It will be difficult to exaggerate the impact of New York’s move to legalize same-sex marriage. The statistics tell part of the story. New York State becomes the sixth state to recognize same-sex marriage, but its population is greater than that of the other five combined. When same-sex marriage is legal in New York next month, fully one in every nine Americans will live in a state or jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is legal. By any measure, this is a massive development in the nation’s legal and moral life.
Add to this the fact that California, the nation’s most populous state, is hanging in the balance as Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment passed by the state’s voters defining marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman, is now an issue before the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. It arrived at the appellate court after a federal judge in California ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. If California is added (again) to the states with legal same-sex marriage, more than a third of the nation’s citizens will live where same-sex marriage is the law of the land.
I suppose the question is now What interest does the state have in “marriage” so as to license it and grant those that are married privileges that singles do not have.
The child factor is no longer of any account. What is their inherent in a two person union that requires that the state recognize it?
ISTM that from an individual perspective, the secular institution of “marriage” in NY now boils down to a simple analysis of the legal and economic pluses and minuses in the course of ordering one’s affairs. Any two (why stop at two?) individuals can undertake that analysis and decide if it makes sense. Family, and other traditional attributes of marriage, are irrelevant: it is now pretty much a business deal.
From a state policy perspective, with this innovation I’m not sure that I see its interest in distinguishing between unmarried cohabitation and marriage. But then again, the agenda has never been about logic.
🙄
[blockquote]The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values†agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources.
***
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:
· Single parent households
· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)
· Blended and extended families
· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents
· Adult children living with and caring for their parents
· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives
· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers
· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
· Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS. [/blockquote]
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
I am not so sure how much more effort the church should expend, either officially, or as individual members/clergy, fighting the civil fight. The states have the power to regulate contracts. And essentially that is what civil marriage is being reduced to, particularly if you take the material included in the link from #3.
What the church should perhaps focus on is the sacramental rite of Holy Matrimony. Why not tell men and women “if you want a contract, go see the state, if you want to be wed in Holy Matrimony before God and the Church, we are here to instruct you on that and to wed you”. All same-sex folks, mixed gender folks, unknown gender folks, people-animal relationships, many-people relationships, go down the street to see the State.
And maybe a further step is that we the church are happy you have your civil certificate, but in our eyes you have not received the sacramental rite of the church so things like married retreats, etc may not be open to you.
Maybe that is going too far, but the post-Christian culture has decided they want things the way they want it. Okay, let them go with love and let us concentrate on what God has called us to concentrate on.
Marriage like education, our downfall is trusting sinful fallen humanity with the political ability and power to regulate marriage.
The way to reframe the “narrow” limits of the marriage debate is to observe that it is time to allow cultural change to narrow them even more. We have heard from the homophile organizations that the definition of marriage is changing – meaning, changing to agree with their agenda. And yet, the change is otherwise. Now, there is no longer any reason to conflate civil partnerships and marriage properly so-called – at long last. And this is a long over due change. We may at last narrow the definition of marriage to a sacramental one, a change that can at last do substantial good to what marriage means.
Marriage involves exchanging vows, not legal documents, and those elements we call vows are outside of the control of civil law – as they should be. Marriage at last can throw its entire weight on faith, Trust, loyalty, honor, and the like – all those elements which make up the complex definition of love. Marriage can only benefit from such a refocusing.
New York has not paid attention to the real change. Rather, it has simply bought the definition that panders once again to the desires of homosexuals. So the wars will increase, as the civil sanction is brought to bear on the sacramental sanction, to force the latter to accept the former as identical with the latter.
Are the dissenting churches really protected? Indeed, not. For the churches are now free from property taxes – and this is a civil grant, yes? And it is in the power of the state to refuse grants to non-complyiing institutions. If the church refuses to admit civil partnerships as marriages, then they are non compliant. There is more than one way to skin this cat. Larry