A Solution to the Gay Marriage Question

In America our fundamental spousal construct is the marriage. The problem is that marriage is a religious concept, not a civil concept. And because our Civil State has adopted a Religious Ceremony as its fundamental spousal construct, other spousal-wannabe’s are running into hurdles.

The solution: remove Marriage as the fundamental spousal construct, and replace it with the Civil Union.

——————————————————-
This opens the door for many types of Civil Unions.

Indeed, “marriage” is actually a type of a Civil Union itself, owned, operated, and defined by the churches (going back to the BC religions I think).

Other possible types of Civil Unions:

  • the las-vegas-elvis Civil Union
  • the bungee-jumping Civil Union
  • the captain-of-a-ship Civil Union
  • the gay Civil Union
  • the human-mannequin Civil Union

Think about each of these: each is questionable in light of religious doctrines, but yet most are acceptable in our civil environment.

——————————————————-
County-by-county democracy should be the mechanism that decides what types are -or are not- recognized by the government for purposes of … what is the purpose of registering our marriages with the government?

Advertisements

2 responses

  1. Pingback: The Problem With Gay Rights | The Political Zero

  2. Over the years, don’t you think it’s been considered that some religious institutions and rules are also good for non-religious people and even secular governments?

    “Thou shalt not murder” is a good idea. The government’s involvement in murder is not religious, though its stance on the issue perfectly mirrors that of many religions: Thou shalt not.

    Neither is its involvement in marriage religious. Neither is the reason legal marriage has been defined as one man and one woman religious.

    Why would government care if you wanted to marry a manequin? Why would government care if you wanted to have any kind of relationship with any person, animal, or thing?

    It seems that gay couples want government to give their relationships the old societal thumbs up. Is that what legal marriage is about? Government saying that they like that you like someone a whole lot?

    If that’s the case, then why shouldn’t a couple of golf buddies be allowed to marry? Is it that that type of relationship isn’t as important?

    Now, I know that marriage is more about a romantic relationship. It’s about two people who love each other. But, why should government care about that and hold it higher than a couple of golfers’ “love” for each other?

    The fact is that government doesn’t care if one man and one woman love each other. They want to get married, and the government obliges. No questions asked. Even atheists are allowed to marry.

    So, it’s not about religion, and it’s not about love.

    Why, then, would government get involved at all in a couple’s loving relationship?

    Here’s why. Yes, those who seek to marry probably do actually love each other in a romantic way. So far, so good. Government need not opine on the matter.

    People who love each other end up engaging in sexual acts. Still, not a reason for government to get involved. “Stay out of my bedroom”, the gay folks used to say.

    But, when men and women have sex, an overwhelmingly likely result is that children will be produced.

    NOW, society must take notice. These children must be cared for. Their parents must be held responsible for them. A man must share wealth with the mother in order to make sure that the children, whose very existence is attributable to his actions, are kept safe, warm, and fed. Same goes for the mother.

    For time in memorium, we have recognized this. And at some point, we devised a solution to what could very well be a huge problem without it: marriage.

    I cant speak for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds. But my opposition to gay marriage is not about what I think about homosexuality. It’s about what I consider to be the reason for marriage existing at all, as well as the reason government should be involved in it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s