Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Marriage, Schmarriage

Sometimes I think we should only allow two kinds of marriage, and clearly state them as such:  "Church Marriage" and "Civil Marriage".  That way, no one would ever confuse the two, and we'd save ourselves a whole helluva lotta grief.  As long as no one's being harmed or forced to do anything against their will, a church (or its congregation) can't tell the government what a marriage means... AND the government (or its citizens who are not members of, or on the Board of Directors of, that church) can't tell a church what a marriage means.

Now, I can't speak for any church, since I belong to none.  But perhaps one of the most essential functions of our government is to ensure equal rights for all.  That being the case, I think that marriage, as defined by our government, and with it, any rights that this imparts (which is, really, the only reason this is even a debate) should apply to any two persons who choose to commit to each other and live their lives together.

I mean, we've all had roommates.  You know even just that shit is hard!  So any person who is willing to commit to sharing their whole life with someone -- supporting them, being supported by them, living with them for an entire lifetime (that takes balls) -- should be granted the right to have that person covered by their insurance, to visit them in the hospital if they are sick, to raise a child with them, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, sure, I know there are already civil unions, domestic partnerships, and various other constructs which grant pairs of people rights of different levels... ones which vary from state to state, county to county, year to year.  But if there were just "Church Marriage" and "Civil Marriage",  this mess might be a little easier to sort out for all parties involved.

I suggest coming up with catchier names for each to make the idea more palatable.  How's about "Ye Ole Marriage" and "Neü-Marriage"?  "Ownership" and "Partnership" (in no particular order, of course)?  "Pre-Divorce" and "Ante-Divorce"?  Hell, I'd be happy with "Holy Marriage" and "Heathen Marriage" if it'd make some people happy.

This way, any given church won't have to bother trying to convince the Supreme Court that they can only sanction marriage as being between a man and a woman.  Likewise, the Supreme Court won't have to waste their time telling Christian Denomination 2.0 (Beta) that a marriage simply can't require the slaying of 200 Philistines and presentation of their foreskins to a prospective father-in-law in order to wed their daughter (1 Samuel 18:27)... or other variations thereof.

Well, there is the little bit about mass murder.  But why sweat the details?

(Image courtesy The Brick Bible.  Use of this image is in no way meant to imply an endorsement of the opinions expressed in this blog; it's just that they have an incredibly clever and artistic way of presenting the Bible.)

No comments:

Post a Comment