Witchtrivets has been working hard to post every day in November, and today’s post is proof that persistence pays off. For a straight, clueless married person, it’s a must-read. And anyone else, for that matter. And it reminds me of something I’ve been wanting to write about.
I don’t fit into any political mold whatsoever. I’m a bonafide independent. Here’s what it comes down to for me: if there were a party or political group whose motto was, “do no harm,” I’d join. But every affliation seems to be about self-interest at the expense of someone else’s health or safety. I’d like the Dems but they’re OK with abortion, and I’m not (they’re also in bed with big business every bit as much as the Repubs); the Repub agenda hurts the poor, gays, and minorities; and a Libertarian world seems peachy but for the fact that we’d be back to unregulated monstrosities like the ones we saw pre-Depression. I hate capitalism because it hurts everyone but the one percent at the top, and (complete) socialism because the quality of everything from healthcare to education suffers when too many hands get into the batter. These are GROSS oversimplifications and I am not qualified to make much more of them than I have. I am not an expert. I just pay attention.
So believe me when I say I’m not a liberatarian when I make this argument.
I think marriage should be the domain of faith communities and not of goverment. It is simply not anyone’s business, in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate entities, who you’re shacking up with and why. At the same time, I’m not comfortable with telling churches to be OK with something they’re not. You should be able to join or leave a church based on how its principles match up with your own. And you should be able to protest when your money is going to something you don’t believe in, no matter how misguided you may be.
So here’s what I’d like to see happen: everyone gets civil unions, which would give couples of any description the same rights as married couples get. The term ‘marriage’ and all of its spiritual and moral implications can be handled by individual churches. I’m just hippy enough, anyway, as a straight married person to be a little uncomfortable with the gov’t sanctifying what is very private between me and my husband, and very specific to the communities from which we came. Yes, conservative people against gay marriage would still be paying taxes that support gay couples to some extent, but then it would just be about taking care of people who need support, not people-who-are-weakening-the-institution-of-marriage (which is outrageous, of course–but work with me, here).
I’d like to open up these universal civil unions to anyone who needed legal protection as a couple. Why not two maiden sisters who live together? Why not two single, heterosexual mothers who want more stability for their children but for whom relationships with men are toxic? Why not two immigrants with very different skill sets? Why do we have to certify a sexual relationship to grant rights to people? Why can’t it be about honoring lifetime commitment and partnership?
(While I am personally opposed to polygamy, I’m not leaving them out just because of prejudice. I don’t think our system can handle supporting more than two people, financially or bureaucratically. I don’t know what the solution is for that, and it’s something I still struggle with internally.)
I’d like to see gay people married in every state, too, but I’d like to see the gov’t get out of the marriage business altogether. Our genitals and genders and how we define them/deal with them should be up to us and our faith (or otherwise) communities.
So what do you think? Am I being too simplistic?
Amen!
A few years back the city of San Francisco rules that every business within the city limits had to offer domestic partnership benefits. The Catholic church didn’t want to, so the way they got around it was to offer benefits to their employees and “one person of the employee’s choosing.” Everyone wins!
Funny, you voiced my opinion for me. I find it very hard to find political representation that has anything to do with what I believe.
Seconding RisF.
Great idea–it would be so fair. A long time coming in our current political environment, but so very fair.
[…] I like Boomerific’s idea about civil unions: paragraph beginning “so here’s what I’d like to see happen…” […]
Thanks sster. I don’t think you are clueless and I don’t think you are being simplistic. I agree, legal rights and religious marriage rights should be separated. And that is why it is such a pain that the whole gay thing has become a gay marriage thing. The fact that the govt has determined who is allowed to have a legal relationship is extremely disturbing to me. This is about human rights, not gay rights. Of course, I say this while I am on the list of people denied rights — that you share this belief is a very powerful thing.
This is something that my mother said a few years back, and I’ve always felt that it was the most fair way to deal with ideas of what marriage is. That way, all the morons beside me in Virginia who amended their constitution to make marriage legally between only a man and a woman can have that, and everyone can have access to civil unions.
It’s good to see that my mother’s idea doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Thank you for sharing it.
And best of luck bringing your little boy into the world. I’m very excited and happy for you.