While I have my thoughts about sexual sin and the redefinition of marriage, I am most definitely not for abusing people in any way. I would like to see discussions regarding these matters remain on a far more respectful level than they normally do, on all sides.
I have posted this on other threads, but it seems to be appropriate here as well.
Here's my suggestion for a "solution" to the question of gay marriage:
Get rid of the word "marriage" altogether.
The word carries too much baggage. I do not see the two sides ever agreeing to disagree. The U.S. needs to recognize this, and stop trying to force the two sides together by squishing two very different understandings of "marriage" into one word. Because we really are talking about two completely different things here.
1. According to Christianity (and many other religious persons), "marriage" is a God-blessed union between One Man and One Woman, a pact made between two people that is holy and divine.
2. According to the laws of the United States, certain civil rights are granted based on "marriage." These laws have nothing to do with God. Laws like how to file one's taxes, who has inheritance rights of property, how benefits get paid out, etc. I have a friend who is a lawyer who actually verified this for me: there are over 1,000 federal rights that are granted to a couple when they get married, that are not granted under the "civil union" that some states have. That doesn't include any additional state clauses and marital benefits.
Denying gay people equal rights is wrong. You can think they're the worst sinners since Hitler, that is still no reason to treat them as second-class citizens.
So what I recommend is that we, here in the U.S., institute two completely different things:
1) Holy Matrimony, or whatever the church, temple, mosque, or synagogue wants to call it. A couple can be wedded in this religious ritual according to whatever rules that particular church wants to place. If a church wants to say marriage is only between one white male between 40 and 50 and one white female between 20-30, go for it. That is their right. People probably won't be members of their false religion, but they have the right to believe what ever they want. The government has absolutely no power over what constitutes or institutes this union. It is strictly religious. Period.
2) Union. If a couple wishes to be recognized as a couple for tax and other legal purposes, that couple must get a license from whatever government unit (city hall, county courthouse, what ever). This union grants "couple" status on any two consenting adults who are old enough to agree to make that decision. It is a legal contract. Obviously, there is no fear of a "slippery slope" of someone marrying his or her dog or cat (one complaint I hear sometimes from conservatives Christians ... if we allow gays to marry, what's next, marrying your horse?), because an animal cannot make legal decisions, so such a union would not be a valid legal contract. I could see polygamy being legal in this case, if AND ONLY IF everyone involved consented. (Honestly, I don't know why anyone would want to have more than one spouse. I can barely handle the one I have! Two husbands? Oy, what a headache!) Legal contracts can be written up for all sorts of things, and as long as there are no victims, fine.
A couple can get a legal union from the courthouse and also go through a matrimony in the church if they want. Or, they can just get the legal union, and not get a church ceremony (which makes sense for anyone who isn't religious). Or, a couple could be wedded in a church, but never get the "piece of paper." They would be married in God's eyes, but they would not have any of the legal benefits of marriage. (Actually, I know a few cases where this has happened, when a couple wants to be together, but there are financial reasons why marrying would not be beneficial -- tax consequences. So the couple has a ceremony but does not get a license. They are married in God's eyes, but not in the states. You think God cares what the state thinks?)
This is actually how it is done in many countries. I don't know why we don't do it that way here. I think it could easily solve the problem. Christians don't have to worry about gays destroying their sacred rite, and gays still get all the civil rights due them.
