Interesting solution

[Zerbie]

Hubby listened to some "gay marriage" debate stuff on the radio yesterday and one caller, calling himself a conservative republican, posited the following solution to the marriage "problem."

He suggested: what if we retain the word "marriage" only for religious ceremonies performed by a church/church leader, and call ALL civil marriages licensed by the state domestic partnerships, fully inclusive of all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. That would mean all straight "married" couples would have civil domestic partnerships, and if they want to be "married" that would be performed by their church. The same would apply to gay couples. Then of course, churches would be free either to allow or prohibit marriage between members of the same sex according to the dictates of each particular church.

Ball. . . rolling. . . .

[novaseeker]

It's been mentioned before, and quite seriously. It makes a lot of *sense* from the perspective that the state in a pluralistic society really ought not be involved in making the kinds of social/theological determinations that most people relate to "marriage", while still retaining a keen interest in promoting stable couplings.

The main obstacle I see to this approach is that it would abolish straight civil marriages, and that would be so unbelievably unpopular as to be virtually politically impossible. I can almost already here the demagogues arguing: "See, here are the gay people, trying to take away marriage from everyone!", or something similar to that.

One of the local LGBT-friendly Presbyterian churches here has a policy reflecting this kind of idea (for a different reason): namely, the minister will not marry any straight couple who has not already been civilly married first. Now his reason is that by doing so, he is not acting in a civil way (which he doesn't want to do for straight couples, because the state won't let him marry same-sex couples) but is simply blessing the relationship in the church. He's chosen that approach for a different reason, but nevertheless the resulting approach is the same in that the church gets involved after the civil marriage and is concerned with the blessing of the relationship in the church.

[Daniel]

He suggested: what if we retain the word "marriage" only for religious ceremonies performed by a church/church leader, and call ALL civil marriages licensed by the state domestic partnerships, fully inclusive of all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. That would mean all straight "married" couples would have civil domestic partnerships, and if they want to be "married" that would be performed by their church. The same would apply to gay couples. Then of course, churches would be free either to allow or prohibit marriage between members of the same sex according to the dictates of each particular church.

Ball. . . rolling. . . .

Aghhhhhh! (He said- hair falling in clumps on the floor)

What is it with conservatives? The heathen get a Hundai of a deal called 'domestic partnership' while they get the God-Approved Gold Plated Cadillac called marriage?

No Deal.

And they think WE want special rights?

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose.

[keltic63]

It's been mentioned before, and quite seriously. It makes a lot of *sense* from the perspective that the state in a pluralistic society really ought not be involved in making the kinds of social/theological determinations that most people relate to "marriage", while still retaining a keen interest in promoting stable couplings.

The main obstacle I see to this approach is that it would abolish straight civil marriages, and that would be so unbelievably unpopular as to be virtually politically impossible. I can almost already here the demagogues arguing: "See, here are the gay people, trying to take away marriage from everyone!", or something similar to that.
indeed this has been a big argument of those who are against us; they think that we are out to destroy not only their marriages, the institution of marriage, but their families as well.

One of the local LGBT-friendly Presbyterian churches here has a policy reflecting this kind of idea (for a different reason): namely, the minister will not marry any straight couple who has not already been civilly married first. Now his reason is that by doing so, he is not acting in a civil way (which he doesn't want to do for straight couples, because the state won't let him marry same-sex couples) but is simply blessing the relationship in the church. He's chosen that approach for a different reason, but nevertheless the resulting approach is the same in that the church gets involved after the civil marriage and is concerned with the blessing of the relationship in the church.
I've heard of ministers taking this approach. One of the reasons I've heard offered is that by signing the marriage license, the minister is an agent of the state which blurs the line between church and state. In many states, if they are similar to PA, all it takes to declare a couple married is the signature of the minister on the marriage license which is then filed at the courthouse. (a minister could theoretically sign a license without ever performing the ceremony and the couple would be just as legally married as those who had a ceremony.)

[BruceChris]

Clearly, the straight couples want to have something "Special", that they fear that they would somehow lose, if GAY MARRIAGE were to somehow be allowed. But in order ro accomplish this, the First Amendment would first have to be put thru a paper shredder, say, as many times than there are stars in the sky.

The law CANNOT define what is or isn't a church, or a religion. I can get ordained in the Church of any-damned-thing-I-wanna-to-call-it, online, for $20 bucks and up, and I can call myself Married, I can call myself God, I can even call myself Bill Gates, as long as I don't try to write any checks. :eek: :lol:

We need to find ways to get to know homophobic people, and make friends with them, and get them to see that we are ALL children of God, no matter what we have to do it.

If we really need to throw an ego soothing something to the str8s, it will just have to be something else.

(But if you CAN pull this off, I wanna be the lawyer who gets first crack at ALL the litigation that results!)

P&L, BC