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.