Interfaith marriage compromise - would this work?

[truthspeaker]

Couldn't the government declare that since marriage is a religious institution, it will no longer perform them? The only thing a government would do is a civil union - which could be an interfaith or same-faith union. If people wanted to get "married", they would have to do it in a church. The civil union would be strengthened though, making it equal in rights to today's marriage.

You could still have clergy that can marry you in the church and still fill out a civil union document you file with your state. Interfaith couples could just get a civil union and enjoy the same rights as same-faith couples, or they could get married in an accepting church to satisfy their religious as well as legal needs.

That way, fundies couldn't complain about the government marrying people of different religions, because the government doesn't marry anyone. Let the denominations argue amongst themselves rather than make it a political issue.

This seems simple enough to me - so I must be missing something. Help me out!

[Not Me]

1. I have argued this for a long time...

With the legal incidents (tax, inheritence, next-of-kin, etc.) being based on the civil union.

That way, everyone would need to undergo civil union if they want the government to recognize the relationship. If they chose to go to their church and have them perform a religious marriage, that's fine.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Civil unions could be made more flexible that way too.

It would simply be an acknowledgement that resources are shared, and could perhaps be made to encompass any form of cohabitation. Like nuns in a convent could register for one.

[prodigal_green]

2. Federal Emergency Contact info

Is all the government should be concerned with. I am single by choice. I own property. I may become incapacitated so that somebody else must make decisions for me, etc., etc.

All the federal government should be concerned with is the orderly transfer of property and who has a legal right to make decisions on my behalf should I become unable to do so. Every citizen should have the right to fill out a form designating the person/persons who have rights and responsibilities in various circumstances.

Beyond being an economic relationship, marriage, as we know it, is a sexual relationship. The supreme court has already said that the government has no business in our bedrooms. Were we to have some sort of national emergency contact information, the involvement of government in marriage should be done away with entirely.

[GiovanniC]

3. I Have Long Said

That the religious institution of marriage and the legal institution of marriage should be kept separate. Religions can discriminate. Governments cannot.

A civil union or legal marriage is simply a contract, when you get right down to it. It is an agreement between two parties to enter into a joint venture of legal rights and responsibilities, including joint property ownership and tax benefits.

The other stuff -- love, sex, children, et cetera -- that's up to the people who enter the contract. You don't have to love someone, or have sex with them, or have children to get married. There are no laws requiring "love" as a prerequisite for marriage.

The government should give people the right to enter into this contract whether they are gay or straight. If people want to assign further religious meaning to it, then they should coordinate that with their respective church.

[truthspeaker]

7. They already ARE separate!

I'm sorry most of you seem to have missed the irony I was going for. Maybe I should have said "interracial" instead.

[GiovanniC]

8. I Caught Your Irony, Truthspeaker

But the fact is that the LEGAL aspect of marriage or civil unions is under seige by certain groups for RELIGIOUS reasons. So even though the two ought to be separate, they aren't.

[supernova]

4. This is the practical solution

and I agree with it. It also wouldn't matter of the couple were gay or straight. Because the couple would already have equal rights under the law.

And most interfaith couples can usually find clergy who would co-officiate the ceremony, granted it's usually the more liberal clergy who do this.

BTW, this is also the solution advocated by evangelical minister Tony Campolo.

[LiberalFighter]

5. There already is the civil ceremony option

It is either a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony. Each state determines how and who is qualified to marry individuals. Ministers and others must have their credentials on file with the state. I believe they generally must have a leader of the religious organization verify their status.

Then there are the Justices of the Peace, Judges, Mayors and other state approved individuals that can marry individuals outside the religious institution.

In reality, the civil ceremony is the primary requirement with religious institutions allowed to performed marriages in lieu of the civil ceremony. It is considered marriage to be a policy in the interest of the state... children, death, divorce, financial responsibilties and other factors.

What is to stop a new religion being created just for gays/lesbians? Wouldn't it be a violation of our U.S. constitution and state constitutions to interfere in the practice of religion? What public policy would states have that would be against the public good of the state?

[obelus]

9. Can States Afford All This Red Tape?

It seems to me that a constitutional amendment will require all states to pass specific laws to constitutionally conform with federal mandates on what is and isn't a legal marriage. In the event that individuals freely elect to challenge the nature of these laws, states will be forced to increase spending in enforcement and prosecution in order to nab all those pesky gays who boldly wish to display their civil rights. The states, already burdened by a number of unfunded mandates and the unintended victims in the cultural wars, will have to figure out a way to pay for a few hundred congress members scoring political points.

Currently, there is a 90 billion dollar deficit in aggregate state budgets. More and more services are curtailed as states struggle with patchy economic growth or negative growth. Governors could pre-empt this political skirmish by saying in masse, "Listen, unless you feds are willing to cough up the cash necessary to make these laws enforceable, shut the hell up!" That they don't do this is evidence that the power of states has been weakened--not by progressives at the federal level but by conservatives.

What have all the cultural wars of the last twenty years accomplished but to advance the name recognition of a few dozen cultural warriors? States are having to increase license and user fees for services and lay off essential personnel. Municipalities are having to increase property taxes and are investing less in infrastructure. This is a tax increase--ananthema to the conservative orthodoxy. Wait around awhile and conservatives will be rallying to deregulate the marriage industry.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi obelus!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[obelus]

10. Can States Afford All This Red Tape?

It seems to me that a constitutional amendment will require all states to pass specific laws to constitutionally conform with federal mandates on what is and isn't a legal marriage. In the event that individuals freely elect to challenge the nature of these laws, states will be forced to increase spending in enforcement and prosecution in order to nab all those pesky gays who boldly wish to display their civil rights. The states, already burdened by a number of unfunded mandates and the unintended victims in the cultural wars, will have to figure out a way to pay for a few hundred congress members scoring political points.

Currently, there is a 90 billion dollar deficit in aggregate state budgets. More and more services are curtailed as states struggle with patchy economic growth or negative growth. Governors could pre-empt this political skirmish by saying in masse, "Listen, unless you feds are willing to cough up the cash necessary to make these laws enforceable, shut the hell up!" That they don't do this is evidence that the power of states has been weakened--not by progressives at the federal level but by conservatives.

What have all the cultural wars of the last twenty years accomplished but to advance the name recognition of a few dozen cultural warriors? States are having to increase license and user fees for services and lay off essential personnel. Municipalities are having to increase property taxes and are investing less in infrastructure. This is a tax increase--ananthema to the conservative orthodoxy. Wait around awhile and conservatives will be rallying to deregulate the marriage industry.

[GSO]

11. hmmmmm

Hard to imagine our forefathers struggling with this issue at all.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi GSO!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: