That was very much like where I stood for a long time, but there's a fundamental problem with that line of approach as I see it: there actually are Christian, Jewish and, possibly, Muslim sects that will marry same-sex couples. The reasoning that ultimately brought me to the side I'm on with regard to issues like prop8 is not the usual (at least, I assume it's the usual) "people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate" line so much as "churches should be allowed to discriminate or not as they please". I would oppose any effort to force churches to marry same-sex couples just a strongly as I oppose prop8. The court decision that prompted prop8 by finding its predecessor un-constitutional (so, of course, the solution is to change the constitution) explicitly protects the rights of churches to not marry same-sex couples if they so choose, while protecting the rights of those faiths that see it differently. The one exception to this rule in my eyes, which I hope we can agree on, is the state, which in its civil ceremonies simply cannot be allowed to discriminate.
As such, my ideal would also be to differentiate between the religious ceremony of commitment that is marriage and the legal contract that is a civil union, but not quite in the way you describe: The government would grant civil unions (not "marriages") without discrimination, giving couples legal recognition and benefits, and churches would grant marriages, for whatever purpose and benefit their beliefs assign them, at their digression. Everybody gets equal treatment under the law and no one gets to claim ownership of the term "marriage". Sometimes in fits of optimism I even wonder whether the church might support such an initiative, since it already differentiates between eternal marriage and temporal marriage anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-10-19 11:00 pm (UTC)As such, my ideal would also be to differentiate between the religious ceremony of commitment that is marriage and the legal contract that is a civil union, but not quite in the way you describe: The government would grant civil unions (not "marriages") without discrimination, giving couples legal recognition and benefits, and churches would grant marriages, for whatever purpose and benefit their beliefs assign them, at their digression. Everybody gets equal treatment under the law and no one gets to claim ownership of the term "marriage". Sometimes in fits of optimism I even wonder whether the church might support such an initiative, since it already differentiates between eternal marriage and temporal marriage anyway.