The thing that I think is important to keep in mind is that marriage was a creation ordinance, instituted directly by God pre-fall. At least to me that does give it a different status IMHO.

I’m not sure why that gives a different status or how that answers why we should be making changes to state or federal constitutions regarding it though.

I think you’ve heard me say it before, Scott, but I’ll do it again. I think that Christians really just want to own the word ‘marriage’. Right now, the government does, so the best they can do is pass laws to control the word as they see fit. I think this whole gay-marriage controversy points out that the government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the first place. I’m fine with special governmental privileges for couples in long term relationships – automatic power of attorney, hospital visitation, adoption, etc. – but those privileges are covered under civil unions. So, as far as the government is concerned, civil unions for all – gay and straight.
Too many people feel that ‘marriage’ has a spiritual dimension, which the government has no business monkeying with (would you like them deciding who is and isn’t saved?). Thus marriages should be a thing apart from government-granted civil unions and be dispensed by private (and likely religious) organizations. Marriages would confer no civil benefits and civil unions would confer no spiritual benefits. That would permit each religion to control its own definition of the word ‘marriage’ and this problem would next-to-disappear overnight.

I kind of agree with Sid. Right now the government owns the definition of marriage and has control over who can marry. It seems that from a civil perspective the government should not deny this right to citizens.
So, possibly religious folks should seek to re-frame the issue.. maybe even call “marriage” something different.. I cannot think of another name though – any suggestions?

As Scott may already know, Prop 9 to outlaw divorce has no supporters because it affects more folks calling themselves Christians.
Y’all know me, though. I am a Christian and I am really big on the separation of church and state. The main reason is that once the church and state are more unified, laws begin to reflect doctrine instead of morality.
Maybe the secular term for government to define marriage would be Symbiotic Taxation Unit (STU) or Cooperative Taxation Entity (CTE) After all, the main benefits of marriage, from a governmental standpoint, is a change of tax code.

I’ve been a bad blog owner and haven’t replied to these comments.
Sid – I agree with you on most points Sid, I’m just not sure I agree that the problem would disappear. People are more stubborn than that generally.
KB – Are you suggestng that the religous should seek another name or that gov’t should?
Pink – One of the people I follow on Twitter is a lesbian and she said that all gay people wanted were tax breaks and estate laws to include them. So yeah I think having a non-gender specific tax break for marrieds is a good idea, call it what you will. That or no tax break at all for anyone.

You’re probably right, Scott. It wouldn’t disappear. There probably is a core of Christians who like the fact that the government owns marriage. That way, their view of marriage has the force of law and they can inflict their definition onto everyone.
Pinakidian, I love the names you used for the government version of marriage, especially STU! But ‘civil union’ already has it covered, I think.

Hey Sid,
You can call me PINK, by the way. It’s much shorter and easier to type.
Civil Union covers it, but it’s already become an emotional term. If the word marriage was replaced by civil union, the Religious Right would have a cow. Sean Hannity and crowd would be talking about their *marriage* and deride the term civil union. AARGH!
Besides, we’re talking federal government tax code here: it *has* to have some kind of acronym.

Scott, do you think brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry? How about a father and daughter or mother and son?

Okay so don’t address the questions I asked, fine. It’s a little rude, but okay. To answer your questions, yes I would be against those acts because there is the potential of demonstrable physical harm for the babies. On a personal level I also find the concept of incest repugnant, though that wouldn’t be the reason for my being in favor of laws against it. Tell you what, when someone starts lobbying for that we can dialog on it further. Now that I’ve answered your questions, why don’t you answer mine?

Have you been following the discussion at my place? Some good stuff on both sides, I think.
I’m not sure what to think, and frankly I’m glad that my state already voted on it.

Sorry, Scott. Didn’t mean to be rude.
1. No, I honestly can’t see the connection, though. If we oppose child pornography or prostitution, do we have to force people to go to church? If we support public decency standards, do we have to also support a state religion? Can we oppose public sex? The list goes on and on.
2. Good point. Our churches need to do more to discourage divorce, that’s for sure. I wouldn’t be opposed to making it harder to divorce or remarry.
3. The government is involved, though. Can we take it out at this point? Do you think people are going to be willing to give up the benefits that companies give to married couples? After all, a government certificate is the only feasible way for a company to verify that two people are married.
As for your opposition to incest, how can you oppose it merely on the grounds that there is potential for harm to children (which the couple may or may not have)? If they agree not to have children, is it OK then? What if we were talking about a “gay marriage” between a father and son? There is no chance of offspring in that relationship. After a certain age, there is a demonstratably higher risk for giving birth to chidren with birth defects, so should there be an age limit on marriage?

Hello Casey,
1. You can oppose whatever you want, that’s your Constitutionally protected right. What you cannot do is restrict people’s freedoms based solely on religious beliefs. There must be good reason to limit freedoms.
2. The government should be involved with what is essentially a spiritual bond: http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2008/11/prop8/.
3. Yes, we can take it out. I think this whole who can marry points out that the government needs to get out of it. As far as the government is concerned, ‘marriage’, or civil unions involves certain tax and legal benefits. Those can be granted to any consenting adults. Such a legal agreement need not mean ‘married’ in the religious sense. In essence it would be a legal agreement between two people. As such, already married people would keep the legal status granted by the government that they’ve already agreed to. They would give up nothing.
“After all, a government certificate is the only feasible way for a company to verify that two people are married.”
Utter bull. First, the government has the exact same challenges in verifying ‘true’ marital status upon granting the certificate in the first place. Second, the company I work for and many others already grants benefits to same-sex couples based on established residency.
On incest: Incest in a nearly universal taboo – we are disgusted by it instinctively. The basis for opposing incest is not religious, but biological. There is no corresponding instinct with regards to homosexuality. The two are thus not comparable on moral grounds.
What it comes down to is that only reason you oppose homosexual marriage is because you think your god disapproves. That’s only a good enough reason to pass laws in a theocracy, not in a freedom-loving democracy.

#2 above should read “The government should not be involved with what is essentially a spiritual bond.”
My apologies for the mistype.

“On incest: Incest in a nearly universal taboo – we are disgusted by it instinctively. The basis for opposing incest is not religious, but biological. There is no corresponding instinct with regards to homosexuality. The two are thus not comparable on moral grounds.”

Are you kidding? Most of us are disgusted by homosexuality instinctively. You may not be, but people engaged in incest are not disgusted by it. Homosexuality is also biologically wrong. The parts just don’t fit.

No I’m not kidding you. You may be disgusted, but that feeling is not shared by many, as indicated by the 48% who voted against prop 8. Since disgust of homosexuality varies by culture and is often tied to religiosity, disgust at homosexuality is culturally derived and not a biological instinct. This is the direct opposite of incest. Thus, your analogy between homosexuality and incest is false.

“Homosexuality is also biologically wrong. The parts just don’t fit.”

When referring to biology, I was not writing about functionality, but biological instincts. You missed the point but probably because I wasn’t as clear as I could have been.

You still have provided no valid reasons for oppressing gays.

1. No, I honestly can’t see the connection, though. If we oppose child pornography or prostitution, do we have to force people to go to church? If we support public decency standards, do we have to also support a state religion? Can we oppose public sex? The list goes on and on.

We as a country can come against immorality that we can come to a consensus on. If you base the laws of your country on your particular religion then why not extend the laws to include the other less commented on bits? Where as a Christian do you draw the line in what you would want your country to legalize morality-wise?

2. Good point. Our churches need to do more to discourage divorce, that’s for sure. I wouldn’t be opposed to making it harder to divorce or remarry.

That’s at least where more noise needs to be made. I’d wager that divorce has done more harm to kids than homosexual parents has.

3. The government is involved, though. Can we take it out at this point? Do you think people are going to be willing to give up the benefits that companies give to married couples? After all, a government certificate is the only feasible way for a company to verify that two people are married.

Yes we can. The government banned liquor, we repealed that. And as Sid said, it’s not the only “feasible way”, it’s just the current way. With change comes the need for new solutions.

As for your opposition to incest, how can you oppose it merely on the grounds that there is potential for harm to children (which the couple may or may not have)? If they agree not to have children, is it OK then? What if we were talking about a “gay marriage” between a father and son? There is no chance of offspring in that relationship. After a certain age, there is a demonstratably higher risk for giving birth to chidren with birth defects, so should there be an age limit on marriage?

I suppose if the couple agreed to be sterilized, but even then it comes to the way this country runs things. We are a representative democracy. If the majority of people come to a consensus on whether to legalize incest or any other behavior that I personally find immoral then that is the will of the people. If we go too far down a path I disagree with I am free to move. Citizens are free to protest such decision and should be active in tring to prevent any such legislation and are even free to fight it after it is passed. That’s what I love about this country. We make wrong decisions sometimes and we have mechanisms in place to fix that.

Personally I like to err on the side of personal freedom, so I don’t want a limit on the age a person can have a baby or on who they would be allowed to marry. I might want to limit the benefits of that marriage (I do actually) since I think assigning those benefits legitimizes what has largely been a personal/religious decision for most and that is not necessarily the role of the government.