Tuesday, February 7, 2012

«Same-Sex Upheld, The Battle Continues»

So I don't fully understand all the circuits and courts, but apparently today the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. In 2008 California Prop 8 re-banned same-sex marriage in California, which was then contested as being unconstitutional. It's been tied up in the legal system ever since. It's going to be tied up for a while longer, too. This will get pushed on to the Supreme Court next.

My hope is that the Supreme Court makes a ruling in favor of allowing same-sex marriage that applies to all 50 states and every U.S. territory. That being said, I hope the churches will be excluded from the ruling. There's no sense in "forcing" the churches to perform a same-sex marriage that is clearly against their doctrine.

I've been trying to understand how someone else's same-sex marriage can somehow invalidate or diminish an opposite-sex marriage. Especially when celebrity marriages exist. Best I can figure it's a perceived notion that legalizing same-sex marriage will validate them "under God", and to that I say we have separation of church and state. Clearly it's not a family or parenting issue. Canada hasn't fallen apart and same-sex marriage is legal there.

So if the Catholic church (and various sects of Christianity, or others) don't want to perform same-sex marriages don't force them to. They've already established themselves as discriminatory organizations, and no-one seems to mind. So I don't see why discrimination laws should apply here and force them to perform same-sex marriage. Separation of church and state is a 2-way street. There's other ways to get married. Other religions that will. State officials such as Judges for example.

In preparation for the Supreme Court ruling maybe I should brush up on marriage ceremonies. There will be a high demand for marriage officiants and if the main-stream churches turn them down I feel it is my duty as a minister to answer the call. My church fully endorses same-sex marriages.


  1. I think anyone who the churches will marry should be able to get married; the government shouldn't decide who should or shouldn't get married, as it's an institution of the church. However, government benefits for marriage should only be given to couples who are having kids.

    Think about it. I'm never going to get married; why should married people get benefits that I don't? There is a reason: marriage (however indirectly) creates children, which continue the species. However, a couple that's not having kids (due to gaiety, infertility, or just not feeling like it) shouldn't get benefits that I'm not getting. Other than that, marriage should belong completely to the churches.

  2. @Vid "marriage ... creates children". I disagree. Sex without contraception creates children, whether within or without marriage. But I agree that monetary benefits should be for children, not just for getting married. Are you in favour of benefits for UNmarried couples (or singles?) with children?

    I don't know what the situation is in the US but marriage brings other benefits in the UK; if you are married, or in a civil partnership, then the state recognises that relationship and you have certain "next-of-kin" rights e.g. the right to have a say on medical treatment if your partner is unable to speak for themselves, and it also makes inheritance laws a lot easier.

    Here you can have a secular marriage, i.e. something with the same legal status as a church wedding but that hasn't taken place in a church. This has been the case for a long, long time. In the bad old days non-religious weddings had to take place in register offices, which were usually not the most attractive of places. Weddings in a religion that is not recognised by the state have to have a registrar marry them to be legal marriages; couples have the "legal" bit with a registrar then have their "proper" wedding within their traditions.
    In 1994 the government opened things up so that places such as hotels and stately homes could apply to be licensed wedding venues. You still need a registrar to marry you but the setting can be a lot nicer.

    In 2005 the government allowed "civil partnerships" between same-sex couples. This has caused mixed feelings; some think it should be called marriage, some heterosexual couples would like to be able to take this option as they don't like the connotations of the word "marriage". Still, it's a step in the right direction.


Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

»» «« »Home«