A more perfect disillusion of unions

With all my talk about how marriage and civil unions are (and ought to be) two separate things (for both gay and straight couples), I didn't really think about divorce until I read this article in the New York Times the other day. Divorce obtained through the courts of the land is a disillusion of a civil union but the spiritual union may be much more difficult to dissolve. The Catholic church, for example, doesn't acknowledge divorce at all. If you are Catholic and you want to dissolve your marriage you have to petition the church for annulment which is a lengthy process, often not coming to fruition until years after the civil union has ended. In the Times article they talk about how difficult it is it for a woman who wants to divorce her husband versus the relative ease with which a man can divorce his wife under Islamic (Shariah) law. It says that most of the rulings of these Shariah courts (made up of panels of Islamic scholars) are not binding under British civil law (i.e. just because the Shariah court grants you a divorce doesn't mean you are divorced under British law), but the Shariah courts are still relevant because civil divorce isn't good enough for the religious community, religious leaders have to approve of the reasons for divorce. Civil unions are a different thing than spiritual unions and civil divorces are a different thing than spiritual ones as well.

I was home sick a couple of weeks ago and I discovered that Bravo airs three re-runs per day of the West Wing. I find the frenetic pace of Aaron Sorkin's characters quite soothing so I watched a couple episodes that day and have been watching it every day since. There was an episode in season one where Sam was disturbed that some town in Alabama was trying to pass a law requiring adherence to the ten commandments. Sam and everyone he mentioned it to wondered how they planned on enforcing them since they have no way of knowing about (or proving) violations of some of the commandments. They were particularly obsessed with how someone might know if you coveted your neighbors wife, or if you didn't honor your father, for example. Of course, regardless of the enforceability of the ten commandments they were, and we should be, opposed to such a law because we live in a country that requires the separation of church and state.

My previous argument was based primarily on the separation of church and state (and equal protection), but there has been an argument made, which many people believe and endorse, that because the words "separation of church and state" don't appear anywhere in the founding documents that no such concept exists in our laws. I would argue, and did in my last post, that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is pretty clear on the subject and it's intent, it seems to me, is to protect both the people (from having specific religions tenants imposed on them) but also the government (from being unduly influenced by any particular church).

I can't help but return to discussion of same sex marriage over and over because I think it's important. The only argument people have opposing same sex marriage is that the bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman (which isn't exactly true, but I can see the clear implication there since all married couples in the bible are male-female...although not always one man and one woman, sometimes one man and several women...but you don't see the people making this argument also advocating legalizing polygamy, but that's another argument). Since the constitution clearly prohibits the passing of any laws respecting the establishment of religion, this argument against gay marriage doesn't really hold water. Especially since the bible also says (explicitly), "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (Peter 2:13, King James Version), and our constitution prohibits enacting religious rules into law. Is it possible to adhere to both civil and religious laws if civil law allows something religious law prohibits? Absolutely. If you're Jewish your religious law prohibits eating pork, that doesn't mean you would advocate making it illegal to eat pork would you? Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it. You can refrain from eating pork even though it isn't illegal.

A more perfect union

This week Dan Savage was on the Colbert Report talking about California's Prop 8. While I do enjoy seeing two of my favorite people together it's unfortunate that gay marriage had to be banned in California for to bring them together.

I want to talk about gay marriage but my opinion on the subject is a little unusual. I would absolutely vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage if it were on my ballot (but I live in Washington where it hasn't yet been on my ballot) and I'm horrified that it has been banned...well, anywhere, but especially in California.

It's just not okay to deny rights to any citizens that other citizens enjoy. Now some would say, in fact Elizabeth Hasslebeck did say, that the right to marry is not being denied to anyone under these types of bans, but I can't believe anyone is buying that. Yes, it is true that anyone can get married to anyone they chose of the opposite sex, but that denies a significant right from a large number of people (i.e. the right to chose a spouse that they love).

The religious fanatics that are opposed to gay marriage see "civil unions" as the answer. However, I'm pretty sure that would fall under the banner of "separate but equal" rights which I believe the supreme court frowns upon.

My solution to this problem would be if you want to ban gay marriage, you want the state not to recognize gay marriage, well then the state can't recognize straight marriage either. If you believe that the bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, that's a religious union anyway and the state shouldn't be in the business of recognizing religious unions. The state should only recognize civil unions. If you want to get married, whether you are gay or straight that should be between you, your partner, your clergy member and your God. If, on the other hand, you want all of the legal rights and responsibilities of what has heretofore been referred to by the state as marriage, then that is between you, your partner, two witnesses and a court clerk. Two different things, one spiritual and one civil.

There are, in fact, a lot of gay people (and some straight ones as well), that are married in the eyes of their God but not their state (i.e. they've been joined in a religious ceremony but haven't filed a marriage license). There are also those (far more straight than gay since gay marriage is only legal in a few states right now) who have filed a marriage license but were joined in a civil ceremony (not a religious one).

I say, ban straight marriage too and institute civil unions across the board. That way, if you are opposed to gay marriage you can go to a church that supports that view, with a clergy member who refuses to marry homosexuals, and if you are in favor of it you can go to a church that supports that view and will marry homosexuals. That way, everyone has the same legal rights. That way, the state stays out of religious arguments about what does or doesn't constitute a marriage.

There was an interesting point of view on Huffington Post back when California first legalized gay marriage that talks about some of the same issues. It's title is "Why I'm not getting married again", and in it David Shneer discusses how he had a religious wedding ceremony and later he had a civil one as well (in Canada) and he didn't feel like he needed to get married again now that his home state had finally gotten with the program.

My own family has experience with this as well. My mom and step dad had two weddings. Their first wedding was in a little church in a remote coastal town and a lot of people (all the guests in fact) had traveled a fair distance to be there. When the clergyman gathered them and their witnesses together to get the paperwork done they realized they'd forgotten all about getting the license. So, they did the whole thing again a week later to make it legal.

As it stands now people who are married are (often) joined in both a spiritual union and a civil union. Don't you think it's confusing that those two separate things have the same name? Not just confusing but actively misleading. People like Sherri Shepherd say that they can understand the argument against gay marriage because the bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The bible says a lot of things that we don't allow to be written into our laws. In fact, I believe "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is one of the first rules our founding father's adopted...the first (amendment) in fact, but people have a hard time distinguishing this civil law from religious law simply because they both go by the same name.

A lot of people argue against civil unions because they say it is important to them to be able to say they are "married", but find a clergy member to marry you and you can say that. I am a clergy member now and I am more than willing to marry anyone (gay or straight). I'm not advocating civil unions instead of marriage, I'm advocating them in addition to marriage.

Hope and Faith

The election is finally over and our new president elect has brought hope to the world. As Stephen Colbert said, the people rejected the politics of fear and embraced faith, and that is, of course, rhetoric I understand.

I want to be really careful with my words hear because I don't want to give the impression that I support in any way the the type of fear mongering politics we've been putting up with for the last eight years. I have faith and hope. I believe that Obama will change a lot of things for the better.

The thing is, I'll consider him a resounding success if he gets more than two of the major items on his agenda accomplished. People get so disillusion with politicians because they promise a lot of things that they don't deliver on, but I think that shows a remarkable lack of understanding of governing (and the world for that matter). If you get two or more people together in a room, chances are they won't agree (at least not entirely) about everything. Passing legislation involves 435 congressmen and 100 senators (which is considerably more than two people) so, if you have an agenda to accomplish chances are that end result won't look exactly like you planned because you'll have to make compromises...or maybe someone else will make a convincing argument and you'll add something to your agenda, or take something off of it. To expect politicians to deliver exactly on all of their agenda items is beyond ridiculous.

I've always said that, despite my interest in politics, I'd never want to be a politician. I'm too idealistic, and too indecisive. I wouldn't want such important decisions to be my responsibility. I suppose I wouldn't mind being one of the zillions of people behind the scenes who makes the arguments that help the politician decide...arguments I'm good at, decisions not so much.

Anyhow my hope is that when we come to the end of Obama's term, which, God willing, will be eight years, I hope that people will let his accomplishments stand alone. I know he's going to do great things, but he's also going to have some really difficult decisions to make and I trust him more than anyone else to make the right ones or I wouldn't have voted for him. I really hope that other people feel the same way.