Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: childers.paula AT epamail.epa.gov
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion
  • Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:26:16 -0500





Diana, you have hit upon one of the biggest stumbling blocks, in my
opinion, in the "marriage debate": the separation of church and state.
"Marriage" is both a social and a religious institution. However,
society has done a bang-up job of co-mingling the two to the point that
they become difficult to discuss separately.

"Marriage" confers a number of legal i.e. social rights and benefits,
including right of inheritance, changes in taxation, ability to make
medical decisions for your spouse, ability to adopt your spouse's child,
etc etc. These are ENTIRELY SEPARATE from the religious or spiritual
meaning one might attach to marriage from the standpoint of your
personal belief system.

Three examples:

1. If I and my partner want, we can be "married in the eyes of God" in
certain progressive churches, but currently, it won't mean a damn thing
to the ER docs if I'm in a coma and she's out in the hall, nor will I be
able to inhereit any of her property without a will specifically
designating such (and then I will pay way more taxes), nor will I be
granted any parental rights to her children, should she have any. This
would be a religious marriage without a social marriage component.

2. You, on the other hand, have been married in the legal system but
didn't care to partake of a religious ceremonial framing for that event.
Under current law, you get ALL the legal privileges, even without the
religious component.

3. Many heterosexual Americans are married by a religious leader
(pastor, priest, rabbi, etc), in a religious ceremony, but because of
certain legal foundations, including the precursorial acquisition of a
"marriage license" and the recognition of said religious leaders to be
acting as "agents of the government" in the performance of the ceremony,
these couples are BOTH religiously AND legally married.

The proposed Constitutional amendments would not affect heterosexual
couples. Only same-gender ones. They are framing a LEGAL argument around
a RELIGIOUS principle, further blurring the line between church & state.
Granting LGBT people the right to LEGALLY marry is NOT the same as
forcing a religion to change its beliefs. For instance, there are
churches that don't allow their members to cut their hair, watch TV, or
that do require women to wear facial or leg covering; just because you
have a LEGAL right to do so doesn't mean it forces that church to change
their beliefs.

A "civil union" in fact has very little legal precedent in this country,
and while it may confer SOME certain state-level legal privileges
comparable to that of a "real" LEGAL marriage, it does NOT confer nearly
as MANY, nor as comprehensive a set of privileges, and is not recognised
at the Federal level or in many states, and possibly not out of the
country either. A "civil union" could be thought of kind of like a
"colored bathroom:" separate, not usually equal, and a transitional
relic of prejudice.

It appalls me to think our great nation has sunk to even PROPOSING this
kind of prejudice & pandering; no Western democracy has codified such
blatant discrimination into their Constitution or foundation of law,
only places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or some little
hypersuperstitious backwater in Africa.

pissed and wanting my equal rights,
Paula





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page