[Vision2020] Gay marriage

[Rob Keenan]

What with all the hoopla over gay marriage, I think some of us are missing 
the point. When we think of the term "marriage," many of us consider this 
term to imply a church- or religion-sanctioned relationship between a man 
and a woman. However, while this is one aspect of marriage, it is not the 
only aspect. Marriage is also a civil contract between two adult individuals 
that embodies the entrants of that contract with certain rights and 
responsibilities.

We have written into our Constitution two significant points: One, in 
Article VI (I believe, could be Article V), is a clause requiring each state 
to recognize the laws passed by each other state. Courts have ruled again 
and again that if you're married in, say, Nevada, that civil contract is 
valid anywhere else in the nation. Two, the First Amendment clearly states 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Why am I bringing up this constitutional statement? Firstly, because the 
Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as it clearly states the states 
do not have to honor the marriage laws of other states. As this was passed 
without constitutional amendment, it is therefore facially invalid and 
should be struck down by the Supreme Court. Secondly, because the government 
thus far has honored heterosexual marriages entered into in a religious 
setting (church weddings), but does not honor same-sex marriages entered 
into in a religious setting -- Unitarians, pagans, even some Christian 
protestant sects offer same-sex marriage.

What the Massachusetts Supreme Court rightly recognized was the difference 
between the religious sacrament of matrimony and the civil contract of 
marriage. The Massachusetts court does not say that any religion must offer 
same-sex marriage. If you're Catholic or Jewish and want to be married in 
the faith, tough titties. However, there is no reason at all for the 
government -- which should not be respecting any establishment of religion 
(that pesky separation of church and state) -- to deny equal protection 
(Fourteenth Amendment) to same-sex couples.

If our legal system honors and respects religious sacraments such as 
matrimony between heterosexual couples, they also must respect religious 
sacraments of matrimony between same-sex couples. If a court recognizes 
common-law marriage between heterosexual couples, they must also recognize 
common-law marriage between same-sex couples. And for a court to deny 
certain basic rights such as the right of association, the right of 
succession, the right of inheritance, the right of parentage or the right of 
dependance to couples based solely on their gender is wrong.

NO ONE is saying anything need be done to alter the religious sacrament of 
matrimony. This sacrament is left up to each church and faith to bestow as 
they see fit. However, there's a big difference between a religious 
sacrament and a civil contract. Just 50 years ago, miscegenation was illegal 
in most states. When the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that miscegenation laws 
were unconstitutional, nobody even batted an eye. I predict that the time is 
coming fast upon us when same-sex couples will be granted full civil 
marriage rights and responsibilities, and we'll take it all in stride. How 
much longer? It took 20 years for the Supreme Court to strike down 
anti-miscegenation laws after the first state spoke out against this 
discrimination. We might see a similar pattern here -- 20 years after 
Vermont's civil union laws may finally see the Supreme Court upholding gay 
marriage (2020).

Or perhaps, the majority of our country will see these oppressive and 
discriminatory laws for what they are, and we'll see progress even sooner. 
Only time will tell.

ROB

_________________________________________________________________
Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups!  Get downloads, videos, 
and more here.  http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx