The State Should Get Out of the Marriage Business
California has begun marrying gay couples as a result of a recent state Supreme Court ruling. Voters may call a halt to this in November when a state Constitutional amendment is to be voted on. Even if gay marriage survives, many religious fundamentalists are unlikely ever to reconcile with the notion of gay marriage. Churches are not going to change their attitudes any time soon.
Churches have their rules for marriage.
The state has its own rules.
The rules conflict.
One way out of this is for the state to get out of the "marriage" business. Leave the religious part to churches. Don't treat the religious ceremony as legally binding. Instead, the state should focus on the legally binding contract that most couples will still want whether or not they get "married" in a church.
Go to church to get "married" in the eyes of God.
Or go to a justice of the peace to get your "civil union" recognized by the state as a legally binding contract.
Or both.
Or neither.
It's up to you.
Why Not Drill More Offshore?
Rodger Jones asks the sensible question, "Why not drill more offshore?" He doesn't want to hear the answer that drilling doesn't do anything to solve our long-term problem. Offshore drilling is a case of too-little, too-late. A large environmental risk in return for a drop in the bucket compared to the size of our problem. A short-term distraction that delays us from developing long-term alternatives (solar, win, bio, even nuclear). Jones says he's all for "renewable stuff," but he argues that this shouldn't be an either-or question. Maybe some of us just don't trust those who want to drill when they say it's not an either-or situation. Not when they mockingly dismiss renewable energy sources as "cow flatulence" and running our cars on "bacon grease," as Rodger Jones does.
2 comments:
Seperating the civil and religious aspects of marriage makes sense and would neutralize that aspect of the culture war, which is why it won't happen anytime soon.
Too many people are invested in keeping red-meat issues alive in order to keep those fund-raising checks coming in.
Thanks for commenting. You offer a good reason why my suggestion is a non-starter. Another is that both sides really, really want it their way.
The religious extremists aren't against just gay marriage. They are against gays, period. Even gay civil unions are anathema to the right wing. And, on the other side, many gays are not going to be satisfied with civil unions. Many gays want to be married and won't be satisfied until the state offers it to them, no matter what the state does about heterosexual relationships.
Post a Comment