THE MARRIAGE SOLUTION
The recent action of the mayor of San Francisco, permitting same sex marriage in his city, adds fuel to fires stirred up by the Massachusetts court decision granting to gays and lespians the right to marry in its state. If nothing changes, we are destined for at least a year of cultural and political discord over the issue of gay marriage.
And, if nothing changes, we are in for years and years of expensive and time consuming legal battles over the basic right, as well as the recognition by other states of San Francisco and Massachusetts marriages.
Most Republicans will probably decry the possibility of recognition of the right of gay people to marry. President Bush may well continue efforts to have all Americans follow various tenets of his faith. Many Democrats, and even David Brooks, support the right of gays to marry. But in the presidential election campaign, Mr. Bush, invoking God and family values, will make them pay for it. And we all must endure the din.
However, almost all Presidential and other political candidates will waffle on the issue, treating it, like Social Security reform, as a political 3rd rail. Most of the moderates will say they support legal rights equivalent to marriage rights (separate but equal?). Others wills just say, as Dick Cheney does, let the states decide.
But letting the states decide will create a legal mess and is sure to result in prohibition of gay marriage in many states. Couples will go forum shopping for states that will permit them to marry. All this sound and fury over an issues that we can easily avoid.
The solution - take marriage off the table. Get the body politic out of the marriage business
Let marriage be the private commitment that it really is. Those who wish can choose marriage, and label it as such, in accordance with their faith, spiritual values, ethics, or other personal beliefs. It may or may not be church or religion-related; that depends of the tenets of the religion and the wishes of the couple.
On the other hand, the state should have nothing to do with the institution of marriage. Its concern should only be civil union and the regulation of the legalities of formation and dissolution, basic rights and obligations of the parties, and economic benefits attendant to the union. The state's role as protector of children remains unchanged.
So change the words, get the state completely out of the institution of "marriage".
With all of this marriage turmoil behind us, we can concentrate on real issues such as Liza Mannelli's left hook.
The recent action of the mayor of San Francisco, permitting same sex marriage in his city, adds fuel to fires stirred up by the Massachusetts court decision granting to gays and lespians the right to marry in its state. If nothing changes, we are destined for at least a year of cultural and political discord over the issue of gay marriage.
And, if nothing changes, we are in for years and years of expensive and time consuming legal battles over the basic right, as well as the recognition by other states of San Francisco and Massachusetts marriages.
Most Republicans will probably decry the possibility of recognition of the right of gay people to marry. President Bush may well continue efforts to have all Americans follow various tenets of his faith. Many Democrats, and even David Brooks, support the right of gays to marry. But in the presidential election campaign, Mr. Bush, invoking God and family values, will make them pay for it. And we all must endure the din.
However, almost all Presidential and other political candidates will waffle on the issue, treating it, like Social Security reform, as a political 3rd rail. Most of the moderates will say they support legal rights equivalent to marriage rights (separate but equal?). Others wills just say, as Dick Cheney does, let the states decide.
But letting the states decide will create a legal mess and is sure to result in prohibition of gay marriage in many states. Couples will go forum shopping for states that will permit them to marry. All this sound and fury over an issues that we can easily avoid.
The solution - take marriage off the table. Get the body politic out of the marriage business
Let marriage be the private commitment that it really is. Those who wish can choose marriage, and label it as such, in accordance with their faith, spiritual values, ethics, or other personal beliefs. It may or may not be church or religion-related; that depends of the tenets of the religion and the wishes of the couple.
On the other hand, the state should have nothing to do with the institution of marriage. Its concern should only be civil union and the regulation of the legalities of formation and dissolution, basic rights and obligations of the parties, and economic benefits attendant to the union. The state's role as protector of children remains unchanged.
So change the words, get the state completely out of the institution of "marriage".
With all of this marriage turmoil behind us, we can concentrate on real issues such as Liza Mannelli's left hook.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home