This blog is not typically (at least over the last 8 months or so) a political platform, but since it’s saturday and I frequently go a little off topic on saturdays, I think I’m going to have a quick political discussion. If you’re not a fan, come back tomorrow for some Sauerkraut.
The argument against gay marriage is always that “marriage is a tie between a man and a woman, as prescribed in the Bible.” Though I could form an argument that that is a misinterpretation of the Bible, that’s not the point of this post. So, for the purposes of not diluting my actual point, let’s just assume that the Bible says gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed; this post is a political discussion, NOT a religious one. That’s the point, this is POLITICS not RELIGION.
The essential problem I have with this POLITICAL discussion is that it becomes a theological one. This is an enormous problem, for a democracy to be successful politicians cannot be making theological decisions, that’s a theocracy. For the US (or any state) Government to allow heterosexual marriage but ban homosexual marriage, is a theocratic policy. It’s no less theocratic then the government having an stance on what is a prayer and what’s not (e.g. “He opened his eyes during the prayer, making it legally not a prayer in Pennsylvania.”). So why not leave the state out of it entirely? No one can get married: gay, straight or otherwise. After all, the best way to insure freedom is to remove government policy.
Obviously this poses a bit of a problem, what about the necessary tax and legal constructs behind what we know as the legal definition of marriage today? They all stay, as civil unions. The government continues to give tax breaks and personal rights to people who have registered for a civil union, but any two people can get such rights. ANY two people. It’s then up to those two people what sort of religious significance they want to place on their union. Want to call your union a marriage? GREAT, that’s your right. Want to be a member of a church that will not call the union of two men a marriage? Fine, that’s your right, but it is their right to have a union anyway.
With this particular issue it is possible to separate church and state, so let’s do it. Once it’s done we can move on to thornier issues where that is more difficult (abortion, death penalty, etc…).