'Connor might be examples, but in finding one who favors the former you'll probably end up with a thoroughly leftist judge like Souter, Stevens, Breyer, etc.
Yeah, why let the people decide (via votes) what we want, when there's plenty of activist judges for sale who can redefine what the Constitution "was supposed to mean" whenever the whim hits them?
Everything else aside, it's completely frightening that we allow a judicial activist - on EITHER SIDE - to undo what a large majority of the people vote into law. (In this case, that marriage is between a man and a woman). If the people voted the other way, I'd be just as perturbed at a judge overtuning THAT.
It's time to let the will of the people - legally expressed through voting - be what we do. NOT the whims of a few politically activist judges.