OK, 'Splain thees one to me, Lucy

RE: California Supremes OK'ing Prop 8

I've always wondered why no one has thought to introduce a bill that says, in effect, "You can stand up in your special building with all the pretty windows making all manner of promises to your invisible sky wizard, but nobody's 'married' unless the STATE says "You're married"" i.e. make ALL marriages "civil unions" and just as much PITA/hassle for the straights. I mean, when you get right down to it, "marriage" is all about property rights, so why not just cut to the chase and call it a contract that you have to lawyer up for like anyone else?

The sky wizard crowd then couldn't complain that performing wedding ceremonies for same sex couples was "against their religion" since the ceremonies themselves would become irrelevant. The equal protection clause of the US Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This seems pretty much a no brainer here, but then again, IANAL.

Thoughts?

--MAB


on edit: unhosed the html tags --MAB

Next?

That's where your marriage license comes in.

Clergy act as agents of the state when they perform marriage ceremonies. But those ceremonies mean squat, legally, unless accompanied by that license. (Just ask all the gay couples married in states that do not recognize those marriages by sympathetic clergy).

Then why even have the ceremony? Once you've got the license, BAM -- done: You're married

--MAB

and to some, in their eyes and the eyes of their church they wouldn't be married without the religious ceremony.

But yes, legally they're married, religious ceremony or no. The gov't doesn't care if you pick the license up and find a justice of the peace, or show up at city hall, or have a big church wedding complete with mass for 500...

That's how Mr. csziggy and I did it - woke up our friend the pizza cook and notary public, made him sign the license, then dropped the license off at the courthouse with the clerk. BOOM! We were "married."

I love going around these days and telling fundies that we have a civil union, because that is what it is. They kind of freak out, considering the connotations they attach to that phrase.

My fundie aunt and uncle still don't consider us married since we didn't have that all-important in their eyes ceremony, even though we've been legal for almost 32 years now.

The simple fact is that the state should NOT be telling people how to worship, in any form. That's the spirit of freedom of religion. It protects Christian churches from "beast" like political/religious leaders in the clergy for power just as much as it protects small religions.

as agents of the state - this is being brought home to them with the current focus on marriage inequality for gay folks. They'd prefer to be free to bless whatever unions their religion and their conscience allow, and allow the state to be the sole marriage agent.

Here is a man that renounced all wealth in the name of his faith, and lived an ascetic life. For this reason he strikes me as the real deal, a person who's life was about God. Contrast him to the wealthy clergy of his time that he ran afoul of, who were, as the rest of the Catholic church often was, a political force. The purity of St. Francis' message and life, and its benefit to society, just seems to shine in comparison. So I agree.

This marriage license is often issued by the county in which the ceremony is to take place.

If you only go to the preacher and get the blessings of the sky wizard, you aren't married.

in just that situation - married in the eyes of their congregation, but not in the eyes of the state. It's emotionally meaningful to them, but legally means squat.

Seems they just upheld a State Amendment in direct conflict with the US Constitution

Then again, we have to be careful what we wish for.