This past week, New Hampshire joined the ranks of the very few states who are beginning to return some rights back to the people by “recognizing” civil unions and granting some legal status to those who can qualify for the civil union status.
This is a bitter-sweet story for those of us who believe that marriage is a religious/social institution — an institution that governments (local, state or federal) have no business sanctioning. The ’sweet’ part is the fact that now one-fifth of our 50 states either have or will soon have some laws on the books that grant either domestic partnership status or civil union status to same-sex couples; that’s a step in the right direction and it indicates that at least some American legislators are starting to understand that government interference into the institution of marriage has gone far enough (far too far by some standards).
According to a recent NPR story:
- California: Has had a domestic partnership law since 2005.
- Connecticut: Allowed civil unions in April 2005 and has pending legislation to approve gay marriage.
- Hawaii: Has domestic partnership laws.
- Iowa: The constitutionality of their Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged in court right now.
- Massachusetts: Has permitted same-sex marriages, for state citizens only, since May, 2004.
- New Hampshire approved civil unions today (5.31/07)
- New Jersey: Allowed civil unions in December 2006
- New Mexico: Is working on domestic partnership legislation; it passed the House but is being blocked in the Senate.
- New York: In July of 2006 the State Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature pass a law to allow some form of marriage, union or partnership for gays.
- Vermont: Allowed civil unions since 2000
- Rhode Island: The doors are open; they have no law or policy which forbids gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
The ‘bitter’ part of the equation is, of course, that the government, with the judicial system’s blessing, has assumed that they have the right to determine who can marry who and, in a broader sense, determine that ANY marriage is invalid unless its licensed (sanctioned) by the state. I realize that I’m complaining about a custom that started in the Middle Ages, but its longevity doesn’t make it appropriate. According to Wikipedia:
“International human rights law, and many constitutions guarantee the right to marry a partner of one’s choice.”
Wkiipedia also presents the government rationale for issuing marriage licenses in defiance of International Human Rights Laws:
“The rationale in such states for marriage licenses is that the state has an overriding right on behalf of its other citizens to protect them from disease or improper marriages being performed, to keep accurate state records, or even to assure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think before marrying, in the interests of the greater society.”
In other words, the rational is that marriage licenses are issued ‘for the greater good.’ Well, as we all know, there have been many injustices perpetrated on the public by various governments ‘for the greater good; and, in this case, the rational is paper thin and, in my opinion, indefensible.
Those of us who oppose government interference or regulation of civil matters that should logically be outside of the government’s domain have an impossibly long, tough ‘row to hoe’. Our U.S. Governments have no inherent “rights” under the Constitution, they only have responsibilities; its the people who have rights and, over the years the people have let many of those rights slip away into the hands of governments; marriage is one of those rights.
(Just for the record: Whymrhymer is a happily-divorced hetrosexual)
Links
National Public Radio Online: New Hampshire Approves Same-Sex Unions
SeaCoast Online: With civil unions, N.H. is a leader in human rights
Wikipedia: Marriage License
From the blogs:
New Hampshire Blog: New Hampshire House OKs civil-union bill
XChange News: Republican Thompson says US battling “evil” - Washington Post
Loading ...
1 user commented in " Messing With the Institution of Marriage "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackIs marriage a religious institution?
I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It’s unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized as did the civil rights movement back in the 60’s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on issues to numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they therefore not have sexual relations knowing full well that there will not be any children produced? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary to create offspring. Beside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.
Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal. Don’t get me wrong, I do love happy meals. The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.
Leave A Reply