Posted by
Ryan Hawkins on Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:35:38 AM
It already was and already is...you just have to call it something other than marriage. Why is that such a problem if you have to call it a domestic partnership or union? Take Proposition 8 in California for example. (As one who deals with tax laws for a living, I understand a little about constitutions, federal & state legislation, and marriage rights.)
(a) “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” (Emphasis added)
Further summary of Family Code:
- (b–d) CA Family Code further gives the same rights to former domestic partners, surviving domestic partners, and domestic partners with respect to children.
- (e) Registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law.
- (f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
- (g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse.
Feel free to verify this if you want but Prop 8 did not take away any rights from gay & lesbian couples. All Prop 8 did was dictate that California will not term the union of gay/lesbian couples as a "marriage." Regardless of whether you call it a marriage or a domestic partnership - all those rights are intact (both before and after the election) and from the state's legal perspective, there is absolutely no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a gay/lesbian domestic partnership. None.
So if this isn't about rights, why is it such a heated battle? I can't answer that because I don't know. (Brace yourself because here is where I am going to articulate my speculative reasoning. I think there is a bigger agenda hiding behind the supposed gay/lesbian rights banner...but I'll get to that later. Marriage came about because of religious/spiritual reasons long before there was any legally recognized institution of marriage (or rights.) The term marriage was originally coined and defined by the churches as a religious union between a man and a woman...with vows made to eachother and to God. (The legal angle came into play much later as disputes among family members surfaced over rights to property, child custody, survivorship, and the estate.)
I believe the gay & lesbian community is smart group of people...smart enough to know that (from a California state perspective) a registered domestic partnership already has the same rights as a married couple; therefore I refuse to accept that they believe their efforts are all about equal rights (and not part of a larger agenda hiding itself behind a civil rights banner so that it garners more support.) So - what is the agenda if it isn't about rights?
Could the agenda be for the leaders in the gay/lesbian community to shove this issue in the face of religion by having the courts force the churches to redefine their own terminology? Many churches do not believe that gay/lesbian unions are in accordance with God's commandments, so most churches refuse to perform marriage ceremonies to gay/lesbian couples. If the term "marriage" were redefined to include gay/lesbian couples, then churches will lose part of their freedom to worship because they will face discrimination law suits if/when they continue refusing to perform "marriage" ceremonies for gay/lesbian couples. After all, it isn't discrimination for a church to say "our religious beliefs only allow for us to perform religious unions called marriages, not gay/lesbian unions." However, if the term marriage included gay/lesbian couples -- then it is discriminatory for a church to say we perform marriages, but only for heterosexual couples - not gay/lesbian couples. The latter has a discrimination law suit written all over it because it is no different than saying "we will perform marriages, but only for whites - not blacks, hispanics, or asians. See the difference?
To the gay/lesbian community I can honestly tell you that I have absolutely no problem with allowing gay & lesbian couples the same rights that my spouse & I have as a married couple; however, for reasons outlined above -- I have a big problem using the term "marriage" to describe gay & lesbian unions. What would I change in California? Not a thing. Stick with the "domestic partnership" term or pick something else if you prefer, but you have to leave marriage alone. Leave the churches alone. Marriage was and is a religous union performed by the churches. Do not force your religious beliefs upon the churches by forcing them to redefine or change their terminology. As demonstrated in the California statutes above, you already have all the same rights as a married couple. There is still a Federal battle to be fought so that you can file with the IRS a joint tax return with your domestic partner. There are still other state battles to provide equal rights to domestic partners as California has done. I am all for equal rights, and I will fight those battles along side you...but I will not join the fight to re-define the religous term - marriage. On that issue, I will fight against you with every ounce of strength I have.
Please refrain from deceiving Americans by telling them Prop 8 was all about rights because (as you can see in California statutes) nothing could be further from the truth.