The Gay Rights/Gay Marriage Debate: A Mutually Acceptable Solution

There's no introduction needed for this topic. This country is divided over the issue of Gay Rights. But I have a solution. =)

The Issue

I'll make my own position clear, right now. I have many friends that are gay and/or lesbian, and I cherish them all. It breaks my heart to see them long to have the same rights as others in this country.

But I've had enough of the, "Equal Rights for Homosexuals!" vs./ "Homosexuality is a Sin!"

Is a marriage between a man and a woman or isn't it?

The Real Problem

The real problem hasn't got a damn thing to do with the definition of marriage. The real problem is that the government, following a stupid tradition and in so doing what governments do best, has stuck its unwanted nose where it doesn't belong.

In our country there is supposed to be separation of Church and State. Pairing up is a universal human activity with varying traditions across the globe. A solemnized marriage is a religious idea, and a marriage certificate is a form of control an taxation.

Prior to the middle ages there were many and varied ways to become married. It was not uncommon for men to buy wives, for people to be paired up by their parents, or, in some cultures, for men simply to out and take a woman by force.

Marriage was, prior to the middle ages, mostly a common law affair. A man and woman would simply live together and declare to the world that they were Man and Wife, and they would legally be recognized as so. At some times in history the church would in involve itself in the process by performing a ceremony, but in general, marriage was by declaration only.

In the middle ages, people began signing contracts and using marriage licenses. Common law marriages were still used, but at varying times and places governments and/or religious bodies would issue couples formal marriage licenses. The use of these licenses varied over the years; some years people held marriage in high regard. In others, couples simply entered into civil unions, forgoing the religious aspect of marriage and preferring to enter into a legal contract only.

In 1563 at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church decided that wasn't good enough. The Church, being the de facto law of the land in Roman Catholic countries, made it mandatory for a marriage to be performed by a priest and witnessed by at least two persons. A lot of people didn't like this, especially protestants, but he church was very powerful, and eventually most European countries got rid of "marriage by habit and repute".

I am not certain, but I believe the Catholic Church, like many many other "services" it provides, charged a fee for the marriage license it required. I believe this was the beginning of the mandatory tax upon marriage, though the "tax" initially went to the church and not the government.

The Catholic Church remained the primary marriage licensing authority until 1791 and the French Revolution, which made marriage both mandatory and a civil affair.

If you define the time since 1563 as "recent history", which I do, (the early modern times began in 1501), the civil taxing and licensing of marriage is a recent affair.

The issue for the United States, however, I think is pretty clear. It was the Catholic Church which mandated marriage licensing, and therefore marriage is an inherently religious affair, which the government has no business in whatsoever.

The Mess

Now that we've recognized that marriage is an inherently religious affair, it's easy to see why "homosexual marriage" is such a touchy subject.

The idea of "married gays" is as much a religious rights issue as it is a civil rights issue.

It's unreasonable to force the various churches who are against the idea to accept homosexuals into an institution which the consider sacred. Likewise, it's unreasonable in an enlightened modern age to withhold valuable government and legal benefits to those people who don't agree with those same religious values.

The Solution

The solution to this mess is pretty simple.

The government should get out of the business of marrying people, in which it has no business participating. It should convert all existing marriages to civil unions.

Religious bodies may then take on the sole responsibility of marrying people. Perhaps they can choose to declare all civil unions made prior to the date of the enactment of such a change as marriages also.

Those churches which consider homosexual marriages to be forbidden can refuse to marry gay couples.

Those churches that are ok with it can do so without the interference of the government.

Everyone who so chooses may enter into a civil union and choose to pursue marriage if that's their desire.

Everyone wins.

Why the Government Should Want to Do This

This should be a no-brainer for our government. They can still tax civil-unions. Civil-unions can still be used as a tool of law for the purposes of inheritance and other rights. They can uphold both religious and civil rights simultaneously, and put an end to a large portion of the ill-will this subject has engendered in our society.

Why the Homosexual Community Should Want This

Even though having a civil-union would not carry the tag of Marriage, homosexual couples would enjoy the same rights and freedoms as do married couples today.

Alternative churches can marry these couples, allowing them to call themselves formally married, if they so choose.

The fight to be accepted by the mainstream church as married is a fight that is truly separate from the fight for equal rights, and this arrangement does not take away their ability to continue fighting for such if they wish to do so.

Why the Church Should Want This

The church views marriage as a covenant between a God, and a man and woman. The idea that marriage is a covenant between God, the state, and a couple, should be just as abhorrent to the church, if not more so, than to everyone else.

Protestants especially should want this changed since they were pretty much forced into accepting the idea of government marriage licensing by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church should want this change because they originally mandated marriage licensing before it was taken away from in the 1700s!

Another good reason the church should want this change is that many people today who are not Christian are still legally married. In a very real sense, this is a dilution of the sanctity and definition of marriage from the church's point of view. The ability to declare and recognize marriages only performed within a particular religious body returns the uniqueness, sanctity, and honor of marriage to it's rightful place within the church.

Finally, this action would forever ensure that, at least within a given church body, those that detest homosexuality will not have to share the title, "married" with gay individuals.

It's all in the Definition

You might say this is nothing more than legalized gay marriage where the church goes on to form a new institution called, "Harphdom", which is a church-only recognized union of God, man, and wife.

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. From the religious point of view, it's all in the words. Although in fact this might be close to the truth, the bible and other religious texts talk specifically about marriage.

The word "marriage" is, in truth, a religious word just as much as, "Christ," will also always be owned by religion.