I want to share, what can a new view on same-sex marriage issue, which is currently under heated debate at all levels of government, and in the office water cooler and cocktail parties. When such a charged issue, I can not help but get scared that my ideas can be good by all readers, but if you think about them in the right context, I believe that at present a fair solution when all others I have heard up today.
By the way, let me just statehere from the beginning, that is when I use the terms "priest" or "church" in this article are only for convenience and readability. I intend it as a non-denominational terms, it would be just too uncomfortable to continue to relate to the concepts they represent, as a priest, rabbi, imam, shaman, or other holy man or woman "and" church synagogue, mosque, temple or other house of worship, "replaced.
Whatever the start, we need to verify a historical context. When we look back 500Year or so, monarch did not have presided over weddings - a priest. Priests also preside over weddings monarch. This was the Church power over marriage, the permit in 1500, King Henry VIII rather than get to the church to allow him to divorce rather than divorce decree, he founded a new church, The Church of England, "it him to do.
In my speech to the story of Henry VIII, I left out one important detail: Henry appointed himself leader of his new church, and thusFusion of powers between church and state under a single administrator. I do not know if this is the first incident of such a merger, but it is certainly one of the early and clear them. Continued after the merger, it was not long before his reign began the persecution of religious dissidents. In the 1600s, fled in search of religious freedom, 20,000 Puritans to the New World, followed by flights of the Quakers, Baptists, and Protestants. These early settlers and their reasons for coming hereimportant and tell a part of American history.
As England and positions of the colonies became more and more diametrically opposed, and finally triggered a revolution, forming what we today the United States. At its founding, the United States' founding fathers codified some of the questions to which she was not in line with Britain. They created a constitution, and has confirmed the people have inalienable rights. Then said amendments to this Constitution, the first tensome of them as "The Bill of Rights, specifically to discuss the freedom of religion as one of the inalienable rights of well-known, separation of church and state.
When people discuss whether the government should authorize or not, same-sex marriage, I wonder why someone did not even ask the meta-question is: Why is the government's decision at all? Why does this matter involved not to quit the church?
Currently, municipalities issue marriage licenses, it generallyis not very difficult application process - apart from a quick check that the parties have reached adulthood and that they are not already at each other in another way linked, it is usually only a fee-generator for the community. Next, the happy couple finds a priest or a judge to conduct the ceremony and sign the license, which is then returned to the municipality for the registration (with a different fee) in exchange for a marriage certificate. To the point that the government's entireRole in the current marriage of people. The bulk of government involvement in marriage is coming to the ceremony, in a way that the pair do 'Til Death, they separate.
The government has laws for married couples differently than individuals. For example, after the death of a married person, the widowed party will most likely apply to inherit a substantial share of the deceased, and will most likely get them free tax-exempt, the rules are different ifan unmarried person dies. In addition, if a married person is incapacitated, the spouse will generally be able to make health care decisions on his or her behalf, an unmarried "Significant Other" does not have appropriate rights. In what may be the simplest example of the legal powers of marriage, with the filing of the marriage certificate itself is an opportunity for the parties recognized his name legally changed, along with the opportunity. ItVarious other questions about child care, custody and financial support (in case of separation), legal proxies, powers of attorney, real estate, credit reporting, etc., where a variety of standard rules for married and unmarried persons shall be connected. When disputes arise over such issues, it is the duty of government to resolve such disputes in its courts, and enforce these decisions with the long arm of the law.
I do not mean to suggest that the government should not beof these interpersonal issues, but the only involvement should be in dealing with the impact of treaties and agreements. Here's my idea: The government would be able to say no to marry whom. Marriage is an agreed state of the relationship between certain number of parties and their God (except in the case) by atheists, and though they often co-exclusivity and, if brought under greater control, one can find examples, as with other resourcesThings that virtually every participant. The government should not marry anyone, nor anyone else notice that the church considered them married or not. The Government should not matter whether you or someone you are married or not continues. If all men are created equal, the government should treat everyone the same, married or not. The only role in this matter should the enforcement of civil law, including all contracts that give people free.
TraditionalMarriage involves two aspects: recognition as a married, socially and recognition as married, legally. The social recognition of being married to come from your church, your friends, your colleagues, your employees, your neighbors and all other organizations or persons to examine, select married. The legal recognition of marriage by the state - the police, courts, public schools, the tax authority, the land registry, and where required is determined byInsurance and banking laws, insurance companies and financial institutions. Social recognition is the spouse does not depend on state recognition, and the state who is married, does not differ from a legal recognition. If you do not agree that the social recognition of marriage is not dependent on the government, is a simple experiment to prove. The next time you're on holiday with someone with whom you are not married to wear wedding rings, they say that youmarried, will act convincingly like you, and people will you want to be treated. If you do not agree that marriage is not subject to a legal recognition, apprehend the polygamist sect in this country. Despite the laws on the contrary, their church and the members of their social circles, certainly believes that they are married.
A legal recognition is not necessary to feel for people to marry or married to be recognized socially. Rather, it depends on peoplemarried, before it is important. After activation (of people solemnly at the married or married people under the common law), legal recognition of marriage is changing the default rules that in certain situations, for example, inheritance, living wills, healthcare proxies, powers of attorney etc. Each of these default rules can be changed while the interested parties by means other than marriage. There is a married man can make health care decisionsfor his sick wife alone for the married to her, two homosexual persons the same privileges by receiving a health proxy, even if they reside in a state that does not does not recognize same-sex marriage.
Instead of struggling to determine whether they should allow the government to same-sex marriages to take the alternative to the government from the equation is at all. Not only the government should not say in the marriage, it should not treatMarried couples differently. Over a period of years, we were able to exit from the state recognition of marriage and discrimination against people on the basis of that status. Every taxpayer should his return as "single file" - should be no difference for a married man. If a couple is married by their church (or for that matter, if they consider themselves married, with or without recognition of the church), it should have no consequences for the government. What StandardRules that they want to be differently applied, must be contractually agreed. When a property wants to pass another on his or her death, creating a will. If someone wants a different make health care decisions in case of incapacitance to create a health care proxy. If two people want the tax deduction on a house, which they share in common, they can service their mortgage company directly to the interest on a separate IRS Form 1098, or they can report their accountants, they have to be separatePartnership, like the two friends might jointly own a pizzeria.
I know that there is some turbulence, which will be short term. As a society we have come to understand that laws in some way to work, and I am proposing major, radical changes that will affect all married people in this country. People need to plan on more responsibility for their own future under my proposed system. Just because a priest marry a couple does not mean necessarily thatall the standard rules would change for them. However, I expect that certain things would be very common, and since nature abhors a vacuum, it would constitute a legal niche for producers to create create-default fill-in-the-blanks forms with all the options. Married or not might, the people, by the way, the applicable standard of conduct to change for them to get a kit with instructions to their local office supply store for $ 29.99 and fill it out. Low-cost, community-based andPro bono lawyers are undoubtedly in a position to those who help are still having problems or ambiguities. I'm sure that would secure Web-based solutions are also available, with the added benefit that the available data for authorized persons, anywhere, anytime. If a member requires a non-traditional couple to evidence of other healthcare proxy to make a medical facility available, while they are vacationing abroad could be a password-protected PDF filebe downloaded and printed at any time. Alternatively, pocket cards could relate to the fill-in-the-blanks, kits or software solutions could be involved, either print or IDs so that users save their documents on a secure password, or fingerprint-protected USB stick that they to bring with them. As the United States would be the official "position that the marriage-agnostic, airlines could abridged versions of such forms to transient international passengers hand with their manners andImmigration forms, or they could travel agents in advance of the trip file and make it as a value added if needed.
(Except for our rings and our driver's licenses with similar surnames and addresses together what some married couples do not share at all) I know not routinely carry around with me, no proof that my wife is my wife. The hospital or the police officer just take my word. As we become a more contentious society, this is regarded as hisInsufficient evidence at a particular time in the future. Instead of ID cards, which I mentioned in the previous paragraph, perhaps a field for driver's licenses would include "responsible person" or "emergency contact." Each list was, whom to vote for them: Minors may list the parents, I could, my wife and same-sex couples could list any other list.
The United States is a country on the principle of freedom of people who came here to escape religious persecution, foundedand I firmly believe that in the defense of freedom. The U.S. founding fathers wanted to keep a clear separation between church and state, and would not play favorites to any religion, because it would be a slight on other religions. You certainly do not want to tell a different religion, what to do or a government does it for them to represent the absence of such a separation. The Constitution guarantees that freedom.
Freedom is a double-edged sword, though. You wantthe freedom to mow your lawn at the weekend, but your neighbors may want the freedom in their sleep without hearing your lawnmower. In extreme cases, the defense of freedom sometimes means that you do the things that you are personally distasteful. It is a part of our responsibility as a mature, responsible, enlightened, forward-looking citizens of the world. After the Boston Massacre, John Adams was so strong in the rule of law, which he defended in court the British soldiersinvolved, despite his personal feelings towards them that they receive a fair and impartial trial. It is comparatively easy to write a constitution that guarantees human rights of the different, but it requires a different level of conviction, involved personally as he did so alienated from the other patriots for some time. They may not be the victims as "patriotic", but have seen at this moment, it may be the problem that the forest for the trees. (Hewas later elected president, so I think they came around.)
So, here's the sticking point lies with the use of government from the marriage Industry: different religions come with different rules in regard to marriage. While traditional heterosexual couples should be continued to have no trouble getting married priests, they too, non-traditional couples will find a priest to do the same for them. I know I will make some people with this fear, but some polygamists, and also find three priestsTo marry her, and when we re-define marriage, as I have suggested, whether they are "married" in the eyes of their churches and their social circles. If anyone thinks that should be as married, or if they think like their counterparts in married you can not be of importance - you can accept it or reject it, and it would have no effect, your government, so they do not require special treatment, the She should have got a feeling reserved for the people in your category would. If your church only recognizesSingle partner heterosexual marriages, you can know comfort that there will be no same sex or polygamist marriages in your church. Do not worry, at, like every other church is approaching the matter, in the same way as we disregard them, all other doctrines, customs and practices of the churches as their own. Their priests are not your priests, their holy days are not your holy day, and the Bible is not your Bible - why would your church need to recognize their marriageCommunity members?
Who is married or not able to close a legal contract or to the scheme, which were previously covered by marriage, by default, and it is these contracts (instead of a signed marriage certificate) that the concomitant legal recognition would provide. The social recognition of marriage is only confirmed already beyond the reach of government, the idea that pre-existing condition.
If you have a better idea, I'll listen, but if you agreeto get the government out of marriage business is the best way to resolve this problem and to share these thoughts with your friends and write your elected representatives. Maybe we can on the Government to stop our tax dollars to discuss something, are not like you should, within its competence in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment