Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Now We Have An Opportunity To Lead

Maine residents have spoken - they do not want the state to push social agendas not approved by the voters. That is one of the main reasons gay marriage was struck down. The other reason is because of the value religious people place on the sanctity of marriage.

And now that the folks have closed this door, they have opened another - the door to legal equality, without having to compromise their religious beliefs.

To that end, it may be worthwhile for the state to start over - REALLY start over - and set an example for the rest of the nation to follow. Maine can LEAD.

The state of Maine, with the consent of its people, should consider implementing the following two steps, which, while they may be bold and somewhat radical, would put an end to the gay marriage debate and controversy forever, in a way that is fair to all.

Step #1 - Marriage will no longer be sanctioned or licensed by the state of Maine. Any couple of which both parties have reached the age of majority and choosing to be united under the law, and to be entitled to all such benefits and rights as are now attributed to marriage may enter into a Civil Union, which shall be sanctioned and licensed by the state. Any two consenting adults may enter into a civil union. Civil Unions can be performed by any religious leader or Justice of the Peace.

Step #2 - Any consenting adult couple that ALSO desires to be united in the eyes of their church and with the blessing of their Creator may apply to their church for the privilege of being united in Marriage. To be married, the couple a) must already have entered into a legal Civil Union, b) must obtain the consent of the church and c) must have been an active member of their church for at least the previous 12 consecutive months. Marriage shall provide no legal standing or protection under the law - that is the purpose of the Civil Union. Marriage shall be an optional religious ceremony only, not a legal one, and offered at the discretion of any church, synogogue or other religious organization acknowledged by state officials.

All existing marriages and those licensed in other states shall be grandfathered and still be recognized by the state of Maine, and given the same legal weight as civil unions.

In this way, the state is removed from the issue of allowing or disallowing gay marriage - it would become what it should have been all along - up to the individual churches as a religious rite. The state also, with the same stroke of the pen, provides complete legal equality for all residents of the state, regardless of the sexual preference of the citizen.

Religious people will not be "forced" to compromise their values - if you do not believe your Creator accepts gay marriage, but your church chooses to perform the ceremony, you are obviously in the wrong church. Simply find another - one that is in sync with your beliefs.

This solution will not please everyone, as there will always be fanatics on either side. But this solution is a fair solution, providing every adult resident with legal equality, without interfering in the religious beliefs of any citizen. In the end, the state would be saying that all citizens shall be equal, while at the same time leaving the moral issues to the churches - and to God.

And if you do not believe gays should marry, and you run into a married gay couple, do not pass judgement, because a) no one is forcing you to give your blessing, and b) judgment is up to God. Live and let live, and let God decide.

/

1 comment:

  1. Hi Bill,

    This two-step approach fundamentally redefines marriage by eliminating its protection. The concept you describe is one of the favorites of gay marriage advocates...which is to weaken the definition of marriage, which has only one definition -- between one man and one woman. If civil unions are the standard of commitment and any two entities must have it in order to get "married," then likewise, marriage becomes something anyone can have if their church's interpretation of marriage allows it. Therefore, the marriage definition is changed. You state that no one will compromise their beliefs, however, religious conservatives will compromise their values UP FRONT by simply allowing this type of marriage to occur in the first place. This is primarily why the idea doesn’t fly.

    I believe in the "everything but marriage" approach simply because there is only ONE consistent, unchanging definition of marriage. I hope my homosexual friends and family receive the protections they need…but marriage has only one singular definition (male/female) and not any other.

    I agree with your previous posts (disclaimer: but I haven't read them all) and they represent many of my views. But I disagree with this post. It seems inconsistent with your other posts and I hope you’ll consider my thoughts. This civil-union-to-marriage path is a very slippery slope toward redefinition.

    Best regards,
    gjamison

    ReplyDelete