I had a conversation with a coworker today about whether or nor homosexuals should be allowed to get married. He did not think they should be allowed. I think that it is discriminatory to prevent them. Because of the legal issues that have been created around marriage, it makes no sense to me that they are not allowed.
But then it struck me the obvious answer, at least to me, to fix the whole problem. I haven't heard anyone mention it yet and I am surprised it really just struck me today.
The problem to me is that marriage is an inherently social and religious contract. The main reason most people are against homosexuals getting married is that it conflicts with their own moral and religiouss code. Actually, to be honest, it doesn't really conflict with their religious code, but few people seem to really understand their own religious tenets, people just use their religion to promote their own personal beliefs and so they create religious tenets to support their own beliefs, but that is a digression.
Back to the point, is that our society has created legal arrangements based on these social contracts, and therin lies the problem. Because of the many legal ramifications of marriage, by barring homosexuals from getting married, we have created a second-class citizen that is being denied their rights simply onthe basis of who they love. Not only is this against American principles, but it goes against most people's religious beliefs unless one allows a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. But let's leave it with the fact that it is clearly discriminatory to homosexuals, despite the fact that it hurts no one.
The solution? I don't think government should be involved in marriage at all.We should return marriage into a strictly social and religious contract and remove all legal arrangements tied into marriage. Instead, we should only have civil unions for everyone. The government should only recognize civil unions, endowing them with all the legal arrangements given to marriages today.The sex of the individuals within the union should not be a concern.
Marriages could then be returned to a social contract. This way, if a church or social group does not choose to recognize such unions, they would be under no obligation to perform marriages for anyone they do not wish to. If a person chose to be married in a church, by a religious leader,they would be married in the eyes of that church and society in general. However, the government would recognize no difference between a civil union decreed by a Justice of the Peace and a marriage by a church.
This may sound like a simple game of semantics, but the entire issue is one of semantics caused by the confusion and intermixing of a social contract with legal issues. If we separate the two, then the problem does not exist.
Some people might say it is not so simple, there are legal issues involved. But that is exactly my point. We have created legal issues around the idea of marriage in which the government should not be involved.
For those that think homosexuals should not even be allowed civil unions, I have to ask what reason can you give other than homophobia? What they do has nothing to do with your religious or moral views, it does not hurt your marriage, it does not affect you in any way, so what right do you have to deny them the same rightsand privileges you enjoy?
This problem has been created through muddled thinking and hatred. It is time we put both aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment