A solution to the "inequality" of marriage?
Wyveryx
2012/07/31 11:59:15
|
|
|||||
|
2 votes
|
|
33% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
67% | ||
I've been thinking of what it really at the heart of the issue when it comes to "marriage", homosexual and heterosexual a like.
I don't think it's possible to find the reason behind it, save for one, "Because I want it my way."
Problem is that there are two main groups that are fighting tooth and nail over this and many caught in the middle with differing views and in reality all the fighting is really doing is separating any commonality that these groups have as a people.
Here's just the briefest of reasons people fight over "Marriage".
1. Homosexuals want it for the rights afforded therein, those rights are granted from the government institution be it state or federal level.
2. Heterosexuals feel that marriage is between one man and one woman as per their religious convictions, and many feel that homosexuals do not qualify in that regard.
3. There are both heterosexuals and homosexuals that feel that marriage is simply a term and the main goal is rights equality and that a civil union should cover those rights.
4. Some fringe homosexual groups feel that even having two different terms such as civil union and marriage are unequal and therefore goes against their civil rights.
The solution will still make enemies and there will still be people who feel that it is not fair nor equal. However, in reality it is the only true way of making it equal for all and in keeping with the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The solution being would be to remove "Marriage" from any government institution, federal or state and replace it with civil union.
This would apply to both Heterosexuals as well as Homosexuals.
The rights and privileges would still be the same as to those that had been previously afforded to marriage, therefore the only change would be terminology.
It would return marriage back to the churches. And should any couple seeking marriage still wish it, they could petition a church to marry in.
Marriage would become a more symbolic gesture, at least in the eyes of the government, but that wouldn't matter seeing at the rights that had been previously afforded to marriage are now available to those in civil unions.
Doing this would allow both homosexuals and heterosexuals the same rights. They could both get a civil union as well as a marriage, so long as the church is agreeable. And the First Amendment would prevent any government interference in religious affairs, appeasing those who feel that the sanctity of marriage should be based on their respective religions.
The reason this would still not satisfy some people is due to the issue for the current fighting..."Because I want it my way."
"You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."
I don't think it's possible to find the reason behind it, save for one, "Because I want it my way."
Problem is that there are two main groups that are fighting tooth and nail over this and many caught in the middle with differing views and in reality all the fighting is really doing is separating any commonality that these groups have as a people.
Here's just the briefest of reasons people fight over "Marriage".
1. Homosexuals want it for the rights afforded therein, those rights are granted from the government institution be it state or federal level.
2. Heterosexuals feel that marriage is between one man and one woman as per their religious convictions, and many feel that homosexuals do not qualify in that regard.
3. There are both heterosexuals and homosexuals that feel that marriage is simply a term and the main goal is rights equality and that a civil union should cover those rights.
4. Some fringe homosexual groups feel that even having two different terms such as civil union and marriage are unequal and therefore goes against their civil rights.
The solution will still make enemies and there will still be people who feel that it is not fair nor equal. However, in reality it is the only true way of making it equal for all and in keeping with the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The solution being would be to remove "Marriage" from any government institution, federal or state and replace it with civil union.
This would apply to both Heterosexuals as well as Homosexuals.
The rights and privileges would still be the same as to those that had been previously afforded to marriage, therefore the only change would be terminology.
It would return marriage back to the churches. And should any couple seeking marriage still wish it, they could petition a church to marry in.
Marriage would become a more symbolic gesture, at least in the eyes of the government, but that wouldn't matter seeing at the rights that had been previously afforded to marriage are now available to those in civil unions.
Doing this would allow both homosexuals and heterosexuals the same rights. They could both get a civil union as well as a marriage, so long as the church is agreeable. And the First Amendment would prevent any government interference in religious affairs, appeasing those who feel that the sanctity of marriage should be based on their respective religions.
The reason this would still not satisfy some people is due to the issue for the current fighting..."Because I want it my way."
"You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."
Homosexuals can receive the benefits that they are calling for while allowing those heterosexuals that still wish to be married to do so in a church of their choosing after undergoing a civil union.
What's even better it maintains the constitutionality of the separation of church and state.
There really isn't a reason this wouldn't work accept for the people who, as I mentioned, "Because I want it my way."
If you truly care about the rights and privileges of marriage, and want equality, then having a civil union for both heterosexuals and homosexuals is the only fair and just way.
By culling marriage from the hands of government and turning it into a symbolic gesture it opens it up to be free of the current debacle while providing equal rights.
If you're just after the word marriage then you have no desire for equality.
or take "marriage" away for everyone...
Every queer person I know only wants a civil marriage. No one's trying to force churches to marry us so the religion card can't be played here. I don't know why anyone would want to be married in a church community that doesn't want them anyway.
Yes, not allowing queer people marriages and instead giving us civil unions isn't good enough. It's called separate but equal. Hint: it's not really equal. It's saying 'we don't want you associated with this despite us having no good reason for that viewpoint, so we're going to make a different one for you'. It's still sending the message that queer couples aren't good enough.
I would personally not mind at all if the legal term for a marriage was a civil union. People could still call it a marriage if they wanted (I mean, it's easier to say you're married than to say you''re civil unioned), but the official term for the civil ceremony would be a civil union. Because it's a union and it's a civil ceremony. It makes sense, and then all relationships are seen as equal.
And yes, we're never going to make everyone completely happy with the state of queer relationships because everyone just wants it their way.
As for civil marriage, well that's not what I hear, and read, that homosexuals want. They want marriage. Some states instituted civil unions that provided equal rights that were afforded to those of heterosexual marriage, but that wasn't good enough, even though that is what the original fight was for. So the goal changed along the way.
Now it's created such a mess, political and societal. The only way to create it is to remove the religious implications and make the unions fair to all.
By the way, I never understood the how the use of separate but equal. I mean I know it's definition, but coming from a group such as the LGBT who use their differences, sometimes flauntingly, to gain equality just doesn't make sense. How can a groups differences spun in a positive way be used to garnish equality?
By applying the same to both you have attained equality. By allowing churches to "marry" people, it keeps the government out of a perceived religious act and preserves the sanctity of marriage to those that feel it is religious. If you want a "marriage" you can petition a church or religion to do the ceremony.
People don't have to get "married" then because they will then have a civil union, marriage becomes optional, though they will gained all rights and privileges.
If that isn't acceptable, then what you're seeking isn't equality.
While I personally don't agree with the idea of homosexual marriage, nor do I condone homosexuality, I don't feel like persecuting them nor discriminating against them. That's why the easiest solution is one that can encompass both homosexual and heterosexual and still maintain equality and abide by the Constitution.